Acceptable Racism ?

Jump to Last Post 1-40 of 40 discussions (310 posts)

74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps it takes a liberal one to falsely insinuate?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, positive discrimination. Not racism, there's a huge difference.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  SO SO TRUE!
  
  Racism is Racism even if it is against them Damn Gringos..err Crackers..err Honkeys.
  reply report
  60
  Petra Vlahposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Two wrongs DO NOT make one right! Racism is wrong no matter from which side it comes. Period!
  reply report
  0
  Wilfionposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  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
  
  Aboslutely correct, I assume that you can account for under representation in the work place. If the work place was not under represented, there would be no such thing as postitive discrimination. Or, do you believe that some groups are just unable to attain certain levels of education, qualifications or personality?
  reply report
  0
  Wilfionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have worked in many different places, doing different types of work. I live in Birmingham, which as you may know has a population made up of people from every part of the world. In fact, no one race has a majority in Birmingham. I have never worked for a single company where there was a majority of any race. Although I have worked in offices, where I was one of only a couple of white people, amongst many more black and Asian people. So, I can honestly say I have never experienced the under representation you describe. And this is not uncommon. It would not be possible for an employer in Birmingham to only seek employees from one race, because it is the most diverse population in the UK.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, you haven't been in the places where I've worked. Moss Side, for example and this was a government office, 97% white. Few places are as culturally diverse as Moss Side. Hindus, muslims, sikhs etc. Not represented at all.
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But Hollie, there are government entities in areas of the South that are staffed almost 100% by blacks. One example is the DFACS offices in Albany, GA. I hear from a reliable source that it's next to impossible for a white to get a job there.
  report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  BTW, to positively discriminate, does not include interviewing people that do have the good qualifications, the right experience or haven't worked hard.
  reply report
  67
  VendettaVixenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Positive discrimination exists because a minority group, black, brown, disabled, women. Have been unable to access some employment opportunities because of discrimination."
  Being a disabled woman, I'd find it incredibly insulting to be hired simply because I'm disabled, a female, or both. I'd go so far as to say that I'd rather remain unemployed than be given a job because I'm part of a particular group.
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ralph - No doubt you're aware that companies essentially get 'kickbacks' in the form of tax breaks for hiring minorities.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Which is Racist.
  reply report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  SOBFposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  SOBFposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The 'Seperate but Equal' phase of our integration is what you're describing. What you see as proof that basically all whites are Racist(haters). I see as a failed/flawed attempt by non-racist(non-hater) whites to find a compromise between the needs of the minorities and the desires of a sub-section of white society (white-minority). I believe it was an honest attempt to give everyone what they wanted. It was one of those ideas that looks great on paper, but when applied to reality isn't.
  
  I also believe that the white majority underestimated the depth of the hatred of the sub-section of our society. Which I believe wasn't really a hatred of Blacks, originally. It was the release/transference of the anger and hatred for the whites that won the civil war.
  The confederacy's enmity of the 'Yankees' didn't just disappear at the conclusion of the war, they transfered that hate to the newly freed slaves blaming them for thier suffering at the hands of the Yankees.
  In time they forgot why they were mad and simply hated because 'haters' was who they then were, and are to this day.
  reply report
  60
  S Leretsehposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "The 'Seperate but Equal' phase of our integration is what you're describing. What you see as proof that basically all whites are Racist(haters). I see as a failed/flawed attempt by non-racist(non-hater) whites to find a compromise between the needs of the minorities and the desires of a sub-section of white society (white-minority)."
  
  Well stated. I've had a few back-n-forths with SOBF. He is a black male male that absolutely demands victim status for all blacks in America. There is no amount of double standard, preferences and set-asides for his people that he will ever be satisfied with.
  
  Prior to 1964, there was NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to integration. White males created integration in 1964 - a first of its kind in human history. In 1960, MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS, etc, of white people all over America employed blacks. I have challenged SOBF (and all others who wish to give victim status to blacks prior to 1964) to produce ONE black man in America between 1900 and 1960 who employed a white person. I'm still waiting...
  
  As for discrimination today, white people do not discriminate against blacks. White people have followed the letter of the law (Civil Rights Act) since 1964.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'd have to disagree with you there he seems quite reasonable to me. He is addressing real issues, Racism does exist, in all races.
  
  Yes, white men freed the slaves. Fighting, dying and killing to get that accomplished. White men established the laws to bring the minorities to an equal standard. White men allowed the establishment of Affirmitive Action. White men and women fight against the white hater minority and that makes me proud too. Way to go white people!
  
  The ability to employ someone, assumes that African Americans were business owners, add in the 'pride' factor of whites in that time period and I can see why it would be hard to find a white employee of a black business owner. That doesn't mean those same blacks wouldn't have hired a white man that was willing to work for a black businessman. There just weren't very many black business owners that were big enough to need to hire strangers.
  
  Please...
  Some white people do, some white people are haters, and will do all they can to thwart racial equality. Just as there are some minority members that are just as racist and do the same to anyone that isn't a part of thier race.
  reply report
  60
  S Leretsehposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My assessment of SOBF "victim status' is from numerous back-n-forth discussions of race. I believe It's correct. He basically attributes all black ills in America to the legacy of slavery. While I do agree to a certain point, after 1900 the legacy of slavery argument should no longer be valid.
  
  Between 1865 and 1964, all ovr America (including the South) white people had tried to help blacks achieve prosperity thru separation and self-reliance. No people in human history had EVER accepted the integration demands (or pleas) from another male group (well, except the Roman Emperor Valens -ooops). Prior to 1960s, the human mind was not there regarding racial integration. Condemning whites for doing something that no other people had ever done in human history, plus, something they were legally entitled to do (live separately) ,condemning whites for believe racial separation was wronging the black man is ridiculous. It has also allowed the black man to believe the white man has done him a GREAT wrong. LOOK at the explosion of racial attacks against whites since 1964. This violence was NOT there prior to 1964. White people should NOT accept th idea they WRONGED the black man. He is taking it personally..and - IMO - lashing out with violence believing he was done this great wrong (google black on white crimes - holy COW!). This is a very serious issue! White people need to STOP provoking the black man in America. And start reminding black America all the great and wonderful things white people had done for them, as well as all the 'help' and gratuities they've received --simply for the color of their skin.
  
  Blacks received the integration they demanded (1964). They wanted it, they got it. White people hv followed the laws to the letter. Blacks continue to get a pass - LOOK AT COMPTON. 33% black and they hv ALL the political seats and 80% of the city patronage jobs. Where's the DoJ? Blacks get a pass. Enough is enough.
  report
  60
  S Leretsehposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "The ability to employ someone, assumes that African Americans were business owners, add in the 'pride' factor of whites in that time period and I can see why it would be hard to find a white employee of a black business owner."
  
  This is sugarcoating the fact. White people were NOT engaged in a coast-to-coast conspiracy to oppress blacks or prevent them from launching whatever business they wished; and profiting however much they wanted. The 1950s was the biggest economic boom in human history. In 1960, only .0054 of black males owned their own business. This means black males produced NO tax base. White people had every reason back then to be VERY concerned why black behavior in the economic arena was so demonstrably different from white males.
  report
2. 61
  Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  True many have learned to feel guilt, and the other races have learned to exploit that.
  reply report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
3. 61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  these are two words that dont go together....ever..
  reply report
4. 0
  SmartyPensposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Funny that white people are modeling these t-shirts. Or stupid, actually.
  reply report
5. 0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.)
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  That was funny!
  reply report
6. 60
  LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mikel, what do you base your insights about minorities on?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  i dont believe being a prison guard is research into minority populations. what did you do in the school system?
  reply report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If they equally contribute then sure...if not ,no.
  reply report
7. 57
  dornerposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
8. 60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
9. 82
  2besureposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I guess they are trying to make a point. Gringo is not have as bad as ni--er head!
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  82
  2besureposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Only Hispanics would call Caucasians gringo, everyone black people ni---rs! What names are Hispanics called, behind closed doors?
  reply report
10. 60
  gabgirl12posted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  82
  2besureposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  gabgirl12posted 13 years agoin 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'.
  reply report
11. 49
  ravihomeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really i don't have any information about this. can any one give me more information about this???
  reply report
94
habeeposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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??
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That might be because you're not in the Deep South.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Never been called a 'Gringo"?
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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.. Hmm..
  
  Yea rascism is alive and well among some Southern folk.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
2. 75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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.
  
  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.
  reply report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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).
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  True!
  And yet people gripe about being "profiled"!
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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???
  
  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.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If its done evenly across the board ,its not rascism its Capitalism..
  
  My dad was Hawaiian
  My Mum from England
  
  So I feel discriminated against 50% of the time
  
  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?
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Whites don't know oppression?? Do you know how the Irish used to be treated here?
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  60
  LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I believe the africans and hispanics are doing better here than in their own lands.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Some are -some are not (In either country)
  
  Education is the key, always has been ,always will be.
  reply report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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)
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's a whole 'nother thread...
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed it is
  reply report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So fully to integrate? You mean like our black president?
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not really -but I agree he is black
  
  I was meaning more from the time of slavery to the rosa parks era (1960?).
  
  That was slow,don't ya think?
  reply report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How many aborigine Prime Ministers has Australia had? How about black leaders of England,Ireland,New Zealand?
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Don't confuse the issue. Don't you know it's only Americans that have problems with race relations? The rest of the world is perfect.
  reply report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Seems that way.
  report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Perfect nah, just smarter
  
  C'mon no need to be touchy
  report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't speak for Australia, I covered some New Zealand facts-
  
  You did relise they were two different countries though.
  
  And no, New Zealand has never had a black president ,since black people never turned up in our ports.
  
  But Maori politicians certainly, and women Prime Ministers (2)
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. I think everyone is aware of the fact that they are two different countries. We are also aware of the fact that all countries (most anyway) have their own history of less than exemplary behavior when dealing with minorities. Everyone loves to focus on America's problems much more than their own.
  report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I was directing my post to Reapirguy since he made the statement.
  Wasn't clear and suprisely some people are more insular about other races etc.
  
  The focus of the op post was on America though least thats what we (lol) thought.
  
  Yet we all belong to the human race and thats all part of the education side.
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No. I think the OP was all encompassing. Gringo means white, not American.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Evidently it means "Singer" not white.
  report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Blanco means white, Gringo is just a racist term term used to describe whites.
  report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @ Repairguy
  
  What is the ratio for black/white population in the USA? just curious ,and how much of that ratio is represented in the higher professional tertiary positions?
  
  Just curious.
  report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  why didnt you say like your white president. i believe he is just as white as he is black. however, do you only see his black skin?
  reply report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well most tribal nations have intermarriage so integration is a natural progression for all peoples really.
  
  And while I certainly do not speak for Native Americans ,my views are that in order for them to hold onto their heritage it will be necessary to embrace their neighbour( which I believe they are doing) via the 560 Tribal Nations.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No of course they dont have too, but it is strongly advised (same thing)
  
  Have you been to Walmart lately?
  reply report
3. 61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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 )
  
  That is WRONG!
  reply report
94
habeeposted 13 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?
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Light skinned equates to mixed, half white. The same Racism white Racists have against mixed blood.
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, I think you misunderstood me. The light-skinned blacks often look down on those with darker skin.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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??
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  More likely the "deep seated belief" by whites that blacks are inferior.
  reply report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 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!
reply report
1. 75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you blame the Government?
  
  I think its an attitude fostered by parents-the first teachers.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  To call a Duck a Duck is honest. That other people want to call a Duck a quacker because calling it a duck hurts thier feelings is the origin of the whole "let's call racism 'Reverse Racism' when it applies to whites", so we can get away with the racists laws we are putting on the books and no one will notice it.
  My point to this thread was to raise awareness and clear up some of these afore mentioned sleight of hand tactics. What you describe happening where you worked is the Honorable, taking one for the team, attitude of the white race that I wanted to bring awareness of.
  
  From an earlier post of mine:
  
  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'.
  
  We (white people) know our rights are being violated, we are the ones who did it. Because it was neccessary. Without these actions of ours on behalf of our minorities, our minorities could not have made it to equality. Something the majority of whites believe in, adamantly.
  
  I hope this clears that up for you Ralph. (and Yes we did the same thing to ourselves on the sexism front as well for the same reasons.)<<<makes me proud to be white (well partially white, part Cherokee as well).
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  As you say, most universities are no integrated, but if you went looking specifically at a black college to recruit employees years ago, I would pretty well say you were looking for a particular race to fill your employment roster.
  
  Good, bad or indifferent, that's discrimination by definition. There is no other way to look at it when an employer specifies a particular race when hiring. Legally obligated or not, by choice or not, it is still discrimination.
  
  Necessary it may have been, and I won't dispute that - I, too, have seen discrimination in action by employers refusing to hiring a particular race. That need no longer exists, however much some minorities want it to continue. It is time to stop the farce and hire purely on ability, not race.
  
  Part of our disagreement here is the difference between racial discrimination and racism. I would suspect that IF the managers at GM were racist, their desire would have been to hire white, not black. IF they were actually racist they were being forced into something they didn't want. Nevertheless affirmative action is a racist policy - it can be nothing else when one race is preferred over another. It doesn't mean the people doing the hiring are racist - they usually aren't anymore - it means that racial discrimination is racist, which it is. We voluntarily, and with good reason, loosed a monster into our midst; it is past time to once more corral that monster and bring it to heel.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I completely agree.
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with Wilderness, also. The playing field needed to be leveled, and I believe that's mostly been accomplished - at least on the employment end (it still exists elsewhere). Blacks didn't exactly ask to come here. They were forced here through the slave trade. Once slavery ended, America wasn't sure what to do with them.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  After discriminating for 60 years against black employees, recruiting at a black college (because black students at state universities were practically non-existent) is racist. That's crazy. After the civil rights act companies with government contracts were competing for the few available minority engineers and accountants wherever they could find them. You've got racism on the brain, Wilderness.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And your insistence that refusal to hire someone based on their race equals racism would indicate that you have buried your head in the sand and don't want to see it when it happens. After all, why not? For decades employers in the US did just that - concoct ridiculous reasons not to hire blacks, refused to interview them, etc. and everyone looked the other way. If we don't look it must not happening, especially if we call it something else that sounds pretty.
  
  When a company picks a particular race to hire, refusing to consider any other race, then those other races are being discriminated against. You can spin it however you want, you can apply all the politically correct terminology in the world to the action, but in the end you are discriminating against all races but the one you have chosen to hire. Not even burying your head in the sand and not looking will change that fact.
  reply report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Employing people, on a monority basis, who represent a minority. Is not dicrimination, it is fairness.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And relects a society.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, firstly I wasn't slyly calling you a racist, if I believed you were a racist, trust me, I'd say so
  "Whether you like it or not," indicates that I don't know whether you like it or not. This is meant to be a discussion about what you would consider reverse racism.
  
  No, positive discrimination is to counter the balance, where discrimination has taken place. Be it structurally or on an individual level. Racism is to exclude a group. Period. Positive discrimination on the other hand, ensures that there is a representative quota. Whites have not been excluded, they have already been recruited in representative numbers, but more often than not are over representative. If the opposite were true, a particular group would not warrant "representative recruitment"
  
  Acceptable (?) racism, as you put it, would be to exclude a group. The white group have not been excluded, they have already been recruited.
  Positive discrimination, serves to include a group that have been excluded. Not an oxymoran, racism and positive discrimination, have completely different definitions and implications.
  
  I didn't prove your point, this you are imagining.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And the white individuals looking for a job are now excluded by your "positive discrimination". I don't think they will really care about your fine sounding words when they are in the soup line because they were the wrong color when they encountered discriminatory hiring.
  
  That you (or some political activist) have made up new definitions that sound nice and wish everyone to use them doesn't put food on their table. It isn't even a reason to use those bogus definitions; they have been subjected to racist hiring practices and were refused a job based on their race. Plain and simple, refusing to hire someone based on their race is discriminatory and racist. You can't change that by trying to spin it to something else; empty dinner plates don't lie.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Refusing to hire someone based on their race is racism, but, positive discrimination, as is it meant to be implemented, occurs when a significant number of one group has already been recruited,(therefore, not excluded) and another group has been completely excluded.
  
  Habee mentioned before, that where she lives there are certain government offices where 100% of the staff are black and that it is impossible for a white person to get a job there. That is racism, not positive discrimination, you are confusing the two. If that particular office were to adopt positive practices, then they would recognize that white people are under represented and open up a percentage of their vacancies to white people only. Would that be racism or inclusion? Empty dinner plates are the same whether they are before black or white.
  
  You might recruit based on the ability of the candidate, and not the color of their skin, but it is naive to believe that everyone is unbiased, black or white. So, how do you correct the balance?
  
  BTW, I didn't make up the definition of positive discrimination, it has been around for decades, you haven't been paying attention. Positive discrimination can also work in favor of white people where they have been discriminated against. Would you still consider that racism?
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Habees office; yes, the hiring practices that produced such an imbalance (assuming the surrounding area has a reasonable white population) were racist. Hiring was obviously based on race, was thus racist and discriminatory and produced the desired result of an all black workforce.
  
  To then hire based on a different race to correct the imbalance is still discriminatory and racist. The actions being taken are exactly the same; we will hire based on race. Nothing but the protected race has been changed. That it is being done to correct that imbalance is immaterial; excuses are a dime a dozen.
  
  Instead of hiring based on race the imbalance could just as well be corrected by hiring on ability; the desired result of an equitable distribution will take longer but it will still happen and no one is discriminated against. Is that so bad? Is it so important to correct a racial imbalance that someone must be discriminated against? You can't give justice to past victims, after all - why create more victims simply to make it look better faster?
  
  I know you didn't make up that definition, and I apologize if it seemed that way. That came out of the same era as affirmative action in an effort to spin it and make it sound better. It does so, I suppose, but it doesn't change the action at all - someone is still being discriminated against. Again, excuses are a dime a dozen and while the excuse may actually (and was I believe) reasonable in the past it no longer is. Given good, nondiscriminatory hiring practices imbalances will correct themselves. The problem is very seldom as bad as the Habee mentions and does not require drastic, unfair discriminatory practices against anyone to correct.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Refusing to hire someone based on their race is racism, but, positive discrimination, as is it meant to be implemented, occurs when a significant number of one group has already been recruited,(therefore, not excluded) and another group has been completely excluded."
  
  Refusing to hire someone based on thier race is racism.
  Positive Discrimination is another term used to describe the practice of "Refusing to hire someone based on thier race." It is an accepted form of racism because it is used to level the field.
  
  "BTW, I didn't make up the definition of positive discrimination, it has been around for decades, you haven't been paying attention. Positive discrimination can also work in favor of white people where they have been discriminated against. Would you still consider that racism?"
  
  Yes because it is.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not spin and not hog wash. See above post.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I did. You claim that because our grandfather discriminated against black Johnnys grandfather it is now OK to discriminate against white or yellow Bobby by only considering Johnny for a job.
  
  It doesn't work. You are only compounding the errors of our grandfathers by continuing discriminatory practices. This may have been excusable in the past because of the massive discrimination practiced, but that is no longer the case. Yes, there is discriminatory hiring going on in the country, but the answer is not to discriminate against other individuals to correct it.
  
  You are confusing individuals with an entire race; when one group is discriminated against you will now discriminate against innocent individuals in another, thinking that will fix it. It doesn't. Your method is analogous to shooting a murderers brother because he killed your sister; now two people are dead and nothing is fixed. Yes, one of the dead is female and one is male; you have balanced the wrongful sexual discrimination by committing the crime a second time but your solution brings no solace to either of the dead people.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  See above, I've already addressed this.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My question wasn't so much 'what they want'
  
  But more along the lines of whose in charge ,I guess-
  
  The point I was also trying to make,wasnt so much language ,but an Immigration law,that appears to mean diddly squat-tokenism.
  
  And in my opinion many policies are like that (which by the way are not laws)
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The 1%ers are in charge. The Financial Dictators are in charge. They own the Government, the Law, our jobs and our futures. They are the ones responsible for the importation of the criminal invasion force. It is thier wealth and power that keeps thier puppet politicians from enforcing the law. All in the name of a few more dollars.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yea ,it appears to have been like that for sometime unfortunatley (years) ,but like that crack in the dam wall,it was only a matter of time.
  
  I mean ,while the middle class were ALL working, the gaps and cracks were not so glaringly obvious.
  
  Anyway straying off topic there.
  
  So whats the solution to Racism?
  
  Less Government or more Government ,or neither?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Information, Communication (like this thread) and understanding. One set of standards for everyone, no priveledged exceptions for anyone.
  
  Acceptance of different perspectives and different visions of the future.
  
  That's a good place to start.
  report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Great points-got my vote!
  report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  one of "us" who exactly is us?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Citizens and Legal Resident Aliens of the United States... Who did you think?
  reply report
2. 61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 60
  chipsballposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago
It's still funny...LMAO!
reply report
61
SpanStarposted 13 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.
reply report
61
thebigbagblogposted 13 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!
reply report
1. 75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wow
  Your post was so informative and so very interesting.
  Thanks for that
  
  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 & 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.
  reply report
2. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.....Which Hub?
  
  Seriously...Which Hub? Ah... I'll go check comments...BRB.
  reply report
61
thebigbagblogposted 13 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!!!
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  thebigbagblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just this one.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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...
  reply report
  61
  thebigbagblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are right:-) I have to remember that! Thanks again for being open Mr. Roberts! This was great!
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks and Your welcome (and it's Mikel, calling an unemployed homeless guy Mr. seems out of place)
  reply report
94
habeeposted 13 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.
reply report
52
retronposted 13 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
reply report
60
chipsballposted 13 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.
reply report
88
cheryloneposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Me niether, I think that can be the problem when we always communicate in writing. And, have to admit, I often use long rambling posts to try to illustrate my points. Geez, I call myself a writer. I'm the first to admit though that I often don't convey my thoughts very well.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think also the term positive discrimination, which is how my nation defines equal opportunity and equal access, immediately sounds negative because of the use of the word "discrimination". I can see how that can be misconstrued Yep, this term should be re-named.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No matter how pretty the name you put on it is, it will still be Racism at it's core.
  
  Acceptable Racism, Yes but Racism none the less.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mikel, you're missing something here. Myself and wilderness have agreed that we actually agree on something. The terminology, however, that we or (I) have used is distinctly lacking in any mutually agreeable language. Particularly the term "positive discrimination"
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No I'm not, I understand. What you're failing to understand is re-naming the concept doesn't change the concept.
  I would like you to realize that no matter what you call/name it, Racism is Racism. That's my point.
  
  You are of the opinion that any Racism, of any kind, in any degree, is bad. Therefore if it is in any way Racism it is unsupportable/intolerable. Showing you that what you consider to be good is actually a form of Racism, is an unacceptable proposition to you. Because ALL Racism is inherently bad.
  
  Your search to re-name the concept so it can't be deemed a form of Racism, is an exercise in futility. Because the base concept itself is Racism.
  
  Well as it turns out as I was researching my previous statement here I stumbled across a new term for myself: Racialism Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialism
  
  Maybe you're correct, perhaps I am mistakenly lumping "Racism" into the category "Racialism".(in a nutshell Racialism is Racism without the hate, kinda.)
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mikel, "positive discrimination" to our friendly Brit means one must not use race in recruiting or hiring employees. We must be color blind in all circumstances. Is that not what you and I both have been promoting on this forum? I know it is for me...
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, however that term does not mean that in any degree. It is absolutely a term steeped in the non color blind practices of Racialism/Racism.
  
  So I don't see how it is possible for her to have used that term with the meaning that is basically that term's opposite????
  report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yea there are no doubt several of those word salads cleverly contrived by our oh so clever leaders ( any leaders,any nation ) lol
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Had I looked and realized you were one of those dang Brits, I might have realized -. I've had trouble before with "prams" and "nappies" as well as other things. Most of time I'm able to figure it out and it's good for a laugh, but this time the meaning was all too obvious. Wrong, but obvious.
  
  Oh well, no offense meant and none taken. At least it sounds like I haven't given offense either...
  
  You're right, though - for supposed writers, we didn't do a very good job here!
  
  And looking down the page, it doesn't seem that Mikel has caught on yet either - maybe we'd better all go back to school!
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe we should Us dang Brits are not very good at articulating (however, there are some that would insist that British, English is best, I'm not one of them) No offence was taken by any of your posts, you speak your mind, you do not insult. With reference to Mikel, we can get all get defensive when we feel we're under attack. Paradigmsearch said it best, when he said "Read a post twice, it may not have a negative meaning" I, for one, should heed that. He may not have said it quite like that I'm paraphrasing. I added that for clarification.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A good thing to remember - few posts are meant to actually be an insult. And, of course, it's easy to take one wrong when we feel we are under attack.
  
  I've enjoyed our discussion, but my grandson is playing his last game of tag football shortly and I don't dare miss that. You have a good evening (or night, or whatever it is on the wrong side of the pond ), Hollie - I'm sure we'll meet again.
  report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry - you lost me in the first sentence. What racist statement that wasn't on a memo?
  reply report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
70
Sychophantasticposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 89
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
94
habeeposted 13 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!
reply report
1. 59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
79
thisisoliposted 13 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.
reply report
65
awareposted 13 years ago
embrace your race.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ...and the race of others.
  reply report
  61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
60
rai2722posted 13 years ago
Racism is racism, no matter in what form it is. People who are racist is just so despicable.
reply report
1. 59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness, we will. Enjoy your time with your grandson.
  reply report
60
S Leretsehposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 61
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
2. 61
  thebigbagblogposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
3. 69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin 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."
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Jordan_(attorney)
reply report
75
Eaglekiwiposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Or that they are more likely to be given prison sentences than their white male/female counterparts?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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'.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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'.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
0
PhenomWriterposted 13 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.
reply report
65
awareposted 13 years ago
hug the human race.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Peace and Love
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I thought we were talking about minority groups in everyday life, not the 1%
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ?
  
  I don't understand.
  reply report
  60
  chipsballposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Explain how 13% have a 50% say. One man, one vote.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your post is completely contradictory. You begin by saying that through particular groups, the balance of power is with the minorities, however, you do not elaborate on this, provide any evidence, or talk me through how this might be possible. You just expect that I, and others, will accept that somehow 13% becomes 50%.
  
  You later go on to state that one man, one vote, would only obtain 13% of the vote for minorities, and if the majority objects, would not effect any change. And, then ask whether that is fair, you've lost me.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds undemocratic to me,actually screwy even
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And yet those are our choices.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  (Me either) must be his accent -hehe
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's because we're not American. How do those people in the T shirts feel again?
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago
Anyone from the United States have an opinion?
reply report
1. 59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Then clearly, you do not wish to elaborate.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No Hollie, I simply want to know what people from my country think about this. It is afterall our country.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Wilfionposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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...
  
  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.>
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I was just using you as an example Hollie, the post wasn't really aimed at you.
  
  Besides there ain't no shutting up people like you and me.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yep,its been around an awful long time.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for your point Mikel.
  
  I'm afraid there are some who believe reverse discrimination has some bases: http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/revers … imination/
  
  The last hired and the first fired was a process used to keep minorities out and from progressing in businesses. So if the process is used to control minorities how can the actions of the business making the decisions be reversed discrimination?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't understand your question. Can you re-word it for me? (oh and that they have legally adopted the term reverse-discrimination really ticks me off...GRRR <grinning>)
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  When a candidate comes up for a selection-Black verse White when the decision is made it is made by the business-the minority can't put him/herself in the position but they have wait until they are told they have the position so the company would have to be discriminating against itself in order for it to be reverse discrtimination-is what I'm asking.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I must be getting tired, I still don't understand.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The thing about the use of the term reverse discrimination that bothers me is that it is intellectually dishonest.
  
  Intellectual dishonesty: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p … dishonesty
  
  "Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
  reply report
2. 75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oops was just going to offer my 2cents worth ,but tippy toeing out
  
  (Actually this Kiwi lives in Ohio) but enjoying the topic in general
  reply report
75
Eaglekiwiposted 13 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.
reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 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.
reply report
61
SpanStarposted 13 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?
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
65
awareposted 13 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
reply report
61
SpanStarposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin 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.)
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
52
EricMrazposted 13 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
reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 61
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If minorities were allowed in these jobs that have only White works there for so many years-YES getting outside help to end the racist pratice-IS FAIR.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (27 January 1756 – 5 December 1791)
  
  Way before my time. Sounds like a good Hub though.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I said that exact thing earlier in this thread.
  
  But that is the goal of affirmitive action and the minorities.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Show me where you get this from.
  reply report
2. 60
  gabgirl12posted 13 years agoin 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. Happy hubbing!
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 61
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's my whole point. Things have changed, so must Affirmitive Action.
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But we are still miles off being there. You speak as if we have already reached that point.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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"?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  
  We are close on the employment ratios.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  
  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.
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 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".
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You could have fooled me, I can't see any indication that you've either arrived or are close to arriving.
  reply report
0
Emile Rposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 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.
reply report
61
uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years ago
Ask occupy whiners.

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/giant-effi … 14601.html
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Is it acceptable for spoiled white free loaders to burn a black man in effegy?
  reply report
61
jsmith0520posted 13 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.
reply report
1. 0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
0
Onusonusposted 13 years ago
Is that why PETA will throw paint on rich white people's fur coats, but won't go near Snoop Dogg?
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Acceptable Racism ?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Acceptable Racism ?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies