jump to last post 1-40 of 40 discussions (310 posts)

Acceptable Racism ?

  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    Are there acceptable levels of Racism?

    I ask because of what I found at the following site:

    http://www.bant-shirts.com/relax-gringo-t-shirt.htm

    If the shirt had any other racial slur besides one aimed at the white race it would be illegal, hate speech, inapproiate, frowned upon and generally considered to be of very poor taste.

    So why is racism ok so long as it is only racism against whites?

    Input the racial slur of your choice in the place of "Gringo" and see what I mean.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You're right.
      The valid civil rights activism groups have been taken over by vengeful minds after the fact, and has become canned racism, prettied-up and fed to us like spam.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps it takes a "vengeful mind" to recognize a "vengeful mind??" Whites are truly suffering from racism--employment discrimination, college entrance discrimination, wage discrimination and so forth. This is one of the country's most pressing problems.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps it takes a liberal one to falsely insinuate?

        2. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Amen Brother! can I get a hallaluia!

          If we were smart we would start a class action law suit against the Government's Racial laws.

          All the laws that give a preference to one race over another. Any race that isn't white over the white race, because any law that goes the other way has already been deemed unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

          Employment laws requiring whites be passed over so the required amount of non-whites get first pick at jobs. (purely based on race=racism)
          etc.

          1. smcopywrite profile image81
            smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            the laws on the books dont give preference. they say you have to have a level playing field and you cannot use race to make the field uneven. you are not given a waiver or right to do one thing or another based on the color of your skin.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hey if that helps you sleep at night.

              It's not true, but like I said.

              Employers are legally 'REQUIRED' to hire minorities (to hire based on race), even if they have better more qualified applicants of a different race.

              That is the LAW. Racism.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No, positive discrimination. Not racism, there's a huge difference.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That's an oxymorom if I ever heard one.  There is no "positive" discrimination.  Racism is racism whether it is dressed in spin or not.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    SO SO TRUE!

                    Racism is Racism even if it is against them Damn Gringos..err Crackers..err Honkeys.

                  2. 0
                    Wilfionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Things employers should be looking for, include experience, qualifications, personality, if there is a test at an interview, how well the interviewee does etc.  I have never understood the term "positive discrimination."  If someone is being discriminated in favour of, this necessarily means that someone else is being discriminated against.  And, if someone has worked hard, gained good qualifications, and has the right attitude, the colour of their skin should not even be an issue.  To favour anyone because they tick the right box as far a race is concerned, is not only discrimination against those that do not fit, but is patronising towards the person being discriminated in favour of.  I am sure most people, whatever their race would prefer to be selected based on their merits, than because an employer has a quota they believe they need to fill.

                  3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Er, no, not an oxymoran. Positive discrimination exists because a minority group, black, brown, disabled, women. Have been unable to access some employment opportunities because of discrimination. Whether you like it or not, these groups reflect the society you live in. However, they are under represented in that particular field or discipline. Personally, I would not want a man to represent me as a woman, perhaps that's how some black people or brown people feel if a white man represents that minority. If they were under represented in the first place, perhaps we have to ask why?

        3. couturepopcafe profile image61
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph - No doubt you're aware that companies essentially get 'kickbacks' in the form of tax breaks for hiring minorities.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Which is Racist.

          2. smcopywrite profile image81
            smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            dont believe the hype and what someone has told you about these "kickbacks for hiring minorities". companies get sued when they dont hire minorities, simply because they are minorities. so these so called kickbacks are actually not paying a fine for racism, not being sued for racism and not promoting racism. there are no "kickbacks" as you call them.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              But hiring someone based on race(because they are part of one specific race and excluding another specific race) they are being racist. That is Racism. So they are being fined if they don't commit racism against the white race.

              1. SOBF profile image78
                SOBFposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I love the mode of thinking here. By not discriminating against blacks because of their color, we therefore are actually discriminating against whites. Because we all know that no black person is worthy of employment and wouldn't have a job if it not for discrimination laws forcing employers to hire them.

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry it has taken me this long to respond, but I wasn't sure how to respond. I went back and re-read the conversation that lead to me making this comment, and gleaned a little bit of where you are coming from I believe. (correct me if I'm mistaken please).

                  You're assuming that we are talking about two people with equal qualifications... experience, knowledge, personality etc. in fact the only difference between these two people is race.

                  If that is where you're coming from in your post, I can understand you're anger.

                  I was talking about a hypothetical situation wherein a white person with better qualifications was being passed over for a job. While a lesser qualified person is hired for the job because that person is a member of a protected minority. What you're calling "not discriminating against Blacks" at least in this hypothetical situation is blatently discriminating against whites. Because the Black person gets the job based on being Black. (in order to fill a legal quota).

                  You then state, "Because we all know that no black person is worthy of employment and wouldn't have a job if it not for discrimination laws forcing employers to hire them."

                  Which I disagree with, People are people no matter what race they are a part of. There are equal percentages of smarts, looks, strength, etc in all races.

                  Affirmitive Action wasn't created to force companies to hire inferior people who without the force of law behind them could not ever hope to compete because of thier inferiority. It was created to facilitate the integration of an 'unknown' in the business world. There is an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
                  These businesses weren't broke. They didn't need minority integration. Without the minorities these businesses were doing just fine. These businesses weren't broke and there were always more than enough qualified applicants to fill all the positions they had. These applicants were known entities, completely understandable to the business owners, so they presented no risk to the business. Minorities on the other hand were an unknown, and that made them a risk. The minorities needed the jobs they weren't being considered for because of the risk of bringing an 'unknown' into a stable operation. So Affirmitive Action was created to get minorities in the door.
                  Affirmitive action forced businesses to take the risk, to take a chance on an unknown. Once the minorties got a foot in the door, thier talents and ability to do a great job were established. I believe that hatred of minorities played a much lesser part (though not non-existent) than most people think. I truly believe the fear of the 'unknown' was the greatest hurdle that Affirmative Action was combating.
                  Great jobs are almost always filled by word of mouth advertisement. If you're not in the loop you wouldn't receive the notification that a great job needed filling. This is another thing that Affirmative Action fixed, by getting the first group of people in the door to become part of the loop.
                  So, I disagree with your statement, "Because we all know that no black person is worthy of employment and wouldn't have a job if it not for discrimination laws forcing employers to hire them." I believe even though they were and are 'worthy of employment' without Affirmative Action mainstream white Americans simply would not have known that nor even thought about it.
                  They would simply have continued living in thier bubbles unaware of the plight of our minorities.

                  1. SOBF profile image78
                    SOBFposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    While I can respect your opinion regarding Affirmative Action, however I think you have simplified it to the point of justifying racism. If you consider that prior to Affirmative Action there were already black lawyers, doctors, bankers, and successful business owners, blacks were far from the "Unknown" you claim them to be. Affirmative Action addressed a social structure rooted in racism through apartheid.

                    Blacks weren't forced to sit in the back of buses because they were unknowns, nor were they no allowed to eat or stay in public places because they were unknowns. Affirmative Action addressed a systematic process of wage disparity (when blacks performed the same jobs as whites) and employment discrimination (exercised mostly by front line and middle managers) all based on personal beliefs of dislikes.

                    The great jobs that were never known was the least of the problems for the black community. It was the jobs for which applications were trashed when the applicant was found to be black. The thought of equality in any nation of diverse populations does not include a portion of that population being deserving of its benefits more than another segment. The mere fact that we still require forms of Affirmative Action in order to provide equal opportunity in housing, employment, and health care, is proof positive that what you claim to be the unknown is just the opposite.

    2. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Its ok to hate white people didn't you know? We are mean and cruel, have all the money and jobs. And a great many of us suffer from guilt because they are white.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        True many have learned to feel guilt, and the other races have learned to exploit that.

      2. smcopywrite profile image81
        smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        catholics feel guilt and the church has exploited that. do you call the church on that particular concept? being pro white or pro black or pro hispanic should not mean you hate another race. racism is all over our world unfortunately.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Uh Yes actually I do.

          Racism is all over our world, but now it's only legal to be racist against whites. That's the problem the OP is talking about.

    3. smcopywrite profile image81
      smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      these are two words that dont go together....ever..

    4. 0
      SmartyPensposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Funny that white people are modeling these t-shirts.  Or stupid, actually.

    5. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You might need a chill pill.I went to that t shirt site. Those are hilarious. I ordered the pro abortion t shirt for me. I'm buying the gringo t shirt for my husband. That is not racism. Sheesh.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I thought some of them were funny too. But it is Racism. all you have to do to prove it is replace the white slur with any other racial slur you choose and you will have all the proof you can stand.

        Only Racism against whites is considered 'Acceptable Racism'.(and by your admission that is ok by you.)

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It is not racism. It's a joke. Why in the world would I take offense. The word is not a slur. And it is a statement against racist laws that, although they aren't meant to, target American citizens.

          I don't know how you would feel if a law came out that was meant to round up all white people that didn't belong here in the states; but after about the fifth time of being stopped and treated with suspicion I think I might bristle.

          Don't be so thin skinned. I assumed the site you were sending me to was calling out to lynch us or something.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ok so a N**** a S*** and a J** are in a car. Who is driving?

            HA HA HA HA


            RACISM. Funny to some, Racist to all.

            ***Illegal isn't a race. It's a crime. The racial profiling the racist criminal invaders do is the only racism involved. Playing on that white guilt crap so they get away with breaking the law. If you break the law you're a criminal no matter what race you're a part of. Aiding a criminal makes you a criminal as well, again no matter what race you are a part of. Claiming that since you're a law breaker(CRIMINAL) that is part of a minority, makes the enforcement of the law you broke a racial matter is just a big pile of bull s***. The fact they are actually getting away with it shows just how scared white people are of being labeled a racist. It's unbelievable.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Man, I'm glad we're conversing on the internet. I don't have to worry about breaking eye contact and backing away slowly. I'll leave you to  rant in peace.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                roll

                lollollollollollollollollollol
                That was funny!

    6. LewSethics profile image60
      LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If the country really wanted to make the playing field level, then they would force every city, town,  and village to take their fair share of the country's minorities.  I mean, as long as laws are forcing people to do things, let's do it right.
      What I am saying is, if african americans are 15% of the population, then every city town and village should have African Americans moved in until they are 15% of the population of that city town or village.
      Same with hispanics and oriental people and middle eastern and native americans.  Until the whole country is actually mixed equally.
      That might reverse the ghettoization of society that happened thanks to so many minorities being forced by poverty to live in ghettos.
      Of course it would be harder to move these poor folks into the richer parts of the city, but I'm open to ideas about how that would be accomplished.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The minorities don't want to integrate and they don't want to be seperated from others of thier race, they are Racist that way, just like the majority.

        Forcing them to live with whites forces them to act like whites, they don't feel free to act black or hispanic or oriental etc.

        They just want equal distribution of the wealth. Just send them 15% of the money to equal the playing field.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Mikel, what do you base your insights about minorities on?

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Experience... conversations, long conversations, and observation.

            I was a prison Guard for a number of years. I was in a school system(from grade 7) that had about a 35-40% Black population plus a percentage (smaller)of Hispanics and others.

            I was the minority for a number of years as well. I lived overseas for 7 years. I have experienced discrimination and racism and the hatred (some of) the rest of the world has for United States Citizens first hand. I have experienced the Racism of affimitive action here in my own country as well.

            1. smcopywrite profile image81
              smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              i dont believe being a prison guard is research into minority populations. what did you do in the school system?

            2. smcopywrite profile image81
              smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              much of the hatred that the rest of the world has for our country is not a good comparison for racism within our country. most importantly you could leave whenever you wanted, it wasnt your country-correct?
              many americans that do travel to other countries will disrespect countries and customs which accounts for some of the negative thoughts others have of us.
              additionally, we have a lot of military actions in other countries that have given us a negative name. i dont condone what other countries do and think of us. however, we havent shown the world our best face in many situations.

        2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No
          The answer is in many areas ie education,welfare,employment,housing etc and how all the relevant departments are managed.

          From where Im sitting ,I wonder why one race is recieving or needing more help than another?

          I am a miniority,then again I am not.

          In my case its not the colour of my skin (or my accent) its because I simply did not alwaays make the right choices...

          (Dont get me wrong, I attended a dominant white college) and thank god the cirriculum now reflects more than one nationality) and many of those condencending leaders have been replaced)

          But my parents strongly laid the seed in me ,my future is up to me, and the sooner I focus on the goal and ignore the obstacles..my chances of succeeding are as good as anyones.

          I guess I am tired of hearing the racism whine from both sides. It has always existed ,it is much better now.

        3. Eaglekiwi profile image75
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If they equally contribute then sure...if not ,no.

    7. dorner profile image72
      dornerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The reason racism continues to exist is as a country we are over sensitive and allow everything to be turned into a race issue. If we stopped bringing it up and quick making such a big deal about it, racism would slowly disappear.

    8. emrldphx profile image60
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you whole-heartedly... racism of any sort is wrong. Discrimination of any sort is wrong. There are schools that allow certain faiths to have time to pray each day, but students of other faiths get expelled if they pray.

      Discrimination exists whenever there is a difference between two people or two groups.

    9. 2besure profile image83
      2besureposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I guess they are trying to make a point.  Gringo is not have as bad as ni--er head!

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        To You maybe. I believe how it makes you feel is what determines how bad it is. In your opinion, since the N-bomb makes you feel worse than someone dropping the G-bomb, the G-bomb isn't as bad.

        Perspective... it comes down to your point of view. Or as Einstein said, it is all Relative.

        ***The simple fact that you won't even type the black racial slur, (and I'm not 'allowed' to) yet you have no qualm about typing the white racial slur speaks volumes to me of the racial awareness divide. Afterall I have feelings too, don't they count for anything?

        1. 2besure profile image83
          2besureposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Only Hispanics would call  Caucasians gringo, everyone black people ni---rs! What names are Hispanics called, behind closed doors?

    10. gabgirl12 profile image61
      gabgirl12posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This is a touchy subject. It's no wonder the response is numerous. I can't read all of the posts so I'll be brief. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s

      Enough said. Frankly I think it's a brilliant concept. Hope it helps.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting commentary by Morgan Freeman. I'm not sure its possible yet to stop talking about race, but it's hard to disagree with Freeman. He sure stopped Mike Wallace in his tracks.

        1. 2besure profile image83
          2besureposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Morgan Freeman made a great point.  Why should there be a black history month?  Our history is American history.   You would never know it from what they taught me in school in the 60's.

      2. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately putting our collective heads in the sand and 'Ignoring' the existence of it, doesn't solve anything. Thinking someone is less because of race isn't just going to go away because we don't talk about it. Nor is the fact that we have created racist laws and are using racism to combat that original mentality.

        Thinking about a human as a human first, -and then- as a human with a particular characteristic (Race, or hair color, or any number of traits that are particular to that entity) is more honest, and in my opinion better.

        Admitting that in the 'salad' there are different entities doesn't demean the individual parts of the salad or the salad itself, it is simply honest.

        1. gabgirl12 profile image61
          gabgirl12posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I dont have a problem with laws against racism. I think they are well placed. I am in no position to teach anyone how to act when it comes to how they view others. The point with Morgan Freeman is that he doesn't care what 'race' you call him he knows who he is and that to me is a valuable. When you talk to people you dont call them 'black' or 'white'. They have a name, use it. What's the problem? It's not putting your head in the sand, its standing up and affirming your individual identity takes precedence over your skin color. He is basically saying  'Listen, I know my name, my country and I have things to do so if you have nothing good to say to me, then we have nothing to discuss'.

    11. 60
      ravihomeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Really i don't have any information about this. can any one give me more information about this???

  2. habee profile image92
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    I think all forms of racism are wrong, no matter which group is being targeted. I recently wrote a hub about just this sort of thing. And yes, Ralph. Sometimes whites are discriminated against. I lost a job promotion once to a black female, although she had no experience (I had lots) and no education ( which I also had). The director point-blank told me they "really needed an African American in the position." Sorry, Ralph, but that's wrong.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No reason to be "sorry." I have no doubt that happed to you and that it's not uncommon since affirmative action programs were mandated by the Civil Rights act for government contractors. However, the reverse is still much more common.

      1. habee profile image92
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree that racism against blacks and Hispanics is more prevalent. I don't think color should matter - period. I wish there was some way for employers to "interview" prospective employees without actually seeing them and just base hiring on qualifications and answers to questions. That would eliminate discrimination against race, gender, age, fat people, and ugly people.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I disagree, Blacks and Hispanics racism of the white Race is not only more prevalent it is socially acceptable to them. In fact they don't even consider it racism, they call it 'reverse racism' at best. Because in thier minds only racism against them is racism.

          The Illegal Alien coalition "La Raza" means "The Race", obviously if a white group used that name they would be..??? Racists??

          1. habee profile image92
            habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That might be because you're not in the Deep South.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I lived in Florida for seven years. I know white Racists exist, I'm not condoning thier behavior, but allowing Racism against whites to go unchecked is not a good solution to the problem.

              1. habee profile image92
                habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, I agree with you! I don't enjoy being refered to as a "cracker" or a "honkey." Funny, but I've never experienced racism from Hispanics, and we have lots of them here. What I've seen in the high school where I taught was a lot of racism from blacks toward Hispanics. These two groups sometimes seemed to hate each other.

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Never been called a 'Gringo"?

                  1. habee profile image92
                    habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope - not seriously. We have several Mexican friends, and they sometimes call me "gringo" as a joke, and I call them "wetback" as a joke.

            2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
              Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Where we lived in SC ,I was more welcome (I'm the foreigner) than my hubby who is American but a Yankee..wink Hmm..

              Yea rascism is alive and well among some Southern folk.

      2. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But that doesn't make it ok. We shouldn't simply shrug and say since the other is more common this racism is 'Acceptable Racism'. Which is the point to the thread, Racism is Racism no matter what race your being Racists against.

        Racism in any form against any race should not be termed acceptable racism, it should all be done away with.

        So how do we fix it?

    2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      My husband had a similar experience Habee,though Im not sure it could be deemed rascism. Apparently may companies have to show they are being an 'Equal opportunities employer' and a certain percentage of mixed race have to be employed. hmm

      But it also seems to be a convenient cop out too (funding etc,and minimal wage etc) I suspect the latter.(Imo)

      Also some people/towns/nations simply are racist.

      1. smcopywrite profile image81
        smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        eaglekiwi
        this is not true. a company wants to say they have "one black friend" just like everyone else. therefore, they make a personal decision to bring a black person up the ladder. however, they dont "have to".
        i am so sorry that you husband was given this answer to his question as to why he didnt get the position. i am not sure if this was necessarily true. i do know that the person he spoke with was racist.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Again, No the LAW requires (Equal Opportunity requires) people be placed in positions based on race. That IS racism pure and simple. People think it's ok because it is racism against whites (It's acceptable racism).

          1. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            True!
            And yet people gripe about being "profiled"!

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Only if it works against them.

              If profiling means they get to break the law and remain in the States as an Illegal Alien, they are fine with it. (They are the only class of mass criminals the law won't go after. If 10 million White Racists simply refused to pay taxes and cried Racism if the law went after them what do you think would happen?) Racism.

              If fitting the profile means you have 'prefered Status' for employment, that profiling is perfectly acceptable. (Equal Opportunity it is called, and yes that is profiling). Racism

              The list goes on and on.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The law doesn't require people be hired or promoted based on race. My understanding is that affirmative action applies only to employers that have contracts with the federal government. And it requires only that QUALIFIED minorities be given fair consideration in hiring and promotion. Large employers who had virtually no minority employees other than janitors or laborers were required to submit "goals and timetables" for hiring and promotion of minorities. They were not required by the law to hire or promote anyone who was not qualified by education or training for the opening. Sometimes this did result in minorities who were less qualified than white applicants being hired or promoted. This was strictly a remedial program applied only to employers who had a past record of discrimination.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              OH Ok so since 'only' these people are required by LAW to be Racist, and Hire based 'solely on the Race' (pretty much the definition of Racism) of the potential employee...it isn't racist???  hmm

              The bottom line Ralph, is they are given 'Preferential Hiring Status' based on RACE. That is Racism.

              What you're not saying is they are using Racism to combat Racism, I understand that. That doesn't make it right.

        2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If its done evenly across the board ,its not rascism its Capitalism..hmm

          My dad was Hawaiian
          My Mum from England

          So I feel discriminated against 50% of the time lol

          To be honest I have lived and worked with racist people from both sides of the fence.

          White people historically don't know oppression,but that is certainly not to say that is any reason to have laws or attitudes that appease the opposite races.

          Besides how could it?

          1. habee profile image92
            habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Whites don't know oppression?? Do you know how the Irish used to be treated here?

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
              Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              By here you refer to the U.S?

              I opologise Habee, I could have worded that better.
              I still think though on the upside ,those Irish/Welsh/German decendants now are doing better -yes?

              1. LewSethics profile image60
                LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I believe the africans and hispanics are doing better here than in their own lands.

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The African Americans and the other Legal Immigrants are in thier own lands.

                  The Criminal Invasion Force however you are correct about, those are doing much better in our country than they ever did or will in thier own. Because it is easy to be successful in a land where you don't have to follow any of the rules your competition has to follow. A land too afraid of being thought a racist to enforce the law you're breaking every single day your in it.

                2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                  Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Some are -some are not (In either country)

                  Education is the key, always has been ,always will be.

                3. smcopywrite profile image81
                  smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  i dont think we should assume to know what would have happened to black people that are here in the us and what would have happened if slavery were not a factor into how things would have worked out for them. thats like saying if there were no white south africa how things would have been different. i am sure the american indians would have second guessed feeding the foreigners that landed on their land---yes their land----the only true americans mind you. if they decided to be racists and allow them to starve rather than feed them and help them.

                  many of the blacks in america today are genetically made up of a combination of different nationalities. how do you know they wouldnt have been better off in germany, italy, spain, portugal or the other places their grandfathers and great grandfathers came from. simply because they have some black in their skin you assume they would have stayed in africa and not some other country?
                  if hispanics would have stayed in their country then i suppose a lot of migrant farm work wouldnt have gotten done and many of these millionaire farmers and businessmen would have things turning out a lot different also. that my friend is capitalism and what america is based upon.

              2. habee profile image92
                habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Certainly! But we Americans have been good at oppressing lots of different colors, including other whites, yellows, blacks, and even the red man, even though it was his country first. I wish Native Americans were more vocal in demanding their rights. Perhaps they should take a few lessons from our black countrymen.

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                  Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I know thats what makes it a little difficult to understand (as a Non-American) ,since America was built primarily on immigrants-why they have been slow to fully integrate.

                  Native Americans perhaps trusted too much in Government (IMO)

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That's a whole 'nother thread... lol

                  2. Repairguy47 profile image60
                    Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    So fully to integrate? You mean like our black president?

                  3. smcopywrite profile image81
                    smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    native americans dont want to integrate and they probably have it right. why should they? they are probably seeing the other minorities that actually did integrate (whether by choice or not) and see how good they have it and think why bother? at the end of the day they will still be seen as native americans and not americans

        3. Eaglekiwi profile image75
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No of course they dont have too, but it is strongly advised lol (same thing)

          Have you been to Walmart lately?

    3. smcopywrite profile image81
      smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      habee i am sorry that happened to you and you should have stopped it right there by being strong enough to take the person that said that to you where they should be, out the door. there are steps to take that make this stop happening.
      believe it or not what she could have been saying to you is that i have passed over many minorities, including black females, and someone finally asked me about it so i had to prove i wasnt racist by putting a minority in this position! the better qualified person should get the position.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And that is exactly my point. That Boss was required 'BY LAW' to commit a Racist act against Habee.(Err against smcopyright hmm)

        That is WRONG!

  3. habee profile image92
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    On my hub about racism and reverse racism, I had an interesting comment from an AA reader. She talked about racism among blacks toward other blacks - light-skinned blacks vs. blacks with darker skin. I was aware of this from my teaching career. What's your take on this?

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Light skinned equates to mixed, half white. The same Racism white Racists have against mixed blood.

      1. habee profile image92
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, I think you misunderstood me. The light-skinned blacks often look down on those with darker skin.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Gotcha.

          Perhaps that's the white racist side of them looking down on the non-white. Maybe there is a deep-seated(sub-conscience) belief held by Blacks that whites are superior?? hmm

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            More likely the "deep seated belief" by whites that blacks are inferior.

          2. smcopywrite profile image81
            smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            its a hate for a group of people that has caused you so much pain. lighter skinned blacks will remind darker skin blacks of that pain and this is the reason for their feelings toward one another.

      2. smcopywrite profile image81
        smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        there are a number of mixed race people that you wouldnt know they were not white unless they told you so. there are a lot that choose to portray themselves as all white or all black or all chinese or all hispanic. the last census that was taken indicated that at least one out of every ten children is mixed race.

  4. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    Racism exists in all races.

    But only Racism against whites is not only legal and socially accepted as ok it is encouraged. By our Government!

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you blame the Government?

      I think its an attitude fostered by parents-the first teachers.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't blame the Government for Racism existing, I blame them for getting rid of all the racists laws except the ones that are racist against whites. That is my problem with them.

        ZERO TOLERANCE MEANS ZERO TOLERANCE>>>err unless it is against whites...'cause that isn't Racism..it's err..ummm 'reverse racism'. and that's ok.  roll

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well, many companies had a bit of catching up to do after total discrimination for many years. That is the justification for affirmative action.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No it's not.  That Johnny's great great grandfather was discriminated against doesn't make it right for Johnny to receive discriminatory preference.

            There is NO justification for discrimination.  That may be the excuse presented by racists as justification, but that's all it is.  An excuse.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, it wasn't just Johnny's great-grandfather. It was his grandfather, his father, and his older brother. There as ample justification for the procedures adopted as a result of the civil rights act of 1964. One of the factors contributing to the riots in Detroit in 1968 was the fact that the nearly all white police department routinely treated the black citizens unfairly. A majority black population with an all white police department was an untenable situation, a powder keg. The fire department was pretty much all white also. So were the office workers and engineers and bookkeepers at GM, Ford and Chrysler. That has changed since then as a result of what you reject as discrimination against whites. Living in the wild west doesn't qualify you to comment in an informed way on this subject.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, Ralph, while 1968 was slightly before me (by 6 years) I spent most of my adult life near Richmond Virginia.  In a poor county that was 90% black.  My first real job was in a factory that had segregated bathrooms (although no womens; there were no women in the plant).  In a town with segregated bars and segregated seating in the one theater.  Most likely a white man only came out of the black bar with a knife in their ribs and vice versa.  So yes, I do understand racism and I do understand discrimination.  I have been accused of both, by both black and white employees.

                While it was not morally right affirmative action may well have saved our country from mass riots.  I accept that, and I accept that it was probably a good thing as a result.

                What I do not accept is that is still a necessary evil.  Make no mistake; it is an evil and it is ethically unacceptable.  Even if Johnnys brother was discriminated against (unlikely today, but possible) it won't right the wrong to discriminate on Johnnys behalf.

                The massive discrimination once seen in the country has ended and what is left can be handled by ordinary laws without forcing more discrimination on the population.

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Nicely Stated. Affirmitive Action's time has come and gone. It is time to even the playing field. One set of rules, one set of standards across the board. I Totaly Agree.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Partly true, but it depends on the actual situation. GM where I worked now has had a black director and several black vice presidents, plenty of secretaries, accountants, engineers and managers. When I started there in 1960 there were NONE of the above. I happened to be working when the first black secretary was hired in 1960. She was selected by the Urban League to be the first to break the color line in GM headquarters--a straight A student in high school, could type 120 words a minute, etc. Harold, McFarland, the department head, held a meeting of all the secretaries in the office to break the news and tell everyone to welcome the first minority secretary  the day before she started. One of the secretaries broke down in tears.

                    GM no longer worries about affirmative action because there are plenty of minority employees and women in all occupations from secretary to vice president. When I was working there no one was ever told to hire anyone who was unqualified, but the company did start recruiting at Negro colleges because there were few minorities at University of Michigan or other nearly all white universities. Now most universities are pretty well integrated. To call what GM and other employers did racist is quite ignorant and biased in my opinion.

                    By the way, affirmative action also applied to women who in 1960 were confined to secretarial and clerical positions. Since that time women have advanced into all supervisory and managerial jobs. Currently there are several women vice presidents, and I suspect one of these days there will be a woman president. Just this week IBM appointed a woman president of the company, and there are other women CEOS of major companies. For some reason the claims of discrimination and racism have focused on the advancement of minorities more than of women.

                2. smcopywrite profile image81
                  smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  thank you ralph for putting that information out there.racism and sexism still exist. there is a more politically correct way to do it, but it does exist. there may never come a day when it doesnt. however, we all have the responsibility to do everything we can to fix that issue.
                  many people believe that its over or you dont need anti discrimination laws because racism is over. dont believe everything someone tells you. find out for yourself.

            2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Employing people, on a monority basis, who represent a minority. Is not dicrimination, it is fairness.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And relects a society.

              2. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hiring people on the basis of race(minority race) is Racism. It is Racism that works in the favor of one race(the minority race) and against another race(the majority race). That is by definition Racism.

                Sorry, sometimes the truth hurts.

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                  Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I would call that discrimination,much in the same way age is not supposed to be asked too -but us more 'experienced' workers know thats bs.

                2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No it doesn't, you'd have to present some truth. Whether you like it or not, people with black or brown skin are your fellow citizens. Positive discrimination is not not racism.

                  Postitive discrimination =inclusion.
                  Rascism= Exclusion.

                  To recruit a minority group that is "under represented" means that they are recruiting "representativly" If this group warrents "representative recruitment" then they have been subjected to a racist recruitment strategy.

                  Sorry, the truth hurts sometimes.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Slyly calling me a racist? Positive discrimination is Racism. Reverse Racism is Racism. Affirmative Action is Racism. Racism is Racism is Racism I don't care how many clever ways you rename it to make it sound better.
                    Positive discrimination is, as was previously posted, an oxymoron. It is a way of not feeling guilty and not being labeled a racist while being one.
                    Positive for one race negative for the other, decision based purely on the race of those involved, Racism. Positive Discrimination=Exclusion of the majority race. Racism.

                    ok in layman terms I believe your saying if there aren't the correct number of minorities employed by company X (to fill the Affirmitive Action's prescribed quota) then they have been discriminated against, therefore the racist selection favoring the minority race is warranted and just.
                    ..Possibly...
                    but it is also Racist, this is the reason I posted the thread 'Acceptable Racism'. To illistrate the fact that we as a people have a standard of 'Acceptable Racism'. That standard is: So long as the Racism is against the white race and only the white race it is ok. (for the greater good white people accept that standard)
                    It is 'Acceptable Racism'.

                    Thank You for so eloquently proving my point. smile

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hogwash.

                    Positive discrimination = nonsense.  There is nothing positive about discrimination.
                    Racism = actions taken based on race.  Inclusion or exclusion.  Front of the bus or back.  If an action is based on race it is racist.

                    You can make up all the pretty PC terms in the world but it doesn't change the fact that hiring with race as a requirement is racist and discriminatory.

                    Under represented.  Recruiting representativly.  Representative recruiting.  They all mean the same thing - you are or will be hiring someone based on their race, and that is discriminatory and if done voluntarily is racist on the part of the employer.  These are nothing more than an effort to spin a despicable action into something acceptable.  White or black, red or yellow, green with pink polka dots. It doesn't matter what color your skin is, if you have been denied a job because it wasn't the "right" color it isn't acceptable and all the PC language in the world won't make it so.

                3. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                  Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I gotta side question for ya Mikel?

                  It was also made law that intending new immigrants be fluent in English too,yet that law is not enforced either.

                  Would you see that as being racist?

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Language isn't a race, it is a language. That races tend to all speak the same language is merely a result of the racist tendencies of humanity to want to be around our own races.
                    In a mixed country (The United States) we can't be united and not have a common tongue, somehow, somewhere English became our accepted common tongue. If you want to join our nation, you must join us in that common tongue.

                    The truth is the people you're talking about don't want to join us they want to take over and make our country into thiers. That's why they don't want to learn our common tongue. They are an Invasion Force, an army of Saboteurs, not a group of people looking to become one of us.

    2. smcopywrite profile image81
      smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      mike
      the laws that are on the books are not directed at whites. if you are white and promoting racism, this means you. if you are black and promoting racism, this means you. the law doesnt say what race the discriminator is. most discrimination practices are committed by white people. however, the law doesnt say white or any other color.

  5. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    For the Record, I'm not a hater.

    Not in the Racist sense anyway. I hate being discriminated against. I hate the Racists laws that repress me. The Racists laws that say if I was a Black Female I would have qualified for that Governement Business Grant but since I'm white and male I am not qualified. I hate the way some races are using the psychology of racism to get away with breaking the law.

    But I love and admire lots of people from lots of different races.

    1. chipsball profile image59
      chipsballposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Bass Pro Stores were recently sued nationwide by Black, Hispanics, White plaintiff's and the EEOC for discrimination against Black and Hispianic employees, applicants and customers. Many of the allegations of discrimination where brought not only by the Black and Hispanic's...but by White supervisors and employees who witnessed the acts of discrimination that were taking place at Bass Pro stores and were retaliated against themselves.
      Actions like tearing up and discarding applications of minorities, denying promotions to minority employees, skipping over them, following minority customers around the store...because they are more prone to "steal". When white employees (supervisors) complained...they were discharged from employment with Bass Pro.
      This is the racism that should alarm any American...not some dumb langauge on the T-shirt. Discuss that Mikel G Roberts...rationalize that racist action of Bass Pro. Where would you stand? Would you protest these acts of discrimination by Bass Pro or do you stand with Bass Pro in support of their discriminatory policies and actions?
      With the unemploymennt rate as it is in this  country...how would you feel if you are a qualified applicant and was denied a job today because you are White. Think about being followed around a Bass Pro store with your family in tow  by a BP employee who believes you and your family are about to steal something. Racist laws doesn't hurt Bass Pro one bit...racist attitudes and policies do and in this case of discrimination by Bass Pro it only aids Whites. This is 2012...afterall.

  6. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    It's still funny...LMAO!

  7. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 5 years ago

    From some of the comments I have read it would appear to me that there are some who probably need to check their perspective on racial relationships because from what I can tell some of these comments sounds to be borderline bias.

    When the playing field is level for all races then we can talk about someone taking the advantage over another. If however a race has been denied equal opportunities, is being denied equal opportunities and we in the majority that controls whether another race can move forward or not and still complains that the other races is getting the same opportunities we already have that we are is bias.

    When it comes to writing a wrong in most cases sacrifices have to be made. Example if a police department consistently allows its officers to mistreat its citizens eventually a lawsuit will ensue and the city will most likely have to pay in an effort to rectify this wrong.

    These T-shirts are unflattering but they strike me more as an approach to dealing with a grievance rather than promoting racism. Often in racial situations their seems to be a great deal of a lack of communication. I am going to bet if people made a genuine effort to talk with and address the problems these people are feeling there would be a change in attitude and the T-shirt approach would disappear.

  8. thebigbagblog profile image60
    thebigbagblogposted 5 years ago

    I appreciated the passion in your Hub. However, the link you submit here takes you to a site that is operated and founded by Duncan Carson. Spoiler alert, he's white.

    I have provided a couple of links about him for you. The first is his personal site, the second is a site where he was interviewed by an independant blogger about his company Ban T-Shirts.

    http://www.duncancarson.com/home.cfm

    http://adventuresinconservationpr.com/2 … our-chest/

    All the above not withstanding...I think that what you are addressing is an important topic and I commend you on your bravery to discuss racism openly. So the fact that you got here by posting a link to a website hosted by a white comedian requesting that Mexicans identify their legal status by wearing a t-shirt (I'll leave that to you on exactly how bad that actually is) shouldn't matter. The point is that you are trying to address issues of racism or in this case "reverse racism".

    I am guessing that the t-shirt struck a nerve with you because of the use of the word "gringo". Especially since you asked someone commenting here if they had ever been called that themselves. I guess it's no wonder why the t-shirt would resonate with you.

    I can agree with you that racism is racism no matter what. And, I can also agree with you that its unacceptable in all forms. That said, some of the things you are saying here just make me believe (and I am trying not to be accusatory or offensive) that this topic is really just a vehicle for you to voice your own prejudices guilt free. I don't make that point lightly, it simply follows the heels of what you already expressed here in the comments section. For example, your references that there is a desire by "minorities" to be separate, not wanting to integrate, referencing affirmative action ( AND by the way, Mr. Deeds has it right, Fortune 50 HR Recruiter here) and then moving over to La Raza (I'll get back to that, I promise).

    On the other hand, I DO BELIEVE YOU and AGREE WITH YOU when you say that you experienced racism while overseas. It should also follow that you were in a country where it was not predominantly white and the nation's governance was not presided over with a predominance of white people either. Racism is truly established when one race uses government, law, and all other institutions of power to oppress another race. There are racial slurs, but they are hardly much more than names that hold no power over us. I am not splitting hairs here. There is a monumental difference between a society whose entire structure is sided with one race and some schmo wearing a t-shirt that reads "gringo".

    Ultimately, we forget why we say half of the things we say in the first place. For instance, "La Raza" got it's name because Mexicans did not like being referred to as "other" on a piece of paper, or an "ethnic group". They simply wanted people to know that they were a race, not some document's subcategory. The fact that this group later reaches out to "illegals" for reasons that you can't understand, doesn't make them racist. Their group's name has a historical origin and we should all remember that. Speaking of origins, the term "wetback" did you know that the name came about because of migrant workers whose backs were always wet with sweat? So what is really being made fun of here? Hard work?? How about "spic" it got coined at a moment in our history when a large number of Puerto Ricans first came to Ellis Island and they told officials on arrival that they couldn't "spic English". Then, there is the origin of the word "gringo". This, oddly enough stemmed from a popular song by Robert Burns in the late 1700's penned and was a favorite among US forces during the Mexican American War. The Mexicans would often hear US soldiers singing "GREEN GROWS the Rashes" and subsequently called them "gringos". Here are the lyrics:

    http://www.robertburns.plus.com/greengrow.htm

    I think what you are addressing is important. I just think we need to make sure that we are talking about these things in the context that they are really in. Racism is a systemic approach of oppression and racial slurs are hateful but do not by themselves institute racism. Oh yeah, and that when we see a picture of someone wearing a t-shirt, we aren't ultimately blaming the people that were the target of it in the first place for making it.

    Thanks for the post and the conversation that it brought about!

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wow
      Your post was so informative and so very interesting.
      Thanks for that smile

      I come from a country that has its fair share of racism over the years,fortunately the indigenous people signed a treaty and those sons and daughters became lawyers and politicians -to keep the Crown honest (lol).

      For the youngest country on earth New Zealand has matured quickly in the area of race relations, so much so ,that we are able to wear t/shirts ,make movies,write books and speak openly about what pisses us off...whites/Maori/Islanders/Asian
      or Milk /Dark/Coconut Chocolate wink & our Nip friends.

      Separate watch dog groups(Mix of Government and local) effectively monitor growth and performance and adjust or audit accordingly.

      Also first country in the world to give women the vote! USA were 2nd.


      The Equal Opportunites Act provides Equal groups be represented/ accepted for interviews etc ,but it does not insist who is employed.

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ok I'm going to start answering your post so the ideas don't move on as I continue reading your post. Which BTW...Wow.

      Ok first point.

      By saying they don't want to integrate I didn't mean they don't want to be friends. I meant they don't want to become white. They want to remain what and who they are. If that is Black then that is what they want to remain. Being around 'Black Culture' (Black People) allows them to do that and feel comfortable in the 'being Black'. That goes for all races I believe including mine.

      Hang on while I read more...

      Ok actually that is the only point I have. I agree with everything else you said. I found the origins of the words Gringo and wet back to be really neat. I assumed 'wet-back' came from sneaking across the border like most people I imagine.

      Any way nice post.

      Oh wait... I'm not saying the guy that makes the t-shirts is a racist nor that I am mad at him. In fact my first reaction to the gringo t-shirt was laughter... then I realized I was laughing at a racial slur of my race, that set the bell off, to coin your phrase.

      Ok now that's it.

      Ok...one more thing..smile...Which Hub?

      Seriously...Which Hub?  Ah... I'll go check comments...BRB.

  9. thebigbagblog profile image60
    thebigbagblogposted 5 years ago

    Good to know. hank you, again for the responses. With regards to becoming white. I think that no culture should aspire for this. Nor do  believe that whites should aspire to be other than who they are. I spoke to an activist once (Caesar Chavez??) who said that real integration has nothing to do with assimilation. He added that America was called "The Melting Pot". The idea is that all people in this country would melt together into "something". Not necessarily good, or bad...However, he didn't feel that we needed to be separate either. Instead, the great thing about our country is that we equally contribute to the flavor of this country without diminishing the idea. We are more like a salad. The lettuce gets to be the lettuce, the tomato gets to be the tomato, and so on...But, its still a salad. I think I agree with that sentiment. I think that the whites can continue to be White, Hispanics and Blacks can continue to be Hispanics and Blacks, and so on...But, we are still Americans.

    Thanks for the post Mr. Robert. High marks!!!

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sure thing... I like the Salad anology it fits...it's accurate

      But I still want to know which Hub you were talking about.

      1. thebigbagblog profile image60
        thebigbagblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Just this one.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ahh I gotcha...

          This is called a thread (though I have no Idea why) Hubs are the formal articles we write that are listed on our profile pages...  wink

          1. thebigbagblog profile image60
            thebigbagblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You are right:-) I have to remember that! Thanks again for being open Mr. Roberts! This was great!

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks and Your welcome (and it's Mikel, calling an unemployed homeless guy Mr. seems out of place)  smile

  10. habee profile image92
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    Eagle, to answer your question, about 13% of the US population is black, but it varies widely regionally and by state. For example, there are generally fewer blacks in the Northeast and the Midwest, with more in the South. There's an even higher concentration of AAs in DC and the surrounding area. My state, Georgia, is around 31% black.

  11. 60
    retronposted 5 years ago

    This question is out of question itself not because, we are talking about racism but about accepting racism.Which is a disease that prevails from an unearthed understanding of humans.

    this is sick

  12. chipsball profile image59
    chipsballposted 5 years ago

    The reason racism continues to exist in the country is because we don't want to discuss it seriously... hoping people will not bring it up and it will "slowly" disappear. If you care about racism in this country enough to write about it...discuss it, don't avoid it...it wont hurt you to talk. Get others point of view...you may learn something along the way that will will allow you to better discuss the subject...write about it and maybe, just maybe bring the country closer together instead of further apart, which seems is the direction we as country  are definately headed.

  13. cherylone profile image92
    cheryloneposted 5 years ago

    I have been reading all these threads about racism and, well, I have to say that racism exists everywhere and against everyone.  Our country was created for the right to freedom.  Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and, yes, freedom of color recognition.  We aren't black, white, Asian, Spanish, etc., we are Americans!  I am proud to be an American.  I am proud of "the melting pot" we have.  Now if we can just get everyone to see that Americans are humans and not "colors" or "races" things might just be free again.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wilderness, in a a fair and equitable world everyone would be employed on the basis of ability, but I go back to my original point. If not addressed the system does not always correct itself. Habee's post illustrates this, ie: discrimination against white people in this particular instance. Positive discrimination (I know you don't like the term=) ) is the only way that I can see to level the playing field, although admittedly not perfect. This is how every "biased" employer can be challenged.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You're right - there will always be a problem as people are racist and unwilling to be fair.  We disagree, however, on the solution.

        Given; Habee's office, demonstrating extreme prejudice and racism.  What if we monitor that office and its hiring practices.  Accept that the next best applicant may be black and let it happen.  What should be seen though is that the next 10 or 20 employees should reflect the surrounding population; if it is 60% black then expect somewhere near 60% of new hires to be black.  It might be 40% or it might be 80% (in the small sample size of 10 people) but over time the problem will correct itself without ever discriminating against another individual based on their race. 

        When companies had 100% white people out of thousands of workers this method won't work - it is just too far out of balance and that imbalance reinforces societies demand that they work only next to their own race.  Those conditions don't happen any more, though, and the ugly use of discrimination isn't needed any more to correct it.  Society has also changed, and very few people will actively object to working with someone of another race and that helps tremendously.

        Of course, if an imbalance does not naturally correct itself over time, then someone needs to get the axe; they obviously don't get it and should not have the task of hiring people.  If management simply won't change then closer observation and fines may be appropriate, but it still isn't necessary to discriminate against individual people because of their race.  We really do need to call an end to that particular, ugly, portion of our history.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          reinforces societies demand that they work only next to their own race.  Those conditions don't happen any more,

          But they do still happen, Habee's example and numerous other instances of discrimination against individuals whose skin color is other than white illustrate this. If we do not recruit Representatively, the system will not correct itself over time. If we do recruit representatively, then those doing the recruiting will be from a cross section of society. Maybe at some later stage we can then do away with these types of recruitment practices.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I would disagree that the individuals working in Habee's example are racist because a racist HR worker hires all blacks.  Most of them won't care a whit what color their coworker is.  We actually have made progress in that respect and while most people would prefer a coworker of their own race very few will make an issue of it.  It isn't PC anymore.  Of course, individual workers won't complain about an imbalance that makes them feel more comfortable, either.  That is up to management or the law.

            Rather the problem in such places is either a few managers that are racist or managers that aren't paying attention to the actions of a racist HR dept. that is hiring.  This often means just one or two individuals and will never be completely eradicated from our society, just controlled.

            To recruit representatively, it usually requires only a small handful of people responsible for hiring to be color blind.  Most HR departments are very small, often one person; they cannot be from a cross section of society.

            Only large companies with hundreds or thousands of employees typically have a HR department large enough to represent the cross section that you reference, and even there is usually a very small handful that actually advise and control the rest.  It is that small handful in charge of the overall process that must be blind to race.  It would also be very very unusual to find a company this size in America that has a serious imbalance in racial representation.

            Government workers could well be an exception, but only because most governments (state for example) are broken into smaller groups and often broken again into locations, each with its own hiring practices and management.  This is usually where the problem occurs; an HR "group" of just one or two people and no supervision.  Fine; bring on the law with people charged with checking such things nation or statewide to stop the abuse and hire representatively.  This is already in place and is overall quite successful.  More so, I would say, than groups charged with stopping spousal abuse, internet fraud, illegal drug sales or a whole host of other problems.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Then, in many respects we agree regarding positive discrimination, where hiring representatively is overall quite successful. But, of course, these kind of policies should only be employed where their is firm evidence that hiring practices have focused on exclusion of a group. It is not possible to police all companies, all I suppose we can do is to look for solutions where the problems really do exist.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                We agree ONLY if you mean to hire as many of one race as another in very roughly the same percentages as they exist in local society.  Not just down the road when additional discrimination has reduced any racial imbalance, but right now.

                If you mean to preferentially hire one race over another because there has been discrimination in the past, absolutely not.  If a recruiter has (consistently or not) refused to hire a person because they are the wrong race, it won't help that person one iota to then discriminate against a third person by hiring someone else based on their race.  It only accomplishes more injustice.  Yes, when one walks past that business it looks better when they now see a good mix of black and white faces, but it doesn't address past injustices at all.  It just creates more injustice in order that the passerby sees that nice mix.  The pretty looking mix isn't worth discriminating against even one person.

                About the only time discrimination might be acceptable is if a prospective employee was refused work because of their race and the company was later forced to hire them.  In that case it becomes not so much a matter of racial discrimination but a matter of compensation for past damages resulting from illegal discrimination.  The person discriminated against would be compensated by the company that discriminated against them.

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  We agree ONLY if you mean to hire as many of one race as another in very roughly the same percentages as they exist in local society

                  Then we agree, a reflection of the society we live in.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    LOL  I fully expected you to insist on hiring one race over another until the imbalance was gone.  Obviously I was wrong.

                    Language is a wonderful tool when both people use the same language to mean the same thing.  When they don't we find long, rambling forum posts debating something both posters agree on!  Oh well - it isn't the first time I've misunderstood someone.

            2. smcopywrite profile image81
              smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              racist people will certainly make a racist statement such as this. in addition, obviously the statement wasnt on a memo which means they are only going to discuss it with someone else they feel comfortable with discussing  racially motivated slurs, etc. i suppose this would be whoever is in the "good old boys club or more pc-the klan or future klan)
              depending upon where you work and what you supposedly see can bias what you assume is happening.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'm sorry - you lost me in the first sentence.  What racist statement that wasn't on a memo?

                1. smcopywrite profile image81
                  smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  sorry wilderness. this one got attached to the wrong thread. the racist statement is the one that habee received in response to her request as to why she didnt get the position. the statement made was racist. if it wasnt, i suppose it would have been okay to say in a memo or email to the company as a whole.

  14. Sychophantastic profile image84
    Sychophantasticposted 5 years ago

    While this question has clearly produced a lot of responses, the whole premise is faulty if you are using the shirt as a basis. Furthermore, your reverse racism response actually serves to justify the nature of the shirt - a true irony. In other words, your reaction is the precise reason somebody would choose to wear the shirt. The use of "gringo" on the shirt is in response to perceived racism - that of the reader assuming that the wearer is an illegal alien. This is a particular racism that Hispanic people deal with every day. Boo hoo for you Mr. White Man and your hard life of racial profiling and discrimination. Thus, the origin of the racism prompting the shirt is coming from the person reading it, at least as far as the shirt designer is concerned.

    White males do not deal with systematic racism every single day and have no real idea how such an existence would affect them. I'm sure you'd live a happier life if you got off your high horse and tried to understand those who are different from you and what they go through every day.

    Does this justify reverse discrimination? Not in an ideal world. However, that's not our world. In order to make some past injustices right like, I don't know, black people not being allowed to vote until 1965, policies were put in place to try and allow for equal access. That may seem like racism to some people because the system no longer favors them exclusively. But if the system itself is racist, only social engineering is going to reverse it. What are you going to do, ask the Ku Klux Klan to include black people and jews and hope they comply?

    Consider yourself lucky to be white and live in a country whose system inherently favors white people.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, policies were put into place to allow for equal access.  Fine.  Good.  We needed that.

      Then additional policies were put into place to unlevel the playing field and prevent equal access.  The OP's point is that this has restricted the white male's access but that somehow that is not racism - you seem to agree with the sentiment that it is viewed as OK to do it to white males but not to other races or sex. 

      Wrong.  Racism is racism, discrimination is discrimination. 

      Consider yourself lucky (if not a white male) to live in a country where the majority (white males) has bent over backward, denying themselves opportunities given to others, in an honest effort to stop abuse.  Just, please, recognize that it must end one day - there must be true equal access for everyone.  Not just while males, not just blacks, reds, women or any other single group.  Everyone.  If you require that special consideration be given to you because of your race you need to find some where else to live - American isn't interested in being racist anymore.

  15. habee profile image92
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    Sorry, guys. I just don't think hiring should be based on race at all. I think the most qualified person should get the job - period. Black, white, pink, or purple - it shouldn't matter. When race becomes a qualification, even when it's meant as a good thing, the system can easily be abused.

    What if we used the same "quota" system for sports? At our high school, the basketball team is always made up of mostly black students. Why? Because they're the best players. Picture tryouts with a quota: Yeah, that white kid isn't nearly as good as the black kid, but we have to pick him because he's white. Or at cheer tryouts: That Hispanic girl is awesome! Her jumps are great, she's sharp, and she's a gymnast. Too bad we can't pick her. We need an Asian on the squad. The one Asian girl who tried out is lousy, but we have to fill the slot with her.

    Race should not matter!

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It shouldn't you're right, but how do we address the problem of biased recruiters. They still exist, be it black or white.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Race should not matter."

      True. But it did matter a lot until relatively recently when the civil rights law was passed. There were very good reasons for affirmative action. There were exactly two African-American students in my freshman college in college, no women, white or black, in the engineering school or law school. Very few in the medical school. The time had come for a change. I don't disagree with what you said about your experience. There is such a thing as reverse discrimination, and discrimination against minorities hasn't totally disappeared from this country.

  16. thisisoli profile image67
    thisisoliposted 5 years ago

    Acceptable racism?  Yes there is.

    Currently a huge amount of resources are being wasted because racial profile is considered politically incorrect, even when people know a speciifc demeograph are more likely to casue the problem.

    This doesn't mean that the discrmination should include hate or violence.

    I agree that jobs should be given regardless of race, but rather be based on skill set.

  17. aware profile image71
    awareposted 5 years ago

    embrace your race.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      ...and the race of others.

      1. smcopywrite profile image81
        smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        i believe this is a good concept and good to hear that from you mikel. i believe we add something to the end of the statement that they shouldnt which is embracing my race means i have to hate another race.
        no one can truly know another person until they have walked in their shoes. this is true for all races everywhere.

        it is unfortunate that a lot of people need to feel more superior to others in order to feel better about themselves.

        every generation has their own racism battles to fight. racism is not gone its simply on a different face.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          On a different fence and in some instances has become much more subtle and covert, however, still as destructive. I agree, it is sad that some need to feel more superior than others in order to feel better about themselves. More often than not fear and ignorance are at the root of racism. I think in some respects things have got better, but we'd be burying our heads in the sand if we believed racism had gone away completely, it hasn't. IMO

  18. rai2722 profile image51
    rai2722posted 5 years ago

    Racism is racism, no matter in what form it is. People who are racist is just so despicable.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wilderness, we will. Enjoy your time with your grandson. smile

  19. S Leretseh profile image80
    S Leretsehposted 5 years ago

    "Perhaps it takes a liberal one to falsely insinuate?"

    Brenda Durham, that ws a brilliant response to Ralph. You've got a wonderful knack for economy of words, and you cut right to the bone.

    Too many White Christian people are tolerant of others bashing their group. My dear ol mom taught be never to allow anyone to insult you, your family, your religion or your country. Lying about white Christians being a pack of racists and guilty of "employment discrimination", "college entrance discrimination", "wage discrimination" is unfairly bashing a group  ... who've , on the whole, followed the integration laws - since 1964 - to the letter. Tell me one white male/female who did what New Orleans district attorney Eddie Jordan did in 2003.

    1. smcopywrite profile image81
      smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      if you are not  a racist why do you put yourself in the same group as racists ? the law doesnt say "white people" when it speaks to discrimination. if you arent guilty of something-dont accept the guilt. however, you must feel some kinship to these people that have done some terrible things from your statement.
      you need to detail what you believe this DA in New Orleans did that relates to this discussion.
      there is a pack of racists, sexist people in our nation that are guilty of a lot of things. dont fool yourself that people will do the right thing. if that were the case we wouldnt have to make a law to make people do the right thing. so you are saying that if we didnt invade germany and make them stop WWII that eventually they would have done the right thing? if we didnt make a law saying you cannot go around lynching people that the people that were responsible for lynching would have eventually done the right thing? is there a time frame on that? how long before people usually do the right thing?

    2. thebigbagblog profile image60
      thebigbagblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And got called out for it? No one. There wasn't really a large out pouring of disappointment from "minorities" who couldn't find work on the David Duke campaign.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Too many White Christian people are tolerant of others bashing their group."

      Citing the facts about the actions and ignorant positions taken by white fundamentalist Christians is not "bashing their group."

  20. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago
  21. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    What about a statement for example that says "The majority of men in prison are black"

    It is a fact. Is it racist?

    Of course there are many other similar type statements I just chose that one to make a point.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      In the prison system the 'minority' population is the white offenders. Minority races are the majority in prison, predominately Blacks. 'In my experience', different regions of the country may be different.

      Racism may be the underlying reason of that disparagy. The crimes these people committed were thier doing, thier choices. The reasons they made those choices may be based on the racism they experience. hmm

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Would it also be fair to say that the majority of offenders have limited or insufficent education?

        And would more whites be involved in white collar crime?

        Just a couple of points that Ive wondered about.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Or that they are more likely to be given prison sentences than their white male/female counterparts?

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Also possible, and the reason that if it were up to me I would always have a minimum of three judges presiding over court cases. In so doing Judges would be 'policed' by each other during the trials. No one Judge's prejudices would be allowed to corrupt the system. They would have to have a consenses from at least one other Judge which would also, hopefully, keep Judges honest and keep them from becoming dictatorish/more severe against people who represent that Judges 'pet peeves'.

        2. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes in my opinion these statements are correct. Most offenders that are found guilty are also most likely poor people, with 'lesser' legal representation.

          I'm not sure if there are any 1%ers from minorities, and in my opinion the 1%ers status of 'above the law' is a blatent statement that they can be guilty of crimes without consequence. For the 99%ers it isn't that way at all and the poorer you are the less likely you are to 'get away with it'.

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yep not too many hungry lawyers or politicians out there is there,or even if sentenced, ever spend a night in prison.

    2. 0
      PhenomWriterposted 5 years ago

      Public does not ask reason or evidence to believe an idea. Racism is fine for them. Very fine actually, and satisfactory. It gives trouble when someone hits them with his  racism. "If I kill you it's good; if you kill me it's bad." It goes that way.

    3. aware profile image71
      awareposted 5 years ago

      hug  the human  race.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        smile Peace and Love smile

    4. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

      Ok I have a question...

      Would you think it fair for 13% of the population to have a 50% say in the running of that nation?

      Wouldn't that be the same thing as saying for each vote the 87% gets, the 13% gets 6. In effect each person in the 13% group is equal in power to a group of six people of the 87%.

      Or 1 out of every 6 people from the 87% get to place one vote, while every member of the 13% group get to have thier own?


      shouldn't a 13% population get a 13% say in the running of the nation?

      Don't get mad I'm just asking...Lets talk.

      ***The reality of our situation is the top 1% are the only people with a vote, so this is purely hypothetical.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, and that representation should be from the bottom up, at every level. The real problem occurs when minorities don't have anything like that in terms of representation. On a political level, some parties have better representation of minority groups than others. This kind of representation equates to a fairer society, where minority groups are able to access higher opportunities, housing, health and education. It's better for everyone.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So you believe that each minority member should be given 6 votes.
          -or-
          The white majority members should have 1/6th of a vote each.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I thought we were talking about minority groups in everyday life, not the 1%

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              hmm ?

              I don't understand.

              1. chipsball profile image59
                chipsballposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Mikel G Roberts

                I posted a response to this subject and the example of Bass Pro policy of discrimination, but you have failed to reply. What's up?
                Scroll-up to about 34hrs ago if you can't find it in your post.. I am curious as to whether you believe this is racism,

                Chipsball

            2. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Deleted

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I don't understand your comment. That the majority somehow have a lesser vote. 1/6 of a vote to the majority, 6 votes to the minority. Don't get what you mean by this?

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  If 13% of the population has a 50% say in the running of a democratic nation. Each member of that 13% minority has 6 times the power of each member of the 87% majority.

                  Is this fair?

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Explain how 13% have a 50% say. One man, one vote.

                    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Through political activist groups like the NAACP and Affirmitive Action the balance of power of our nation is raised in favor of the minorities. In effect giving the 13% a 50% say (50% of the power) in how our nation is run.

                      Looking at this from the other side... For a white person's personal power to be equal to a single member of a minority there would have to be 6 white people.

                      Is this fair?

                      One man One vote means the minorities only get a 13% stake in the nation. At that level they cannot effect any change to the running of the nation, unless the majority wants it that way anyway.

                      Is this fair?

                2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                  Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  (Me either) must be his accent -hehe

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That's because we're not American. How do those people in the T shirts feel again?

                    1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      lol

    5. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

      Anyone from the United States have an opinion?

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Then clearly, you do not wish to elaborate.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No Hollie, I simply want to know what people from my country think about this. It is afterall our country.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I do apologize, silly me thought this was about racism and reverse racism, missed that bit about exclusive to America, this is a national issue.

            1. 0
              Wilfionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The issue of racism is an international one.  Americans do have a reputation for being isolationists, but I would have thought this was an old stereotype.  However the Internet is international, and therefore knows no geographical restrictions.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So I don't have the right to ask the opinion of my own countrymen?


                It isn't like I said hey Hollie shut up I don't care what you think... hmm

                I merely asked if anyone from the U.S. had an opinion....


                Gawd get over the defensive-ism (everything isn't a personal attack against you, everything isn't about you.)<Whomever 'You' might be.>

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not worried about it. If you ask to discuss, you'll get my thoughts whether you want them or not. It's not being being defensive, it's me challenging you and you being defensive.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I was just using you as an example Hollie, the post wasn't really aimed at you.

                    smile Besides there ain't no shutting up people like you and me. wink

              2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yep,its been around an awful long time.

            2. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The thread is about Racism (there is no such thing as reverse racism, that would be non-racism)

              The question however is a national matter as the percentages are based on that nation.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                ZERO TOLERANCE MEANS ZERO TOLERANCE>>>err unless it is against whites...'cause that isn't Racism..it's err..ummm 'reverse racism'. and that's ok.

                Funny, you were the only one that raised the issue of reverse racism. Also funny,  that you now state that reverse racism is non racism. Even funnier, that initially, you used it as an example to illustrate how non whites were racist, but used reverse racism to counter their arguments.

                When asked for evidence, you cry out for help. Hopeless.

                Thank you, for so eloquently proving my point. lol

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I raised it to illustrate the point that it is an oxymoron designed to make the racist seem non-racist. The concept itself is flawed, reverse means (in this usage) opposite of. The opposite of Racism is non-Racism like I said.

                  The act they call reverse racism isn't non-racism it is 'Racism' pure and simple.

                  I know you disagree, you have stressed that point many times. You are however incorrect.

                  1. SpanStar profile image61
                    SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok Mikel,

                        Here's a question for you.  A business has been around for years and years it has recently for the first time allowed 5 Blacks to be hired in an environment of all Whites.  After 5 years on the job one of the Black employees applies for an advancement and be assured that he/she is just as qualified to the job as the other Whites who also applied for that job but because the Black's his/her scores were just a bit higher then the other White candidates he gets the job-Now There's An Uproar of Reverse Discrimmination-Is It So?

                    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      First off there is no such thing as 'Reverse-Discrimination', that is an oxymoron. Discrimination is discrimination, Racism is Racism.

                      Reverse-Discrimination means non-discrimination not discrimination against whites rather than blacks.

                      Anyway to answer your question, If the best applicant (most qualified) got the job based purely on thier qualifications then in my opinion there was nothing racial about it. Without it being about race in some way racial discrimination does not apply.

      2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oops was just going to offer my 2cents worth ,but tippy toeing out lol

        (Actually this Kiwi lives in Ohio) but enjoying the topic in general smile

    6. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

      Came across this hub by livelonger on racism

      http://livelonger.hubpages.com/hub/Prej … acism-Test

      Couple of links (test to see if Im racist) there ,that Im off to check out.

    7. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

      Ok we have two people applying for a job. One is Black one is White. Neither have any control over the decision of who gets the job.


      That's as much as I understand.

    8. SpanStar profile image61
      SpanStarposted 5 years ago

      Ok Mikel,

         I'm saying reverse discrimination seems crazy because the decisions are made by the business not by the minority usually so business would be discriminating against itself for the term reverse discrimination.

        Is this any clear?

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No not really. The discrimination can't be against the entity that isn't losing anything or not getting the job.

        Discrimination means not getting something you are attempting to have based on your race.

        The business could not discriminate against itself it could only discriminate against one of the applicants.

        If you're asking me whether or not I believe that whites are discriminated against then yes I do. I have been personally discriminated against. Based soley on the fact that I was white and not black.

        I also worked for a company with a zero tolerance for racism, but when a black man (in front of management) called me a mother-F****** White Boy! they did nothing, because he was black and racial slurs evidently were only racial slurs if it was a white person using them.

        So yes we get abused too. Racism sucks.

    9. aware profile image71
      awareposted 5 years ago

      genetically engineered humans .free of all bad genes. will some day change the  discrimination game .   ,  The Prone  . will be the race to face a  new kind of prejudice.       

      just word play

    10. SpanStar profile image61
      SpanStarposted 5 years ago

      Aware,

         I concur with this point you made: "will be the race to face a  new kind of prejudice"

      You see racial prejudice has been a lie from it's inception.  It's the easies way for one to feel better about themselves by putting other down and simply because they look different because their friends look differene yet the have no problem accepting them.  Racist as I have seem them suffer from some sort of low self-esteem and rather then revealing it the redirect it onto others.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe the reality is that it should never be tolerated ,but at the same time accepted that as long as it can be monitored and controlled (?) it will always be with us to some degree. At least for a while longer.

        Lets face it, its a helluva lot better than it used to be, os if history is an idicator,it will get better.

        1. SpanStar profile image61
          SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          EagleKiwi you are right it is better then it use to be and that's a good thing. For me however I reject that people had to suffer over nothing more then someone else's selishness and ignorance.

          If someone doesn't like another person find they have that right but what they don't have the right to do is bring Their Ignorances into the life of other people.  I don't accept that I act this way because that's how I was taught-We are not chained to our teaching and if other people can recognize when something in their life isn't right then why can't others-(basically as I see it because they don't even try.)

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I agree,ignorance is one thing ,but willful ignorance is quite another.

            Educational insitutions benefit greatly with the help of Government policy(Race relations) and the support of affliated bodies (contining places of higher learning ,training centres ,employment programmes) to implement and deliver cirriculums that meet the students needs,and not necessarily the boardrooms/shareholders ethos.

            Communities structured to service the needs of all groups represented to build up society,excpectations and responsiblities administered accordingly.

            In some areas this is a great theory, but I have seen with my own eyes how it doesn't always work out in practice as well.

            I wish I had all the answers,or at least ones that worked. Sadly the people who are hostile,bitter and negative probably dont contribite on a forum.much less care enough about their communities anyway.

            1. SpanStar profile image61
              SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That is true unfortnately we as good people tend not to get involved when people we know behave wrongly and we don't address them so they take that as acceptance.  If one looks at the action of the historical racial behaviors one finds that if a friend or relative is called up on to let's say lunch someone they don't ask any questions they just go along with it, that kind of attitude still exist today.

    11. 60
      EricMrazposted 5 years ago

      Trent Lott talking about how much better our country would have been if Strom Thurmond has been elected and able to implement a segregationist agenda.

      ResVibrant Review

    12. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

      @Morgan Freeman
      Refusing to admit that we are making decisions based purely on race. Refusing to admit that action is racism solely because that race is white, is Intellectually Dishonest.

      Saying it isn't racism if it is only racist against the white race is intellectually dishonest. Racism is Racism no matter what race you're being racist against.

      Not wanting to hear that, stating "I don't want to talk about that", burying our collective heads in the sand because we don't want to face the obvious racism in our actions and policies, is being intellectually dishonest.

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with you that racism is racism however I don't believe the implimentation of racism is equal.  In this society of America Blacks have be and I believe still do today have someone White they will have to answer to.  Most Whites don't have to answer to Blacks-(yes now their are Black managers and Corp. heads but still someone where in that chain of command their is a non-Black.  Plus the impact a Black person has on a White person's life, lively hood doesn't usual carry the same impact as if it were reversed.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Again your wanting things to be 50/50 when they are 13/87. 13% of both races should have a black manager that they answer to, not 50%. That does mean that 87% should have a white one.

          By that I mean if 13% of all managers are black... 87% are white. So yes there is a disparagy there but it is in alignment with the population percentages. Therefore it is proportional and that makes it a fair balance.

          The population is 13% black and 87% white (roughly- excluding other minorities for mathematical simplicity).

          Requiring 50% of all managers nationwide be black, to give African Americans the same political powerbase (50/50) as the white race is dis-proportional. That raises the percentages of the total black population that are managers to 100%. That means the African Americans are only to be placed in the elite positions and only whites are to fill the lower positions until the black population nubers are equal to the white population numbers. That isn't fair or proportional. It is however what the minorities railed against causing the creation of affirmitive action, it is just that the managers were all white.

          If nationwide 13% of managers are black, the black race is fairly represented and affirmitive action's racially priveledged +1 status should be ended.

          If we turn that around, when ALL the managers were white, minorities were not fairly/proportionally represented in the job classification. Proportional representation would be 13% not 50% (of the total jobs). 13% of all the managerial positions should be occupied by black people. That is fair and proportional to our society. If 13% of all the managerial positions are now filled with African Americans then the +1 priveledge should be ended and we should compete for jobs based soley on merit. Race should no longer apply.

          1. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I can't agree with that-if a company has been in business for 20 years are more and all the personnel and employees are White when a Black is hired into that company for the first time just how long do you think it will take before he/she gets their next promotion irrespective of the population ratio prospective?

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It would and should depend completely on thier talents, the merits and qualifications of the individual. Race should not automatically be factored in.

              If they are Mozart and it is a music writing company they would advance very quickly, if not they wouldn't.

              1. SpanStar profile image61
                SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That is not the real world I know of.  1/4 if not half the people looking for that next promotion means for year that Black will have years upon years before they will be considered for a promotion and that is assuming their preformance has been next to perfect and the planets have aligned.

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not understanding your reply here. I think you were in a hurry and have rammed two thoughts together.

                  "  1/4 if not half the people looking for that next promotion"
                  -something missing?-
                  "means for (a?) year that Black will have years upon years before they will be considered for a promotion and that is assuming their preformance has been next to perfect and the planets have aligned."

                  +1 preference (affirmitive action) means if my(white person's) performance has been next to perfect and the planets have aligned but I am not black and affirmitive action's quota has not been met, then I am disqualified for the job based solely on my race. Since this white person(me) would be in that situation while in competition for every other managerial position with the same disqualifying racial standard, it follows that for thier (my) entire lifetime they(I) will be passed over for any position a minority wants to have. This is my own personal experience for the entirety of my life. I have been passed over for every 'elite' job, based on race, because all those positions were with companies that had not yet reached the affirmitive action's quota. Since all these positions were filled, I must wait for the next opening. Since there are still more minority people out there and they also have the +1 avantage of affirmitive action I will again be disqualified for those new openings because I am the wrong color. A never ending story I'm afraid, as I have come to understand, because there will always be another minority member with the +1 advantage that needs/wants that job.

                  1. SpanStar profile image61
                    SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No I wasn't in a hurry and I stated correctly what I wanted to say.  My real life experience has been when a company has been dominate by Whites for years upon years when minority (A) goes for a promotion perhaps after 5 years on the job they have been told this person has been waiting 15 years for this position so you're going to have wait.  After 5 more years they go for the same promotion and they are told this person has been waiting 10 years so you're going to have wait and on-and-on.  Let's not over look there will be some that don't won't minorities to progress in the system so they'll be doing things which will try and prevent them from progressing making it next to impossible if they success to progress through the system and that for me tells me that if any change to succeed in this company will have to come from outside the company like you refered to Affirmative Action.

                    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      And to you the ability to go outside the company and use affirmitive action to get the promotion for the minority individual seems fair. For me, the guy who has been waiting 10 or 15 years for that same promotion, only to see it usurped (stolen some might say) by someone who has only been with the company for 5 years seems very very unfair. But add to that... Every subsequent promotion being filled through the use of the affirmitive action +1 system, resulting in my absolute inability to ever, recieve a promotion because I am the wrong color.

                      Racism.


                      ***and you say: "lets not overlook that some (whites) that don't won't minorities to progress in the system so they'll be doing things which will try and prevent them from progressing making it next to impossible..."

                      I say: "lets not overlook that some (minorities) won't want whites to progress in the system, so they'll be doing things which will prevent that. They will try and prevent whites from progressing by making it next to impossible to suceed through whatever means they have, including the misuse of systems put in place to protect us all from Racism."
                      A sad fact, There are Racists are in every race majority and minority alike.

              2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                How many black or brown individuals from Mozart's era, have become this iconic? Is it because black, brown, however you want to define a race, didn't have the ability or opportunity?

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (27 January 1756 – 5 December 1791)

                  Way before my time. Sounds like a good Hub though. smile

          2. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But who requires 50% of all managers to be black?
            That is certainly not the case in the UK and I very much doubt that it is in the US either.
            Think about it, there aren't actually enough blacks to supply 50% of all managers and that's ignoring all the ones who wouldn't want to be managers for one reason or another.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I said that exact thing earlier in this thread.

              But that is the goal of affirmitive action and the minorities.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Show me where you get this from.

      2. gabgirl12 profile image61
        gabgirl12posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh goodness. You mentioned race, racism, racist so many times! It's obvious that anyone who doesn't face the 'racism' is doing something terribly wrong. All Morgan Freeman did was put an end to the nonsense. Yet it pushes you to question not only his honesty, but his intellect? Is it because he didn't give you the answer you were looking for in order to refute it?  This is very serious. If you want to continue the 'face the race' issue in such an adamant fashion, then good luck. There are those of us with better things to do than argue. smile Happy hubbing!

    13. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

      To bring us to a proportional balance, I agree. However once the 13% is established Affirmitive Action becomes another form of unacceptable racism.

      If nationwide African Americans are represented in 13% of the 'elite' positions, Affirmitive Action's job is done. From that point, a point I believe we have reached and exceeded, Affirmitive Action's policies should no longer apply. We should all have the same standard. We should now compete solely based on merit, talents and qualifications. No one should have the 'easy' button.

      Anything less is unacceptable Racism.

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        From that stand point I do agree how every life isn't cut and dry as you make it out to be.  I have seen promotions after promotions based on likes and dislikes which is to say if you were White and the manager liked you because you fit in with his/her crowd you were promoted even if you performed poorly and promotions were made on the golf courses where minorites-(in the past, I'm not sure about today) don't attend.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That's my whole point. Things have changed, so must Affirmitive Action.

    14. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

      The same thing goes for women. Once the representation of females has reached 50% (because women make up 50% of the population) in all 'elite' positions, the EEOC, Affirmitive Action groups job is complete.

      From that point forward we should only rise based on our own, individual merits.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually women make up more than 50% of the population of the US.
        Can you honestly claim that women hold even 50% of the positions of power?

        If you do I would like some evidence to support your claim.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No I can't, but that is how it should be. Once we get there however the priveledged +1 status that got us there should be removed.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But we are still miles off being there. You speak as if we have already reached that point.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              On the racial front I believe we are there and beyond. On the Sufferage front I'm not sure.

              Do you have any data that can confirm, as you say, that we are "miles off being there"?

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I was in that instance talking specifically about women. You hardly need any data to confirm that, just look at your government, are over 50% of your representatives women?

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  As you say over 50% of voters are women, so women aren't voting for the women...  I wonder what that says?

                  Affirmitive action, doesn't have any influence on who 'has to be elected' as far as I know. So the assumption that who the population votes for is somehow an effective way to determine employment ratios...seems a bit flawed. hmm

                  We are close on the employment ratios.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Could it be that male dominated politics doesn't provide 50% of women for the women to vote for?

                    Close to what on employment ratios?

                    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
                      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Um Yes, It may very well be that the 1%ers refuse to allow females to run for office. It is completely thier decision since they have the money required to run. But if it were that simple then every woman that did get 1%er approval (got funded) would get elected (so long as all the women voters voted for them). That doesn't seem to be the case. hmm


                      The statistics at those links, if I'm reading them correctly, show us to be fairly close on employment. Women are up to about 85%, so 15% to go.

    15. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

      I found these:

      http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm

      http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-ESWM05.htm

      These statistics show we have arrived...

      Well maybe arrived is premature...but we aren't "miles off".

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You could have fooled me, I can't see any indication that you've either arrived or are close to arriving.

    16. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago

      Hey Mikel. You'll enjoy this one. We just lost two contracts. We were low bidder. Over two million dollars worth of work. You know why we lost them? The owner wanted the job run by a black project manager..We don't have one. He knew that before he had us bid the job.

      It's kind of funny. I think anyone should be allowed to spend their money how they want, but I know this was a calculated slap in the face. I wonder how it would have been perceived if the roles were reversed.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        As what it is. Racism, there would just be a lot more anger and indignation. White men know we don't have any rights.

    17. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

      Giving credit where credit is due is always a good thing.

      But we have to be honest as well and be willing to admit our wrongs.

      No person is perfect, therefore it is impossible for an entire race of imperfect beings to have been perfect. We have to do the best we can, and accept each other, flaws and all.

    18. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago
      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image90
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        hmm Are you sure this is the link you intended? It's an effigy of the President.

        If it is what you intended, then I don't understand your point.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Is it acceptable for spoiled white free loaders to burn a black man in effegy?

    19. jsmith0520 profile image60
      jsmith0520posted 4 years ago

      Hey,

        Good topic. But gringo means white person from English-Speaking country. I do get where you are coming from though. When i was in middle school I was called "cracker" and "honkey" If I were to of retaliated by calling them a racial slur I am betting I would of regretted it.

      1. Onusonus profile image88
        Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I always think it's just sounds silly to be called cracker or honkey. It never seems to offend white people as much as when a likewise term is used in the opposite direction.
        You see if a black person gets called the "N" word there is attached an unpleasant back link to a time of subservience, slavery, and inferiority. Likewise with Mexicans who historically lost some of their territory and are now sheltered in a land of corrupt government ran by drug lords. Not only is it a derogatory remark but it's shoving in their faces the fact that their people lost and again leaves the person with a sense of inferiority. And cracker, well that's just a rebuttal.

    20. Onusonus profile image88
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago

      Is that why PETA will throw paint on rich white people's fur coats, but won't go near Snoop Dogg?

     
    working