NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday there was a thread about how if you say "white power" you're a racist. Well I asked my US history teacher if the teacher was wrong to say it was bad/racist to say that term; he told me "It is a racist thing to say, because we are the people with the power."

I guess that's true..

What do you think?

Well, it's a term that racists use, that they've appropriated, much as they've appropriated the Confederate battle flag. It's linked inextricably with racism.

Yesterday there was a thread about how if you say "white power" you're a racist. Well I asked my US history teacher if the teacher was wrong to say it was bad/racist to say that term; he told me "It is a racist thing to say, because we are the people with the power."

I guess that's true..

What do you think?
I think your teacher is showing he's racist by saying that white people have the "Power."

after all, isn't there a college sports franchise out there called "The Fighting Whites"?

No. The reason that "white power" is racist is because it was coined for racist use by racist people.

I think your teacher is showing he's racist by saying that white people have the "Power."

after all, isn't there a college sports franchise out there called "The Fighting Whites"?
Huh? By noting that white people have power, the teacher is being racist? That doesn't follow.

And as for the "fighting whites," they were a college intramural team, about as far from a franchise as you can get. They were students with a team in the college rec league.

No. The reason that "white power" is racist is because it was coined for racist use by racist people.

I understood that the term was a development of the term Black Power. Yes it is used by racist people for racist intent, but does the same not apply to Black power?
The only difference is that the white people had power when both terms were first used. Whether this makes the term white power more racist or whether it is simply more offensive as it is effectively gloating, I don't know.

Yesterday there was a thread about how if you say "white power" you're a racist. Well I asked my US history teacher if the teacher was wrong to say it was bad/racist to say that term; he told me "It is a racist thing to say, because we are the people with the power."

I guess that's true..

What do you think?
Your teachers attitude is one thing that keeps the problem of racism alive. The distinction between 'them and us', however well intentioned it is meant, is something that will always lead to people looking for differences between the two groups. Only when people stop thinking of races as any different to hair colours will the problem start to be addressed.

Huh? By noting that white people have power, the teacher is being racist? That doesn't follow.
by stating that [insert skin color here] people have anything akin to power is infact a racist remark. it seperates people into catagories by race/skin color. Black power, White power, Red power... all it does is try to divide people by their color of their skin.

And as for the "fighting whites," they were a college intramural team, about as far from a franchise as you can get. They were students with a team in the college rec league.Ah.. my mistake. thanks.

I understood that the term was a development of the term Black Power. Yes it is used by racist people for racist intent, but does the same not apply to Black power?
The only difference is that the white people had power when both terms were first used. Whether this makes the term white power more racist or whether it is simply more offensive as it is effectively gloating, I don't know.
When the term "black power" was coined, it was meant to be a unifying symbol for the black community in a time when they were being openly discriminated against and held down. There's a hell of a difference between that and "white power" which was coined with the connotation of "the niggers are getting out of line and it's time to stomp 'em back down."

When the term "black power" was coined, it was meant to be a unifying symbol for the black community in a time when they were being openly discriminated against and held down. There's a hell of a difference between that and "white power" which was coined with the connotation of "the niggers are getting out of line and it's time to stomp 'em back down."
So if a black person uses "black power" with the meaning that blacks should stomp out all non-blacks and declare their superiority, he/she is in no way racist?

When the term "black power" was coined, it was meant to be a unifying symbol for the black community in a time when they were being openly discriminated against and held down. There's a hell of a difference between that and "white power" which was coined with the connotation of "the niggers are getting out of line and it's time to stomp 'em back down."

Looked at that way, yes. Now how about looking at it this way:

When the term "black power" was coined, it was meant to be a unifying symbol for the black community in a time when they were being openly violent and revolutionary. There's a hell of a difference between that and "white power" which was coined with the connotation of "we can be proud of our heritage too."

Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating this position. All I am doing is pointing out that the racism denoted by the two expressions is the same. The additional implications of the phrases that depend upon historical and social knowledge do create a differentiation in their degree of racism, but this is not a function of the phrases white power and black power in isolation.

by stating that [insert skin color here] people have anything akin to power is infact a racist remark. it seperates people into catagories by race/skin color. Black power, White power, Red power... all it does is try to divide people by their color of their skin.
No it isn't. Noting something about any race is not racist, provided you acknowledge that it may not apply to all member of the race. For example, it is not racist to say that some black people are murderers. Saying that white people have the power is a true and fair statement if the majority of the people in positions of power are white.

No it isn't. Noting something about any race is not racist, provided you acknowledge that it may not apply to all member of the race. For example, it is not racist to say that some black people are murderers. Saying that white people have the power is a true and fair statement if the majority of the people in positions of power are white.
Too true.

Racism is not limited to one race of people. Every race - black, white, hispanic, asian, etc. shows racism in one form or another.

Any distinction made within those races which empowers their own race at the expense of another is racism. This includes such phrases as "white power", "black power", etc.

Any phrase which belittles another race is racism. This includes such phrases as "cracker", "******", "beaner", etc.

Personally, I don't believe anyone has the right to demand one group stops using these phrases until they ALL stop using these phrases. I also don't believe there should be distinctions for specific races such as "black history month" (or, in terms of sexism, "women's history month"). This sort of thing simply perpetuates the entire race issue.

Personally, I don't believe anyone has the right to demand one group stops using these phrases until they ALL stop using these phrases. This sort of thing simply perpetuates the entire race issue.
It's pretty much hypocrisy otherwise.

No it isn't. Noting something about any race is not racist, provided you acknowledge that it may not apply to all member of the race. For example, it is not racist to say that some black people are murderers. Saying that white people have the power is a true and fair statement if the majority of the people in positions of power are white.and what's wrong in saying that the majority of the people in power worked hard to get to that posistion without mentioning color of skin? Why would one's color of skin be mentioned at all when indicating people in positions of power if not to infer that it was their skin color that got them that posistion and not their hard work, relatives, blackmail or any other procedures that might have been employed.

perhaps I am just truly color blind in such matters.

and what's wrong in saying that the majority of the people in power worked hard to get to that posistion without mentioning color of skin? Why would one's color of skin be mentioned at all when indicating people in positions of power if not to infer that it was their skin color that got them that posistion and not their hard work, relatives, blackmail or any other procedures that might have been employed.

perhaps I am just truly color blind in such matters.
Nothing wrong at all. But refering to a persons skin colour in any sense is not a bad thing. What's wrong with saying something like 'There goes a black guy'?

Nothing wrong at all. But refering to a persons skin colour in any sense is not a bad thing. What's wrong with saying something like 'There goes a black guy'?
It's about the same as saying "there goes a blonde" (or brunette, or red-head, whatever).

Racism is defining one's content by the color of their skin (or other physical differences). It is racist to say white's have power. Some "whites" do, some don't. But, they do not have power because they are "white". Some say it is even racists to say that blacks and whites are equal, since they are not equal because they are black and white. Nobody complains about it because it is not offensive to them. Thus, not all racism is offensive, but it is not politically correct, so we don't like it anyways.

Yesterday there was a thread about how if you say "white power" you're a racist. Well I asked my US history teacher if the teacher was wrong to say it was bad/racist to say that term; he told me "It is a racist thing to say, because we are the people with the power."

I guess that's true..

What do you think?

And we aren't allowed to be happy about that?

Black Power proponents want power for Black people. White Power proponents want power for White people. They're logically equivalent.

Racism is defining one's content by the color of their skin (or other physical differences). It is racist to say white's have power. Some "whites" do, some don't. But, they do not have power because they are "white". Some say it is even racists to say that blacks and whites are equal, since they are not equal because they are black and white. Nobody complains about it because it is not offensive to them. Thus, not all racism is offensive, but it is not politically correct, so we don't like it anyways.
Whoever said we like bloody political correctness?

And no, racism goes far deeper than colour. It extends beyond skin, into the notions of various human (sub)races.

Racism is defining one's content by the color of their skin (or other physical differences). It is racist to say white's have power. Some "whites" do, some don't. But, they do not have power because they are "white". Some say it is even racists to say that blacks and whites are equal, since they are not equal because they are black and white. Nobody complains about it because it is not offensive to them. Thus, not all racism is offensive, but it is not politically correct, so we don't like it anyways.
Em no racism is:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Noting a persons skin colour is not racist, making general comments about whites or blacks or whoever is not racist, provided that it is understood that it is a general comment.

I would say that Il Ruffino's teacher is right. "White Power" is redundant.


So if a black person uses "black power" with the meaning that blacks should stomp out all non-blacks and declare their superiority, he/she is in no way racist?The person in question would be racist, but this is not usually the connotation that 'black power' is used in. 'White power', on the other hand, is usually used in such a connotation.


and what's wrong in saying that the majority of the people in power worked hard to get to that posistion without mentioning color of skin? Why would one's color of skin be mentioned at all when indicating people in positions of power if not to infer that it was their skin color that got them that posistion and not their hard work, relatives, blackmail or any other procedures that might have been employed.

perhaps I am just truly color blind in such matters.I suppose so, since the color of their skin is definitely a contributing factor.

I think your teacher is showing he's racist by saying that white people have the "Power."

after all, isn't there a college sports franchise out there called "The Fighting Whites"?

What about the Boston Celtics?

The person in question would be racist, but this is not usually the connotation that 'black power' is used in. 'White power', on the other hand, is usually used in such a connotation.
So I am just to assume then that a white person saying "white power" is racist, yet a black person saying the equivalent is not, because of usual connotations? Heh. Times change, and so do the meanings of words.

No. The reason that "white power" is racist is because it was coined for racist use by racist people.
I agree. Same with the swastika. It had a very different symbolic meaning before the Nazis appropriated it.

I think your teacher is showing he's racist by saying that white people have the "Power."
People throw around accusations of racism too easily these days. The teacher in question is probably not a racist.

Em no racism is:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Noting a persons skin colour is not racist, making general comments about whites or blacks or whoever is not racist, provided that it is understood that it is a general comment.
Correct.

I
I suppose so, since the color of their skin is definitely a contributing factor.

I think that you may have the wrong verb tense here. Was I could agree to, is is less certain.

(yeah a sentence with is is that is correct.)

I understood that the term was a development of the term Black Power. Yes it is used by racist people for racist intent, but does the same not apply to Black power?
The only difference is that the white people had power when both terms were first used. Whether this makes the term white power more racist or whether it is simply more offensive as it is effectively gloating, I don't know.
Black power is more obscure, and to my knowledge is only used by blacks who are racist.

So I am just to assume then that a white person saying "white power" is racist, yet a black person saying the equivalent is not, because of usual connotations? Heh.Yes, if "white power" or "black power" are the only things said. If they are said in a context which seems that the person saying "white power" is not racist, but the person saying "black power" is, then the "white power" statement would not be racist, but the "black power" statement would be.

Yes, if "white power" or "black power" are the only things said. If they are said in a context which seems that the person saying "white power" is not racist, but the person saying "black power" is, then the "white power" statement would not be racist, but the "black power" statement would be.
You can't read people's minds. I would assume off-hand that both are racist, or at least racialist.

I think that you may have the wrong verb tense here. Was I could agree to, is is less certain.

(yeah a sentence with is is that is correct.)I would say that it's not as much of a contributing factor as it used to be, but it still is, even if only due to white people having white children and passing on inheritances to them.

Of course, a lot of that statement is partially due to my communist sympathies.

You can't read people's minds. I would assume off-hand that both are racist, or at least racialist.I don't think it's necessary to read people's minds to assume that they are aware of the usual connotations of those words.

I don't think it's necessary to read people's minds to assume that they are aware of the usual connotations of those words.
Awareness says nothing of how they will use the words.

I would say that it's not as much of a contributing factor as it used to be, but it still is, even if only due to white people having white children and passing on inheritances to them.

Of course, a lot of that statement is partially due to my communist sympathies.


So the establishment is racist because you are a communist. :eek:

Solution to racism - convert Jello Biafra to neo liberalism :p

So if a black person uses "black power" with the meaning that blacks should stomp out all non-blacks and declare their superiority, he/she is in no way racist?
If a black person uses it in that way, then certainly he or she is racist. But fuck, man, by that logic, a person could say "purple polka dotted unicorns" as a euphemism for "kill all asians" and would be equally racist.:rolleyes:

If a black person uses it in that way, then certainly he or she is racist. But fuck, man, by that logic, a person could say "purple polka dotted unicorns" as a euphemism for "kill all asians" and would be equally racist.:rolleyes:
So intention has nothing to do with how words are used? And let's not even try and pretend that the words "black power" and "purple polka dotted unicorns" sound the same.

and what's wrong in saying that the majority of the people in power worked hard to get to that posistion without mentioning color of skin? Why would one's color of skin be mentioned at all when indicating people in positions of power if not to infer that it was their skin color that got them that posistion and not their hard work, relatives, blackmail or any other procedures that might have been employed.

perhaps I am just truly color blind in such matters.Come on, now. That's just willful blindness. The majority of people in power in the did not work hard to get into their positions--they were helped along more than a little by open or institutional prejudice or outright racism.

Awareness says nothing of how they will use the words.True, which is why it's good to pay attention to the context that they're used in.

So the establishment is racist because you are a communist. :eek:

Solution to racism - convert Jello Biafra to neo liberalism :p
Lol. No, I would say that I view inheritance as, among other things, the passing on of priviledge from one generation to the next. Whether or not it is, does not mean the system is not racist, but I used that as an example of the system's being racist.

Come on, now. That's just willful blindness. The majority of people in power in the did not work hard to get into their positions--they were helped along more than a little by open or institutional prejudice or outright racism.
Perhaps in the US. In Europe things differ greatly by country.

Lol. No, I would say that I view inheritance as, among other things, the passing on of priviledge from one generation to the next. Whether or not it is, does not mean the system is not racist, but I used that as an example of the system's being racist.
I am a hardcore capitalist, and even I have problems with inheritance.

So intention has nothing to do with how words are used?
I said it did, didn't I? Can you read?

But intention is not all--sometimes, the best of intentions can't overcome the implications placed upon words by outside forces. There is no way to discuss "white power" without discussing the racism inherent in the people who coined the phrase, not without creating a separate universe within which that word exists in a different context (for example, if "white power" were a synonym for "white magic" in a fantasy novel, and even then, lit critics would still pounce on it).

Black Power was a unifying cry used to bring an oppressed community together in the fight for equality. The ideal was not that blacks are superior, or blacks should have more power than whites, but rather that blacks should have EQUAL treatment.

White Power, on the other hand, is about a group of white people who feel it is right that they should have better treatment, and more power than blacks and members of any other race.

A call for equality is not racist. A call for oppression is.

Perhaps in the US. In Europe things differ greatly by country.
True. but the discussion I was involved in was US-centered.

I said it did, didn't I? Can you read?
I can read perfectly well. The way you phrased it though made it seem that words can be so vague, that reading into their intentions isn't even worthwhile.

But intention is not all--sometimes, the best of intentions can't overcome the implications placed upon words by outside forces. There is no way to discuss "white power" without discussing the racism inherent in the people who coined the phrase, not without creating a separate universe within which that word exists in a different context (for example, if "white power" were a synonym for "white magic" in a fantasy novel, and even then, lit critics would still pounce on it).
Fine. All I am saying is that intentions do matter, enough to give seemingly innocent words a whole new meaning.

I am a hardcore capitalist, and even I have problems with inheritance.Oh, I know that many non-communists do, but I view inheritance as being simply a part of the communist program, and I also view inheritance as the passing on of priviledge, and not simply the passing on of property.

Oh, I know that many non-communists do, but I view inheritance as being simply a part of the communist program, and I also view inheritance as the passing on of priviledge, and not simply the passing on of property.
The problem is finding a way to remove inheritance without impeding on a person's freedom (economic or otherwise).

Silly white supremacists. The saying is "White powder!" and the outstretching of the arm is actually just reaching for more cocaine. They must have misunderstood the footage of the Nazis.

When I hear "black power" I think Nation of Islam and black panthers. Surely you wouldn't say that these organizations are not racist? Also, would "Irish Power" or "Italian Power" be acceptable as opposed to simply white power?

When I hear "black power" I think Nation of Islam and black panthers. Surely you wouldn't say that these organizations are not racist? The Black Panthers weren't exclusively so, no.

Also, would "Irish Power" or "Italian Power" be acceptable as opposed to simply white power?Well, it wouldn't be racist; ethnic supremacy is something else entirely.

When I hear "black power" I think Nation of Islam and black panthers. Surely you wouldn't say that these organizations are not racist? Also, would "Irish Power" or "Italian Power" be acceptable as opposed to simply white power?
That moves more into the realm of nationalism, and perhaps vague racism. Agreed on the first statement.

Huh? By noting that white people have power, the teacher is being racist? That doesn't follow.

And as for the "fighting whites," they were a college intramural team, about as far from a franchise as you can get. They were students with a team in the college rec league.

Actually, yes, the teacher was being racist, in my opinion. White people don't have the power. Some white people do. White people aren't rich. Some white people are. When you make blanket statements about race, it's pretty much what racism is, especially if you're generalizing a point to make it true.

I'm not saying we should close our eyes to the reality that, in general, white males have the majority of the power positions in this country and virtually all the ones that matter, but there is a difference between that statement and the one noted. When a white guy is starving to death he's not comforted by the idea that at least the braying donkey in the white house happens to look like him.

Statements like 'white people have the power' should be qualified. To simply state such a thing like that as if were universally true is racism.

What makes it racist or not is context. The phrases "White Power" and "Black Power" have nothing inherently racist about them. It all has to do with how they are used. If they are used to mean the SUPERIORITY of one group over another then they are racist.

Racism is the judging of a persons ability or charcter by the race they are a member of and not on their actual qualities. The same with sexism and agesim and every other "ism" out there.

What makes it racist or not is context. The phrases "White Power" and "Black Power" have nothing inherently racist about them. It all has to do with how they are used. If they are used to mean the SUPERIORITY of one group over another then they are racist.
Agreed.

Racism is the judging of a persons ability or charcter by the race they are a member of and not on their actual qualities. The same with sexism and agesim and every other "ism" out there.
Oh, like atheism? Pragmatism? Internationalism? Very evil words, yes.

IMHO (and bear in mind that I live in an area/culture where neither term occurs in conversation with any real frequency despite, or berhaps because of, multiculturalism), "Black Power" used as a unifying term for people who "will not be subjucated" by a controlling 'white majority' is a good thing and "White Power" used as a unifying term for people who "will continute to subjucate" a 'black minority' is bad. (And that could be using using majority/minority in the manner of effective influence, not just numbers.)

As soon as "Black Power" expands towards "let us take control", rather than merely regain a footing of equality, it goes beyond any (no pun intended) 'grey' territory and is essentially fostering attitudes that are as reciprocally racist as the system originally belaboured under.

And conversely, if a given white population were to find themselves oppressed by a system controlled by a black one, a yellow one, a little green martian one, then their non-violent fight for equality could be called "White Power" without any morality issues (though maybe some doubts about the judgement of recoining that term in the light of what historical perspective they must possess).

It's also interesting to note that the teacher said white people have the power because I certainly have no power. It makes me cry sometimes. 8,(

A more accurate statement would be that there are more white politicians in office than black ones. But that goes the same for age as well as Im almost certain that there are more old politicians than young ones in office. As well as there being more male ones than female ones. And more Christians than atheists.

And conversely, if a given white population were to find themselves oppressed by a system controlled by a black one, a yellow one, a little green martian one, then their non-violent fight for equality could be called "White Power" without any morality issues (though maybe some doubts about the judgement of recoining that term in the light of what historical perspective they must possess).
Do you honestly think this will be what preoccupies them in this kind of situation? :confused:

It's also interesting to note that the teacher said white people have the power because I certainly have no power. It makes me cry sometimes. 8,(Well, you're also less likely to be thrown out of a shop because of the color of your skin and the way you dress, that's something.

It's also interesting to note that the teacher said white people have the power because I certainly have no power. It makes me cry sometimes. 8,(

A more accurate statement would be that there are more white politicians in office than black ones. But that goes the same for age as well as Im almost certain that there are more old politicians than young ones in office. As well as there being more male ones than female ones. And more Christians than atheists.

Good point. Old people have all the power. Look how old that dude that runs Exxon is. And the justices. Wait, they're all old.

"YOUNG POWER"

Well, you're also less likely to be thrown out of a shop because of the color of your skin and the way you dress, that's something.

How do you know how s/he dresses?

Good point. Old people have all the power. Look how old that dude that runs Exxon is. And the justices. Wait, they're all old.

"YOUNG POWER"
We live in a gerontocracy.

In all seriousness though, that is kind of logical, considering that older people are assumed to have more experience, and usually by that stage in their life have accumulated the necessary wealth (or whatever else qualifies) to gain power.

How do you know how s/he dresses?I don't, which is why I said "less likely".

We live in a gerontocracy.

In all seriousness though, that is kind of logical, considering that older people are assumed to have more experience, and usually by that stage in their life have accumulated the necessary wealth (or whatever else qualifies) to gain power.

Yes, but considering how at the age of some of the justices most people give up on driving a car, I find it interesting that we have no worries about them driving our justice system. And if GWB or Clinton was driving I would definitely be wearing a seatbelt. Wait a minute, where's the seatbelt on our country? Cuz I'm certainly reaching for it.

Actually, yes, the teacher was being racist, in my opinion. White people don't have the power. Some white people do. White people aren't rich. Some white people are. When you make blanket statements about race, it's pretty much what racism is, especially if you're generalizing a point to make it true.

I'm not saying we should close our eyes to the reality that, in general, white males have the majority of the power positions in this country and virtually all the ones that matter, but there is a difference between that statement and the one noted. When a white guy is starving to death he's not comforted by the idea that at least the braying donkey in the white house happens to look like him.

Statements like 'white people have the power' should be qualified. To simply state such a thing like that as if were universally true is racism.
Come on, Jocabia--how many people of color are in the highest reaches of US government? Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and ummm, no one? What about Congress? Extend it to Congress and you have a handful in the minority leadership, but that's it. Military? Slightly better, because the military tends more toward a meritocracy, but still not great. Big Business? Not even close--white men dominate that to an unreal extent.

In every measurable metric in the US, white people have more power than black people as a class, and to say that is not racist--it is stating measurable fact. There is still, today, no greater advantage when trying to get a job, or a loan, or anything of that nature, than being a white male. That's shitty, and I do everything I can to make sure that that situation changes, and it has changed over the last 40 years in the US--the gap has shrunk--but it's still a massive fucking gap.

Yes, but considering how at the age of some of the justices most people give up on driving a car, I find it interesting that we have no worries about them driving our justice system. And if GWB or Clinton was driving I would definitely be wearing a seatbelt. Wait a minute, where's the seatbelt on our country? Cuz I'm certainly reaching for it.
Well I suppose there comes a time where they become senile, at which point their merits effectively become faults.

I don't, which is why I said "less likely".

What? Now white people are better dressers? I'd take MC Hammer's clothes over Vanilla Ice's any day.

"Oh, no, he di-int"
"Oh, yes, he did. He went old school!"

Good point. Old people have all the power. Look how old that dude that runs Exxon is. And the justices. Wait, they're all old.

"YOUNG POWER"
I would preferre "People Power"


tho that sounds like I wanna strap huge generators to all those gym threadmills or something...

What? Now white people are better dressers? I'd take MC Hammer's clothes over Vanilla Ice's any day. Lol. No, I did not say that white people dressed better, I said that the way white people tend to dress is usually less threatening to (racist) shopkeepers.

Lol. No, I did not say that white people dressed better, I said that the way white people tend to dress is usually less threatening to (racist) shopkeepers.
Although the way some people like to dress all ghetto, be they white (like the chavs in the UK) or black, or even asian, is highly tasteless as far as I am concerned.

Good point. Old people have all the power. Look how old that dude that runs Exxon is. And the justices. Wait, they're all old.

"YOUNG POWER"

doesn't flow. youth power, maybe. more typically people just talk about youth liberation.

doesn't flow. youth power, maybe. more typically people just talk about youth liberation.
How silly though. They will just eventually become old themselves. Then they will be crying the exact opposite.

Although the way some people like to dress all ghetto, be they white (like the chavs in the UK) or black, or even asian, is highly tasteless as far as I am concerned.I agree, but bad taste isn't a reason to throw someone out of a shop, otherwise anyone wearing an Abercrombie and Fitch shirt would also be thrown out.

I tend to think that racism is not the force that it used to be in America.

I know that I will draw some fire over that but let me say that it is not so much what race you are but in what CLASS you reside.

A case in point (are you ready for this?) ...... O.J Simpson. If he had killed a white woman decades ago it would not have mattered how much money he had. And yes I think he did it. But, years later and he has money, he is of the class that he can afford to actually get away with a double homicide.

Please don't mention To Kill A Mockingbird as this was fiction.

I think your teacher is showing he's racist by saying that white people have the "Power."

after all, isn't there a college sports franchise out there called "The Fighting Whites"?

Ever heard of the Indains or the redskins in baseball. Or the Irish football team. There are tones of them.

I agree, but bad taste isn't a reason to throw someone out of a shop, otherwise anyone wearing an Abercrombie and Fitch shirt would also be thrown out.
That kind of prejudice is harmful to business. Now, if a person did actually cause problems, the shopkeeper would have the fullest right to throw them out; otherwise, he/she is just damaging their own profits.

Come on, Jocabia--how many people of color are in the highest reaches of US government? Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and ummm, no one?

You'll get no denial from me. More importantly, how many white people are not in the highest reaches of government? Because if most white people don't have "the power" then to say that do is an unfair and racist thing to say. It's not like I can call up my buddy GWB and borrow a little power when I'm short.

What about Congress? Extend it to Congress and you have a handful in the minority leadership, but that's it.

No doubt.

Military? Slightly better, because the military tends more toward a meritocracy, but still not great.

Again, agreed. In defense of the military, it's been a relatively short time since they really started to become a meritocracy so it takes a bit of time to really even things out.

Big Business? Not even close--white men dominate that to an unreal extent.

Again, no doubt. Doesn't address the point. I said that some white people have the power.

Let's see what I said - in general, white males have the majority of the power positions in this country and virtually all the ones that matter, but there is a difference between that statement and the one noted.

In every measurable metric in the US, white people have more power than black people as a class, and to say that is not racist--it is stating measurable fact. There is still, today, no greater advantage when trying to get a job, or a loan, or anything of that nature, than being a white male. That's shitty, and I do everything I can to make sure that that situation changes, and it has changed over the last 40 years in the US--the gap has shrunk--but it's still a massive fucking gap.
If you generalize people by the color of their skin, that's racism. If you treat people as a class instead of individuals, that's racism. That's the point. White people don't have the power. Some do. Bush isn't in office because he's white. He's in office because he's a Bush. Same with Kennedys, etc. And they got that power because they're white and, well, crooked. White people generally have more class mobility than other races. White people generally have less obstacles than other races. No doubt. But making a broad statement like white people have the power is racist, unless you qualify it.

If it's not couldn't I make the same claim about saying black people are criminals. Now of course not all or even most black people are criminals. But if I look at the percentages of criminals black people make up a disproportionate percentage. Or perhaps it would be a racist statement to make and I should generalize about people according to race unless I state up front that I'm point out a generalization and not a rule.

You restated almost everything I said in my comment.

I tend to think that racism is not the force that it used to be in America.

I know that I will draw some fire over that but let me say that it is not so much what race you are but in what CLASS you reside.

A case in point (are you ready for this?) ...... O.J Simpson. If he had killed a white woman decades ago it would not have mattered how much money he had. And yes I think he did it. But, years later and he has money, he is of the class that he can afford to actually get away with a double homicide.

Please don't mention To Kill A Mockingbird as this was fiction.
I would agree with you. Race is still an issue (mainly in the US and some European countries, with regard to white nations), but class is overtaking it quickly.

Me Power.

Anything else is to categorise and label a group, and thus is discriminatory. Even me power may be discriminatory, but if it is it is my discriminating against myself so I guess I am not going to complain.

I would preferre "People Power"


tho that sounds like I wanna strap huge generators to all those gym threadmills or something...

Which is a great idea. Let's put those idiots to use.

That kind of prejudice is harmful to business. Now, if a person did actually cause problems, the shopkeeper would have the fullest right to throw them out; otherwise, he/she is just damaging their own profits.Perhaps the business owner believes that the potential amount that the person would buy is less than they would lose if the person was a thief?

White people generally have more class mobility than other races. White people generally have less obstacles than other races. No doubt.Isn't this in and of itself an example of white power?

Perhaps the business owner believes that the potential amount that the person would buy is less than they would lose if the person was a thief?
That is the base assumption behind it. And, to a degree, I can understand the logic. Though if the assumption is wrong, then the logic is flawed.

Me Power.

Anything else is to categorise and label a group, and thus is discriminatory. Even me power may be discriminatory, but if it is it is my discriminating against myself so I guess I am not going to complain.
So you'ld remain a silent victim while you are discriminating against yourself? you can't sit back and allow such discrimination on you by you! :mad:

Racism is dead for the most part in the US.

Unfortunatly, there are a lot of people who have built thier power base on making sure that people think that racism is still alive.

And conversely, if a given white population were to find themselves oppressed by a system controlled by a black one, a yellow one, a little green martian one, then their non-violent fight for equality could be called "White Power" without any morality issues (though maybe some doubts about the judgement of recoining that term in the light of what historical perspective they must possess).Do you honestly think this will be what preoccupies them in this kind of situation? :confused:

Let me ellucidate a perhaps too-briefly written thought process. If the given population of self-identified 'whites' were indeed under an apparent/actual racial subjucation and wished obtain (re-obtain?) an equal footing, and chose to call their movement "White Power" in the full knowledge that this term was antaognistically used by subjucators-of-white-origin in the past, then either their motives are not as... ahem... lilly-white as they appear or they have not considered the historical comparisons that might be considered by the non-whites involved (as I say, could be LGM, it's all hypothetical who the oppressors are or how the situation came about) or indeed the subscribing members of the population, staining their honest-to-goodness "we just want a fair equality" campaign.

Without historic perspective (divorced from historic knowledge about the White Power counter-equality movement, or even in a Little Green Men oppressing Little White Men totally dislocated situation on a planet orbitting a distant star) then all that's moot.

Of course, whatever the motives of the original movement, and whatever they call themselves, the movement could turn violent and coin a new contemporary distaste for whatever term they do use.

Yesterday there was a thread about how if you say "white power" you're a racist. Well I asked my US history teacher if the teacher was wrong to say it was bad/racist to say that term; he told me "It is a racist thing to say, because we are the people with the power."

I guess that's true..

What do you think?

I would ask him to be specific - exactly what 'power' do white people have? Are blacks and other people lacking that power? What then is 'black power'?

Your teacher is full of crap me thinks.

Racism is dead for the most part in the US.

.

If only that were true.

No. The reason that "white power" is racist is because it was coined for racist use by racist people.

Exactly. Its the same with ****** (pardon my french). Now black people can say it and its okay, because of the context, but a white person saying it is generally a racist. or desperate to be black.

*snip*
Ah, I had envisioned a sort of historical vacuum, or post-apocalypse scenario. In the case of the word's historical context, you would be correct then, assuming a non-vacuum. I suppose they'd coin a phrase like "Caucasian Power"? :confused:

Come on, Jocabia--how many people of color are in the highest reaches of US government? Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and ummm, no one?

But how many people are there total at that level of the US government?

Black people only make up about 12% of the US population. So, we ust need to find 14 non-blacks ranked as high as a Supreme Court Justice or the Secretary of State to justify the ratio.

Now, I'm not an American, so you'll have to help me out, here. How many justices on the Supreme Court? Nine? And only one of them is black?

Great, now add the President, Vice-President, Secretary of Defence... who else ranks that highly? We need three more to make our fourteen non-blacks. Otherwise, blacks are over-represented.

Exactly. Its the same with ****** (pardon my french). Now black people can say it and its okay, because of the context, but a white person saying it is generally a racist. or desperate to be black.
How would a person saying "white power" in a racist context be wanting to be black?

Yesterday there was a thread about how if you say "white power" you're a racist. Well I asked my US history teacher if the teacher was wrong to say it was bad/racist to say that term; he told me "It is a racist thing to say, because we are the people with the power."

I guess that's true..

What do you think?
yup thats right

there is a huge differece between being the group on the bottom wanting to gain power and the group of the top wanting to keep or expand power.

"black power" is about getting black people to realize just how much needs doing and how much they can get done if they work together toward a common goal

"white power" is about the fear that someone might knock me off my spot at the top of the power pyramid.

Perhaps the business owner believes that the potential amount that the person would buy is less than they would lose if the person was a thief?

Isn't this in and of itself an example of white power?

Is it? It's more an example of the problems that need to be corrected for other races. How is 'power' to simply be treated fairly? When we fight for people to have equality, we're not fighting for black people to have the 'power'. We're fighting for ALL people to be treated fairly. When people are talking about power, it's generally about supremacy. There is a supremacy in the US that is a generally connected group, disproportionately white, male, old and JudeoChristian. No question about it. I'm not a part of that group. Most people on this board are not a part of that group, regardless of skin color. I would love to see them lose that power and would fight along side of just about anyone to make that happen. Talking about how white people have the power is to paint us as one homogenous group with a hive brain which is exactly the problem that racism presents.

yup thats right

there is a huge differece between being the group on the bottom wanting to gain power and the group of the top wanting to keep or expand power.

"black power" is about getting black people to realize just how much needs doing and how much they can get done if they work together toward a common goal

"white power" is about the fear that someone might knock me off my spot at the top of the power pyramid.
Assuming standard use of the words. Intentions and context are key.

I must repeat my earlier post at this point

What makes it racist or not is context. The phrases "White Power" and "Black Power" have nothing inherently racist about them. It all has to do with how they are used. If they are used to mean the SUPERIORITY of one group over another then they are racist.

Racism is the judging of a persons ability or charcter by the race they are a member of and not on their actual qualities. The same with sexism and agesim and every other "ism" out there.

Is it? It's more an example of the problems that need to be corrected for other races. How is 'power' to simply be treated fairly? It isn't power to be treated fairly, it is power to benefit from unfair treatment.

When we fight for people to have equality, we're not fighting for black people to have the 'power'. No, this is a logical impossibility; when people are equal they don't have power over another.

We're fighting for ALL people to be treated fairly. When people are talking about power, it's generally about supremacy. There is a supremacy in the US that is a generally connected group, disproportionately white, male, old and JudeoChristian. No question about it. I'm not a part of that group. Most people on this board are not a part of that group, regardless of skin color. I would love to see them lose that power and would fight along side of just about anyone to make that happen. Talking about how white people have the power is to paint us as one homogenous group with a hive brain which is exactly the problem that racism presents.No, but to be more likely to be socially mobile due to race is a form of supremacy. Simply because it isn't government issued or mandated doesn't mean it isn't a form of power.

But how many people are there total at that level of the US government?

Black people only make up about 12% of the US population. So, we ust need to find 14 non-blacks ranked as high as a Supreme Court Justice or the Secretary of State to justify the ratio.

Now, I'm not an American, so you'll have to help me out, here. How many justices on the Supreme Court? Nine? And only one of them is black?

Great, now add the President, Vice-President, Secretary of Defence... who else ranks that highly? We need three more to make our fourteen non-blacks. Otherwise, blacks are over-represented.

Ha. That's an amusing attempt, but we have several hundred people in power positions in the federal government.

How many Presidents has the US had? How many have been black? Female? Jewish? Gay? Okay, don't answer that last one. But the first three are pretty clear. The point is that black people are allowed into the government, but as of yet, we've had no black Chief Justices, no black Presidents or Vice-Presidents. CEO's, cabinet memebers, governors, etc. Look around the country. The power positions go primarily and disproportionately to white males.

Now, on the 12% thing. What percentage of that group are white? What percentage of the population? Even if blacks are evenly represented then latinos aren't, or Asians, etc. White people are overrepresented by percentage. Now, I don't think GWB represents me more than your average black man, but I do think that if it was a meritcracy, like it should be, then you would see a smaller percentage of white people in the government and in the power positions in nearly every large entity in the US.

EDIT: Actually, I just looked at GWB's cabinet and it actually is probably overrepresentative by percentage. The rest of it still holds though. If you look at voted in positions, versus appointed positions, I think you'll see a much different story.

And by the way, if you look at his general cabinet members, all kinds of races, sexes and ethnicities. His rank members are all white males.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html

Ha. That's an amusing attempt, but we have several hundred people in power positions in the federal government.

But you picked two really high up the ladder. I wanted people that powerful. The Secretary of Agriculture doesn't count.

How many Presidents has the US had? How many have been black? Female? Jewish? Gay? Okay, don't answer that last one. But the first three are pretty clear.

I don't care about historical totals. What's the distribution now?

And since there's only one President, and the vast majority of Americans are white, shouldn't the President be white pretty much all the time?

The point is that black people are allowed into the government, but as of yet, we've had no black Chief Justices, no black Presidents or Vice-Presidents.

I'd vote for Condi in 2008. :D

Now, on the 12% thing. What percentage of that group are white? What percentage of the population? Even if blacks are evenly represented then latinos aren't, or Asians, etc.

Smaller than you think, I suspect. And Latino isn't a race, it's a place of origin. It's like Jew - a religion, not a race.

It isn't power to be treated fairly, it is power to benefit from unfair treatment.

Yes, and if you demonstrate that I have benefitted from such a thing, then the generalized statement stands. More importantly, if you can show that I have benefitted more often than say Clarence Thomas or Connie Rice, I'll give you a cookie. Generalized statements without qualifications are racist.

No, this is a logical impossibility; when people are equal they don't have power over another.

Yes, exactly. I would challenge you to find anyplace where I've ended up in a position I didn't earn. I doubt you'd find it.

There are certainly those white people, but they have the power. You're right that there are people who are on the top end of that scale and those on the bottom end. Most white people aren't at the top while most non-white ethnicities are at the bottom. No matter how you switch it around the power belongs to a very small group of people by percentage who most happen to be white.

No, but to be more likely to be socially mobile due to race is a form of supremacy. Simply because it isn't government issued or mandated doesn't mean it isn't a form of power.

Let's see. You have people who are financially and socially blessed their entire lives. People who are treated fairly. And people who are not. Now the people who are in that first group are very very likely to be white. The second more likely than not and the third relatively unlikely. Yes, you're right, the people in the middle group have the power. What was I thinking? Thank you for showing me the way.


It's simple. Who has the power, the person who gets promoted on his merits but might not have been if he were black, or the person who does the promoting? The answers obviously. The people at the top have the power and they've kept it by dividing those of us at the bottom.

Assuming standard use of the words. Intentions and context are key.
exactly

there are black people who have used the concept of black power as an excuse for bad behavior. like the characters in the movie "crash" where the black carjacker justified his criminal lifestyle as some kind of anti-white power thing.

in theory "white power" could be a neutral or good thing. just because everyone who uses it now is a racist pig doesnt mean that it HAS to be that way.

But you picked two really high up the ladder. I wanted people that powerful. The Secretary of Agriculture doesn't count.



I don't care about historical totals. What's the distribution now?

And since there's only one President, and the vast majority of Americans are white, shouldn't the President be white pretty much all the time?



I'd vote for Condi in 2008. :D



Smaller than you think, I suspect. And Latino isn't a race, it's a place of origin. It's like Jew - a religion, not a race.


Actually, I didn't pick anyone. You're confusing me with another poster.

How many Americans are male? By looking at the President, 100%.

Yes, the expression White Power is racist. What's the buzz?

Actually, I just looked at GWB's cabinet and it actually is probably overrepresentative by percentage. The rest of it still holds though. If you look at voted in positions, versus appointed positions, I think you'll see a much different story.

yeah, his cabinet is fairly close what one would expect everywhere if things really were equal. well, it's got a tiny bit of an overrepresentation of evil and incompetence...

exactly

there are black people who have used the concept of black power as an excuse for bad behavior. like the characters in the movie "crash" where the black carjacker justified his criminal lifestyle as some kind of anti-white power thing.

in theory "white power" could be a neutral or good thing. just because everyone who uses it now is a racist pig doesnt mean that it HAS to be that way.
Precisely. Same with "black power"; just because its connotations are generally neutral/good, doesn't mean the words can't be used for alternative purposes.

in theory "white power" could be a neutral or good thing. just because everyone who uses it now is a racist pig doesnt mean that it HAS to be that way.

of course it isn't a necessary feature of the words themselves. it's a contingent feature of their use, history, and overwhelming justified common perception.

Yes it is used by racist people for racist intent, but does the same not apply to Black power?


No, it doesn't apply, because blacks can say or do anything they dang well please and it is called freedom of speech. Let a white person say something like it, and it becomes hate and racism. THAT'S one thing I hate about America! I love this country, but we have become a society of Double Standards. Don't you love it?:headbang:

Yesterday there was a thread about how if you say "white power" you're a racist. Well I asked my US history teacher if the teacher was wrong to say it was bad/racist to say that term; he told me "It is a racist thing to say, because we are the people with the power."

I guess that's true..

What do you think?
Of course it's racist, but not why he said. It's racist for any people to encourage one race to hold power.
Yes it is used by racist people for racist intent, but does the same not apply to Black power?
It should, yet for some reason it isn't.

Yesterday there was a thread about how if you say "white power" you're a racist. Well I asked my US history teacher if the teacher was wrong to say it was bad/racist to say that term; he told me "It is a racist thing to say, because we are the people with the power."

I guess that's true..

What do you think?

I guess. Why would we need to say it? Though I think if we can't say it. black and Hispanic and asian, people should either, yet you hear it all the time from them...

but only white people can be racist [/sarcasm]

No, it doesn't apply, because blacks can say or do anything they dang well please and it is called freedom of speech. Let a white person say something like it, and it becomes hate and racism. THAT'S one thing I hate about America! I love this country, but we have become a society of Double Standards. Don't you love it?:headbang:

um, freedom of speech in merkanland contains the concepts 'hate' and 'racism'

But how many people are there total at that level of the US government?

Black people only make up about 12% of the US population. So, we ust need to find 14 non-blacks ranked as high as a Supreme Court Justice or the Secretary of State to justify the ratio.

Now, I'm not an American, so you'll have to help me out, here. How many justices on the Supreme Court? Nine? And only one of them is black?

Great, now add the President, Vice-President, Secretary of Defence... who else ranks that highly? We need three more to make our fourteen non-blacks. Otherwise, blacks are over-represented.

There you go dividing people and looking only at their skin color. So long as that is more important to you than the job they are doing - we will always have racism.

There you go dividing people and looking only at their skin color. So long as that is more important to you than the job they are doing - we will always have racism.
yep. they should remove that line "Ethnic background" from all applications.

yep. they should remove that line "Ethnic background" from all applications.

And hide people behind screens during the interview, not allow bosses to look at them during their employment. You can't hide from racism. We have to see each other some day and if it's there it'll still be there, unfortunately.

I agree with the sentiment, however.

Yesterday there was a thread about how if you say "white power" you're a racist. Well I asked my US history teacher if the teacher was wrong to say it was bad/racist to say that term; he told me "It is a racist thing to say, because we are the people with the power."

I guess that's true..

What do you think?

I think "white power" or "black power" are as assinine as "chartreuse power." Anybody who needs to draw power from the melanin content of their skin cells has bigger problems than I am prepared to deal with.

I think "white power" or "black power" are as assinine as "chartreuse power." Anybody who needs to draw power from the melanin content of their skin cells has bigger problems than I am prepared to deal with.

and what of those who were and are specifically denied access to power on the basis of the melanin content of their skin?

and what of those who were and are specifically denied access to power on the basis of the melanin content of their skin?
Then they should have even more personal motivation to fight against racial classifications in society. They should certainly not support anything that would further entrench the bullshit idea that skin color ought to be a source of "power."

Then they should have even more personal motivation to fight against racial classifications in society. They should certainly not support anything that would further entrench the bullshit idea that skin color ought to be a source of "power."It would depend how it's used.

"<Foo> Power" seeking a fair share of power to the currently powerless <Foo> is a good thing.

"<Foo> Power" seeking disproportionate power (whether <Foo> are currently empowered or not) is a bad thing.

Of course, it's all down to perspective, and motive, and subject to hijacking by radicals or lambasting by those who fear change to the status quo.


Skin colour should not be a source of power, no. But when there has been an exclusion of power, and the offence is commited against particular phenomic traits (skin colour, hair colour, gender, etc), then the campaign to correct that injustice cannot really avoid some reference to the core categorisation that is involved.

Maybe working the title around the concept of seeking to leave oppression would be less likely to be misunderstood (by followers and adversaries and peripheral observers alike) than the use of "power", but I've honestly tried and failed to make an alternative as snappy that (at the time of its conception) would have provided the required focus. That could just be a failure of my imagination.


(You know, reading what I've read, I could easily believe you now have an impression as to my own variety of skin pigmentation. I'm now torn betwen confirming/denying your impressions or leaving it unstated as a matter of principle. Though I will confirm that I'm British, as you may well have noticed my use of the word "colour" anyway. ;))

Yes, exactly. I would challenge you to find anyplace where I've ended up in a position I didn't earn. I doubt you'd find it.Exactly. You doubt it. You can't say for sure that you didn't.

There are certainly those white people, but they have the power. You're right that there are people who are on the top end of that scale and those on the bottom end. Most white people aren't at the top while most non-white ethnicities are at the bottom. No matter how you switch it around the power belongs to a very small group of people by percentage who most happen to be white. The official power does, yes. Unofficial power would belong to a group of people who is more likely to move up in society due to the melanin content of their skin.

Let's see. You have people who are financially and socially blessed their entire lives. People who are treated fairly. And people who are not. Now the people who are in that first group are very very likely to be white. The second more likely than not and the third relatively unlikely. Yes, you're right, the people in the middle group have the power. What was I thinking? Thank you for showing me the way.The people at the top have power. There isn't just one middle group, there are people who are treated fairly and people who have a slight edge due to the color of their skin. The latter of these two groups has more power than the group of people who are treated fairly.

It's simple. Who has the power, the person who gets promoted on his merits but might not have been if he were black, or the person who does the promoting? Both of them have power; obviously the person who does the promoting has more power, but the person who may or may not have been promoted on their merits also has power over the person who wasn't promoted.

The answers obviously. The people at the top have the power and they've kept it by dividing those of us at the bottom.And many of us at the bottom insist that we're not divided.

and what of those who were and are specifically denied access to power on the basis of the melanin content of their skin?
You mean like these guys?

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=52938

JACKSONVILLE, FL -- A race discrimination lawsuit pitting several Jacksonville firefighters against the city has come to an end in federal court last Friday.

The jury sided with the firefighters. Four lieutenants claimed their promotion to Captain was blocked by then Fire Chief Ray Alfred.

The firemen claimed race was a factor. The firefighters are white, the fire chief, black.

Exactly. You doubt it. You can't say for sure that you didn't.

You can say that about anybody of any color. I like how because I'm white you assume it makes a difference. Shows where your priorities are.

The official power does, yes. Unofficial power would belong to a group of people who is more likely to move up in society due to the melanin content of their skin.

And that power still does not belong to everyone who is white, no matter how much you try to claim it is. To pretend as if all white people have the power is racist. Like I said, it's very important to you to blame on the people in the middle of the spectrum instead of focusing on the people on the high end of the spectrum who are holding down the people on the low end of the spectrum. Good that you have your priorities straight. The people power love you. As long as you're focusing on me, you're ignoring them. I don't have the power to give anyone. Keep focusing on me and you'll never address the problem.

The people at the top have power. There isn't just one middle group, there are people who are treated fairly and people who have a slight edge due to the color of their skin. The latter of these two groups has more power than the group of people who are treated fairly.

Really?? That's sounds like exactly what I said. I'm glad that you're able to restate my ideas. Have any other ideas that I already expressed that you can explain to me?

Both of them have power; obviously the person who does the promoting has more power, but the person who may or may not have been promoted on their merits also has power over the person who wasn't promoted.

And many of us at the bottom insist that we're not divided.

Who's dividing us? It's not me. I would treat everyone equally. As long as long as you promote the racist idea that I have power because of the color of my skin and because I happen to have that in common with the people who actually have the power, you're the problem, not me. The people in the middle don't have the power, they just don't lack it. The power that the people at the bottom don't have was taken by the people at the top. As long as you treat me like I should apologize or in any way be treated differently just because of the color of my skin you perpetuate the problem.

You can say that about anybody of any color. I like how because I'm white you assume it makes a difference. Shows where your priorities are.Yes, I would assume it makes a difference, since, as we've established, the majority of people in power are white. If we assumed a static rate of racism among all races, the amount of racism that they exhibited would be in favor of whites.

With that said, I do not wish to denigrate your accomplishments, but unfortunately I don't see any reason you should choose to believe that.

And that power still does not belong to everyone who is white, no matter how much you try to claim it is. To pretend as if all white people have the power is racist. To say that white people benefit from racism is not racist. If I said that all white people were racist, that would be, but that isn't what I said.

Like I said, it's very important to you to blame on the people in the middle of the spectrum instead of focusing on the people on the high end of the spectrum who are holding down the people on the low end of the spectrum. Why should this be important to me?

Good that you have your priorities straight. The people power love you. As long as you're focusing on me, you're ignoring them. I don't have the power to give anyone. Keep focusing on me and you'll never address the problem. To focus on any one person or group is to avoid addressing the whole scope of the problem.

Really?? That's sounds like exactly what I said. I'm glad that you're able to restate my ideas. Have any other ideas that I already expressed that you can explain to me?What I said isn't what you expressed. You made an analogy of three groups of people, I said there were four.

Who's dividing us? It's not me. I would treat everyone equally. As long as long as you promote the racist idea that I have power because of the color of my skin and because I happen to have that in common with the people who actually have the power, you're the problem, not me. Are you saying that if you knew you benefitted from racism, say for example, that you got a promotion because of it, that you would refuse the promotion and raise enough of a stink about it to embarrass the person doing the promoting? Can you say this about most of the white people you know?

The people in the middle don't have the power, they just don't lack it. The power that the people at the bottom don't have was taken by the people at the top. Are you saying that a person who receives a promotion because of the color of their skin doesn't have an advantage over somebody who doesn't?

As long as you treat me like I should apologize or in any way be treated differently just because of the color of my skin you perpetuate the problem.As long as you don't realize that you are treated differently because of the color of your skin, you perpetuate the problem.

Without 500 lines of quotations, I'd still like to say I'm with Biafra on this one...

Yes, I would assume it makes a difference, since, as we've established, the majority of people in power are white. If we assumed a static rate of racism among all races, the amount of racism that they exhibited would be in favor of whites.

With that said, I do not wish to denigrate your accomplishments, but unfortunately I don't see any reason you should choose to believe that.

There you go. You can't assume a static rate of racism. We could assume a static rate of crime since blacks commit a disproportionate amount of it (read: are convicted of it), but that would be racist. When talking about individuals, and, I assure you, I am an individual, it is racist to act as if their individual actions or accomplishments are somehow different because of their race. You're assuming these things because I'm white. I think we've established that you think it's okay to be racist if you're doing it against whites. Me, I like to treat people as individuals.

To say that white people benefit from racism is not racist. If I said that all white people were racist, that would be, but that isn't what I said.

Yes, it is. To say some white people benefit is not racist. To assume, that an individual person benefits simply because they're white in the absense of evidence is racist. You admit you're assuming that about me, an individual.

Why should this be important to me?

Good question. It seems like people have been forcefeeding you this shit since you were a child and now you've convinced yourself it's ice cream. As long as you focus on the wrong problem, they win.

To focus on any one person or group is to avoid addressing the whole scope of the problem.

No, it's not. See you don't need to change my group. My group is simply being treated fairly as you, yourself, commented on. If you fix the people who are stealing the power, if you stop them, then the problem goes away. And you want help from people like me, so as long as you even make it appear that it's people like me that are the problem, you're being counterproductive. I'm not a part of the scope of the problem. That's exactly what you don't get. You pretend as if the fact that some people are being treated equally is a part of the problem. The real problem is that some people are not being treated fairly and that some people are intentionally preventing that from happening. It appears to me that you're one of them.

What I said isn't what you expressed. You made an analogy of three groups of people, I said there were four.

Yes, I see. That's a huge difference. Oh, wait, but it's not actually what you said. According to you, if I have white skin I must have an advantage accorded by my skin, so much so that it's safe to assume. You need to get your story straight because you claimed four groups but you don't accept it's possible that one of those groups exist. I only mentioned three groups, but the only arguing for the four groups here is me. I'm the only one that accepts that some white people are simply treated fairly. I've also specifically stated that some white people are given jobs specifically because they're white. Maybe we described differently, but the only true to your 'vision' of the spectrum is me.

By the way, it's not an analogy when I describe reality. I wasn't making a comparison. I pointed out something that actually exists.

Are you saying that if you knew you benefitted from racism, say for example, that you got a promotion because of it, that you would refuse the promotion and raise enough of a stink about it to embarrass the person doing the promoting? Can you say this about most of the white people you know?

If I was the most qualified person for the job, why they recognized it would not matter to me. If I wasn't, I wouldn't want to promotion. And that's a fact. And would most white people do that? No. Most PEOPLE wouldn't do that. Most PEOPLE do nothing that isn't in their self-interest. Most PEOPLE won't even stand up and do anything if they were there when people were being beaten in the streets during the 60's. If most PEOPLE behaved as you're describing, racism would have been dead a long time ago. It's not because the majority of people, all colors of people, look out for themselves.

Are you saying that a person who receives a promotion because of the color of their skin doesn't have an advantage over somebody who doesn't?

No. I'm saying that someone who deserves a promotion and would not have gotten had they been black does not have an advantage. The black person has a disadvantage, but the person who is making it unfair is not the person who got the promotion on their merits. It's the person denying black people opportunity. Taking the job from the white person won't give it to the black person. It will simply give it to another qualified white person. As long as you pretend that the person being treated fairly is the problem or even a part of it, you will always have the problems we do today. A quest for equality takes nothing from the person who is already treated fairly, but people have managed to prevent that from happening because they make people afraid that they will eventually stop being treated fairly. It's exactly that thinking that makes people afraid of feminism and affirmative action. Affirmative action does not give jobs to people becuase they're black. It gives jobs to people who are qualified who deserve equality of opportunity.

As long as you don't realize that you are treated differently because of the color of your skin, you perpetuate the problem.
Again, you assume that this is a given. I realize that white people are in general treated better because their skin. However, the fact that you assume it must happen to ALL individual white people proves that you don't even understand the remotest part of the problem. Assuming that I am inherently different from a black man in the same position in life as I am because we have different color skins is racist, but you keep saying it and you think it's okay because you think you're addressing the "problem". The only problem here is that you lack the ability to focus the problem on the cause instead you blame it on those who have nothing to do with the problem because of the color of their skin. I define that as racism. You are specifically and intentionally treating me differently because I'm white. I don't know how you define racism, but this case seems pretty classic.

"Until we realize that the problem that people with their legs blown off have is that some people with two legs are out their running, we will never fix the problem. Sure, I mean we could focus on the people who are blowing the legs of these other people, but why when we can complain that the people who aren't having their legs off are enjoying their legs."

You're concerned because I have legs. Complaining that I use my legs and it's not fair will never solve the problem. I'm not advantaged by having legs. The problem is that there are people out their blowing the legs off of a large group of people. Focus on the problem my friend and stop telling me I should feel guilty for not being the victim.

Without 500 lines of quotations, I'd still like to say I'm with Biafra on this one...

What? I'm shocked.

What? I'm shocked.

Sowwy. But I still stand with it.

There you go. You can't assume a static rate of racism.I can't assume any other level of racism, after all, it would be racist of me to say that white people or non-white people are more likely to be racists. Anyway, this part really doesn't matter, as we both accept that certain whites in power are racists, and that other whites benefit from it.

We could assume a static rate of crime since blacks commit a disproportionate amount of it (read: are convicted of it), but that would be racist. True, though I don't believe that simply pointing out that blacks are convicted of crime at higher rates than whites is racist.

When talking about individuals, and, I assure you, I am an individual, it is racist to act as if their individual actions or accomplishments are somehow different because of their race. No, I'm saying that the way most other people view an individual's actions and accomplishments depends on the race of the individual and the race of the person viewing them.

You're assuming these things because I'm white. I think we've established that you think it's okay to be racist if you're doing it against whites. I never said it was okay to be racist if you're doing it against whites.

Me, I like to treat people as individuals.As do I, but I accept that most other people don't.

Yes, it is. To say some white people benefit is not racist. To assume, that an individual person benefits simply because they're white in the absense of evidence is racist. You admit you're assuming that about me, an individual. No, I believe that racism is prevalent enough that to assume that any individual has not gained or lost because of it is rather silly. I can't imagine a scenario where anyone can have a normal life, grow into adulthood and never have been treated differently because of their race, unless they live in a racially homogenized society.

Good question. It seems like people have been forcefeeding you this shit since you were a child and now you've convinced yourself it's ice cream. As long as you focus on the wrong problem, they win.I don't know about being forcefed racism; I do know that most white people won't call someone a "******" to their face, but they'll do it behind their backs. I've noticed this personally on a number of occasions.

No, it's not. See you don't need to change my group. My group is simply being treated fairly as you, yourself, commented on. If you fix the people who are stealing the power, if you stop them, then the problem goes away. And you want help from people like me, so as long as you even make it appear that it's people like me that are the problem, you're being counterproductive. I'm not a part of the scope of the problem. That's exactly what you don't get. You pretend as if the fact that some people are being treated equally is a part of the problem. The real problem is that some people are not being treated fairly and that some people are intentionally preventing that from happening. It appears to me that you're one of them.Okay, here's a scenario. A black person and a white person are both qualified for a job. Since the particular qualifications are not known, we can't say which of them is more qualified. The white person gets the job. Which of them has been treated fairly?

Now, let's say this happens 500 times. Has everyone been treated fairly in all 500 cases?

Yes, I see. That's a huge difference. Oh, wait, but it's not actually what you said. According to you, if I have white skin I must have an advantage accorded by my skin, so much so that it's safe to assume. No, that's what I said.

You need to get your story straight because you claimed four groups but you don't accept it's possible that one of those groups exist. Well, I don't believe it's possible for any group, whites, blacks, etc. to be treated fairly except in individual cases.

I only mentioned three groups, but the only arguing for the four groups here is me. I'm the only one that accepts that some white people are simply treated fairly. In some instances yes, in others, no. It's entirely possible that a person could be treated fairly in employment, but not be treated fairly in other aspects of society; they may get preferential treatment in stores or in clubs, for instance.

I've also specifically stated that some white people are given jobs specifically because they're white. Maybe we described differently, but the only true to your 'vision' of the spectrum is me.

By the way, it's not an analogy when I describe reality. I wasn't making a comparison. I pointed out something that actually exists.Fair enough.

If I was the most qualified person for the job, why they recognized it would not matter to me. Well, I can't really say whether or not you would be, I don't know how you would know either, qualifications differ depending on the individual doing the hiring and the company you're working for. (As well as the job itself.)

If I wasn't, I wouldn't want to promotion. And that's a fact. And would most white people do that? No. Most PEOPLE wouldn't do that. Most PEOPLE do nothing that isn't in their self-interest. Most PEOPLE won't even stand up and do anything if they were there when people were being beaten in the streets during the 60's. If most PEOPLE behaved as you're describing, racism would have been dead a long time ago. It's not because the majority of people, all colors of people, look out for themselves.I agree. If it was a black person or some other race benefitting from racism, it would be equally wrong for them to do so.

No. I'm saying that someone who deserves a promotion and would not have gotten had they been black does not have an advantage. The black person has a disadvantage, but the person who is making it unfair is not the person who got the promotion on their merits. It's entirely possible to have a fair advantage.

It's the person denying black people opportunity. Taking the job from the white person won't give it to the black person. It will simply give it to another qualified white person. As long as you pretend that the person being treated fairly is the problem or even a part of it, you will always have the problems we do today. A quest for equality takes nothing from the person who is already treated fairly, but people have managed to prevent that from happening because they make people afraid that they will eventually stop being treated fairly. It's exactly that thinking that makes people afraid of feminism and affirmative action. Affirmative action does not give jobs to people becuase they're black. It gives jobs to people who are qualified who deserve equality of opportunity.Well, in these issues, we are agreed. It wouldn't work to take the job from the white person, because that would not consider individual cases. A general policy of affirmative action would, or at least could work.

Again, you assume that this is a given. I realize that white people are in general treated better because their skin. However, the fact that you assume it must happen to ALL individual white people proves that you don't even understand the remotest part of the problem. I don't agree, I think to accept that it happens to almost all individual white people at some point of their lives is to understand the massive scope of the problem that is racism.

Assuming that I am inherently different from a black man in the same position in life as I am because we have different color skins is racist, but you keep saying it and you think it's okay because you think you're addressing the "problem". The only problem here is that you lack the ability to focus the problem on the cause instead you blame it on those who have nothing to do with the problem because of the color of their skin. I define that as racism. You are specifically and intentionally treating me differently because I'm white. I don't know how you define racism, but this case seems pretty classic.No, I'm saying that you are treated differently, not that you actually are different.

"Until we realize that the problem that people with their legs blown off have is that some people with two legs are out their running, we will never fix the problem. Sure, I mean we could focus on the people who are blowing the legs of these other people, but why when we can complain that the people who aren't having their legs off are enjoying their legs."Lol. This is an amusing analogy.

You're concerned because I have legs. Complaining that I use my legs and it's not fair will never solve the problem. I'm not advantaged by having legs. The problem is that there are people out their blowing the legs off of a large group of people. Focus on the problem my friend and stop telling me I should feel guilty for not being the victim.I'm not saying that you should feel guilty, I'm saying that the scope of racism is greater than you seem to realize, that's all.

Without 500 lines of quotations, I'd still like to say I'm with Biafra on this one...
What? I'm shocked.Me, too.

I can't assume any other level of racism, after all, it would be racist of me to say that white people or non-white people are more likely to be racists. Anyway, this part really doesn't matter, as we both accept that certain whites in power are racists, and that SOME other whites benefit from it.

CORRECTED TO MAKE IT ACCURATE

True, though I don't believe that simply pointing out that blacks are convicted of crime at higher rates than whites is racist.

Rates indicate a generality which is okay. Generalizing about an individual is racist. Generalizing for the purpose of a statistic is acceptable. If I said I'm assuming Joe Schmo Blackguy committed a crime because he's black, then it would racist. Just like saying that an individual is white you can assume they benefitted from racism.

No, I'm saying that the way most other people view an individual's actions and accomplishments depends on the race of the individual and the race of the person viewing them.

I don't agree that it's most. And, no, you didn't. You said that my accomplishments are because I'm white. There is no question that this is racist, as the only evidence you have is the color of my skin.

I never said it was okay to be racist if you're doing it against whites.

I didn't say you said it. I said your actions indicate it. You are being racist against whites when you make the assumptions against individuals based on generalities.

As do I, but I accept that most other people don't.

No, you don't. You don't get it. We're arguing because you are treating me as if I must have benefitted by being white without any evidence except my skin color. That's not treating me as an individual. That's treating me as a member of the group called white people.

No, I believe that racism is prevalent enough that to assume that any individual has not gained or lost because of it is rather silly. I can't imagine a scenario where anyone can have a normal life, grow into adulthood and never have been treated differently because of their race, unless they live in a racially homogenized society.

I didn't say I've never been treated differently. We are talking about my accomplishments. If you are going to count the benefits of my race that you can't be sure occurred, then please also weigh in how I was jumped for being a skinhead when I shaved my head before heading to Norway or the times I was attacked for being a whiteboy in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time of night. Incidentally, I'm not assuming that is why. I was told that was why.

I don't know about being forcefed racism; I do know that most white people won't call someone a "******" to their face, but they'll do it behind their backs. I've noticed this personally on a number of occasions.

Most? I know of a handful of white people in my life that have used that word in the derogatory fashion (as opposed to how you just used it). Most of them have been older people who grew up at a different time. Does it happen? Sure. Is there any evidence that it's most? No. I've never seen any. Feel free to prove me wrong, however.

Okay, here's a scenario. A black person and a white person are both qualified for a job. Since the particular qualifications are not known, we can't say which of them is more qualified. The white person gets the job. Which of them has been treated fairly?

You didn't give enough information.

Now, let's say this happens 500 times. Has everyone been treated fairly in all 500 cases?

Again, you didn't give enough information. Meanwhile, I have never claimed it never happens or that it's fair. The point is that you want to act as if the person being treated fairly is the problem. If the white person is qualified and the black person is qualified. The white person got the job they were qualified for. The black person didn't get the job they were qualified for. If this was due to race then the person who is the problem is not the white person who got the job. They don't have any special power. The person who had the power mistreated the black guy. The white didn't get special treatment. They got a job they were qualified for.

No, that's what I said.

Well, I don't believe it's possible for any group, whites, blacks, etc. to be treated fairly except in individual cases.

Really? Huh. Seems to be exactly what I was saying.

In some instances yes, in others, no. It's entirely possible that a person could be treated fairly in employment, but not be treated fairly in other aspects of society; they may get preferential treatment in stores or in clubs, for instance.

Yes, and this is true regardless of the color of their skin. And if we were generalizing this is more broad problem between rich people and poor people than white people and black people.

Fair enough.

Well, I can't really say whether or not you would be, I don't know how you would know either, qualifications differ depending on the individual doing the hiring and the company you're working for. (As well as the job itself.)

I know my qualifications better than they do. If I'm qualified for the job, what qualifications someone else has makes no difference.

I agree. If it was a black person or some other race benefitting from racism, it would be equally wrong for them to do so.

Only if they were doing it on purpose. They haven't done anything wrong simply by accepting a job they are qualified for that will NEVER go to someone of another race. Now, if they can evidence that this was the basis for the decision, then I personally think they should take action. But assuming is simply going to make them unemployed and still won't address the problem.

[QUOTE=Jello Biafra]It's entirely possible to have a fair advantage.

I'm not advantaged simply by not being disadvantaged. It's silly. Again, I'm not at the leading edge of the spectrum. I'm in the middle. I'm not taking anything I didn't earn nor is anyone taking from me something I earned. You know why they call it narrow-minded. Because when people do it, they narrow the spectrum until they can justify their beliefs. That's exactly what you're doing now. The people who are advantage and taking away from the minorities are not me.

By that measure, everything that isn't broken about is, is an advantage. "Hey, he's got an advantage in this race. He doesn't have a broken leg like the guy who can't run today."

Well, in these issues, we are agreed. It wouldn't work to take the job from the white person, because that would not consider individual cases. A general policy of affirmative action would, or at least could work.

Does work, in my opinion. However, affirmative actions does not use quota specifically because individuals should be treated as individuals. It looks an hiring trends and general populations. Your hirings should generally resemble the population of available candidates.

I don't agree, I think to accept that it happens to almost all individual white people at some point of their lives is to understand the massive scope of the problem that is racism.

I don't agree. First, you didn't say almost all. You said all. Secondly, many, many people benefit from all kinds of things that are not meritorious. Acknowledging that fact is not the same as acting as if particular individuals are benefitting. They are two different things and only loosely related.

Until we focus on the cause rather than the effect we are simply swiping at air. The cause is not me. You can't even be sure the effect is me. Yet you choose to focus on me as if it does anything at all. I'm not the problem or a symptom of the problem. I happen to have something in common with the cause of the problem and because of this you view me differently. It's a rather bizarre way to combat the problem of treating people differently because of the color of their skin.

No, I'm saying that you are treated differently, not that you actually are different.

Again, you are assuming it with any evidence other than the color of my skin. Racism. Acknowledging skin color is no different that acknowledging hair color. Feel free to do it. However, when you starting making assumptions about me based on the color of my skin, we part ways.

Lol. This is an amusing analogy.

I'm not saying that you should feel guilty, I'm saying that the scope of racism is greater than you seem to realize, that's all.
I realize the scope of racism and its effects. I'm simply not silly enough to pretend as if anything other than a policy directed at the cause will have any really effect on solving the problem. As long as you refer to the innocent people, bystanders who are simply being treated fairly in an unfair system as if they are the problem, and you used that word, then you will never really address the true problem.

TCT often talks about how people bitch that rich people get away with crimes. They aren't getting away with anything (most of them aren't anyway). They are simply getting the fair trial that all of us should be afforded. Michael Jackson was given the trial he deserved and was not convicted because the evidence didn't support a conviction. He didn't get special rights. His money protects his rights. Should I pretend the people who can afford proper representation and get a fair trial are the problem. or can we accept that the problem is the fact that poor people are not afforded a fair trial and this is due to a broken system? It's the same thing. Don't act as if the people being treated fairly are somehow a problem. The problem is that some people's rights are NOT being protected and let's work together to address that. The fact that it's not all people has nothing to do with how wrong it is or what the solution is.

Rates indicate a generality which is okay. Generalizing about an individual is racist. Generalizing for the purpose of a statistic is acceptable. If I said I'm assuming Joe Schmo Blackguy committed a crime because he's black, then it would racist. Just like saying that an individual is white you can assume they benefitted from racism. I don't agree that the last sentence is a racist sentence.

I don't agree that it's most. And, no, you didn't. You said that my accomplishments are because I'm white. There is no question that this is racist, as the only evidence you have is the color of my skin.I don't agree that that is what I said. Here is what I believe you are referring to:

Jocabia: Yes, exactly. I would challenge you to find anyplace where I've ended up in a position I didn't earn. I doubt you'd find it.

Jello Biafra: Exactly. You doubt it. You can't say for sure that you didn't.

I said that because, as I later said, I believe that racism is a prevalent problem, so prevalent that an individual can really have no way of knowing whether or not they've benefitted from it.

I didn't say you said it. I said your actions indicate it. You are being racist against whites when you make the assumptions against individuals based on generalities. I don't agree that it's a generality. I believe that to say "white people have benefitted from racism at some point in their lives" is the same as saying "white people have fingerprints."

No, you don't. You don't get it. We're arguing because you are treating me as if I must have benefitted by being white without any evidence except my skin color. That's not treating me as an individual. That's treating me as a member of the group called white people.I honestly don't know enough about you to treat you entirely as an individual.

I didn't say I've never been treated differently.Okay, are you saying you've never received beneficial treatment?

We are talking about my accomplishments. If you are going to count the benefits of my race that you can't be sure occurred, then please also weigh in how I was jumped for being a skinhead when I shaved my head before heading to Norway or the times I was attacked for being a whiteboy in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time of night. Incidentally, I'm not assuming that is why. I was told that was why.Certainly racism is not all one sided; there are going to be drawbacks for being a member of a race, as well.

Most? I know of a handful of white people in my life that have used that word in the derogatory fashion (as opposed to how you just used it). Most of them have been older people who grew up at a different time. Does it happen? Sure. Is there any evidence that it's most? No. I've never seen any. Feel free to prove me wrong, however.I wish to withdraw that statement. It should have read "most white people that I know". I can't imagine that my area is particularly unique in this regard.

You didn't give enough information.

Again, you didn't give enough information. Meanwhile, I have never claimed it never happens or that it's fair. The point is that you want to act as if the person being treated fairly is the problem. If the white person is qualified and the black person is qualified. The white person got the job they were qualified for. The black person didn't get the job they were qualified for. If this was due to race then the person who is the problem is not the white person who got the job. They don't have any special power. The person who had the power mistreated the black guy. The white didn't get special treatment. They got a job they were qualified for. That they might not have gotten if not for the racial bias of the person doing the hiring.

Really? Huh. Seems to be exactly what I was saying.I think it's slightly different than what you were saying, but it seems clear to me that we agree on more than we disagree on.

Yes, and this is true regardless of the color of their skin. And if we were generalizing this is more broad problem between rich people and poor people than white people and black people. There are people who believe affirmative action should be altered to be class-based instead of race-based.

I know my qualifications better than they do. If I'm qualified for the job, what qualifications someone else has makes no difference. Yes, but do you always know what qualifications the person doing the hiring is looking for?

Only if they were doing it on purpose. They haven't done anything wrong simply by accepting a job they are qualified for that will NEVER go to someone of another race. Now, if they can evidence that this was the basis for the decision, then I personally think they should take action. But assuming is simply going to make them unemployed and still won't address the problem.

I'm not advantaged simply by not being disadvantaged. It's silly. Again, I'm not at the leading edge of the spectrum. I'm in the middle. I'm not taking anything I didn't earn nor is anyone taking from me something I earned. You know why they call it narrow-minded. Because when people do it, they narrow the spectrum until they can justify their beliefs. That's exactly what you're doing now. The people who are advantage and taking away from the minorities are not me.

By that measure, everything that isn't broken about is, is an advantage. "Hey, he's got an advantage in this race. He doesn't have a broken leg like the guy who can't run today."I've lumped these together to address a separate point, which will be below.

Does work, in my opinion. However, affirmative actions does not use quota specifically because individuals should be treated as individuals. It looks an hiring trends and general populations. Your hirings should generally resemble the population of available candidates.Affirmative action is why I'm harping on this point. There are plenty of people who are against affirmative action because they don't believe that racism is prevalent or that blacks are disadvantaged. You seem to agree on this part. Where we differ is that you don't view whites as being advantaged. I do. I don't see how it's possible for one side to be disadvantaged without the other side being advantaged, even if it's only in comparison to the other side.

Incidentally, I also agree with what you've said; affirmative action should exist, but not employ a quota system; its goal should be to have a company's hiring resemble the population of available candidates.

I don't agree. First, you didn't say almost all. You said all. I did allow for people who spend their lives in racially homogenized environments.

Secondly, many, many people benefit from all kinds of things that are not meritorious. Acknowledging that fact is not the same as acting as if particular individuals are benefitting. They are two different things and only loosely related. I agree that they are loosely related, but related nonetheless.
Until we focus on the cause rather than the effect we are simply swiping at air. The cause is not me. You can't even be sure the effect is me. Yet you choose to focus on me as if it does anything at all. I'm not the problem or a symptom of the problem. I happen to have something in common with the cause of the problem and because of this you view me differently. It's a rather bizarre way to combat the problem of treating people differently because of the color of their skin.In this instance, you can't fix on the cause without focusing on the effect, because in order to convince people that affirmative action is necessary, you have to convince them that they are the effect.

Again, you are assuming it with any evidence other than the color of my skin. Racism. Acknowledging skin color is no different that acknowledging hair color. I agree, but many other people do not.

Feel free to do it. However, when you starting making assumptions about me based on the color of my skin, we part ways.I've made one assumption, and it's the only assumption that I would make.

I realize the scope of racism and its effects. I'm simply not silly enough to pretend as if anything other than a policy directed at the cause will have any really effect on solving the problem. As long as you refer to the innocent people, bystanders who are simply being treated fairly in an unfair system as if they are the problem, and you used that word, then you will never really address the true problem.

TCT often talks about how people bitch that rich people get away with crimes. They aren't getting away with anything (most of them aren't anyway). They are simply getting the fair trial that all of us should be afforded. Michael Jackson was given the trial he deserved and was not convicted because the evidence didn't support a conviction. He didn't get special rights. His money protects his rights. I agree with you in this instance.

Should I pretend the people who can afford proper representation and get a fair trial are the problem. or can we accept that the problem is the fact that poor people are not afforded a fair trial and this is due to a broken system? No, that the system is broken and that poor people don't get fair trials is the problem, but one of the symptoms of that problem is that money is required to protect a person's rights.

It's the same thing. Don't act as if the people being treated fairly are somehow a problem. The problem is that some people's rights are NOT being protected and let's work together to address that. The fact that it's not all people has nothing to do with how wrong it is or what the solution is.I disagree with part of this, but I think we are agreed on what the solution is, and that's the important part.

I understood that the term was a development of the term Black Power. Yes it is used by racist people for racist intent, but does the same not apply to Black power?
The only difference is that the white people had power when both terms were first used. Whether this makes the term white power more racist or whether it is simply more offensive as it is effectively gloating, I don't know.

I believe that those who initiate the use of the term "black power" hoped to use it to combat racism and to promote equality with whites. The term "white power" arose in response, used by those who liked the status quo and so were tacitly in favour of racism and opposed equality, because traditionally yes, it was the white man who already had all the power. So it definitely has strong racist connotations.

I believe that those who initiate the use of the term "black power" hoped to use it to combat racism and to promote equality with whites. The term "white power" arose in response, used by those who liked the status quo and so were tacitly in favour of racism and opposed equality, because traditionally yes, it was the white man who already had all the power. So it definitely has strong racist connotations.

That may be the case, but as often happens in any attempt to offset past discriminatory behaviour, the discrimination is carried over into the attempt.

By explicitly separating the pool of human beings into two groups - Black and non black, the black power movement simply adopted the pre existing demarcation.

To eliminate discrimination the factor that was being used to discriminate has to become a non factor. There was a time when left handed people were discriminated against (where does the term sinister derive from?) but as handedness is simply no longer a factor in our evaluation of people this discrimination disappeared. I recognise that skin colour is more obvious than handedness, but the same principle applies. While it is a factor, in any way, discrimination will continue.

True, though I don't believe that simply pointing out that blacks are convicted of crime at higher rates than whites is racist.

Well, the real question here isn't so much whether you are racist or not by pointing out this statistic, but whether the statistic is racist in itself.

Wouldn't it be less racist to research crime rates within different socio-economic sectors of the population?

Yesterday there was a thread about how if you say "white power" you're a racist. Well I asked my US history teacher if the teacher was wrong to say it was bad/racist to say that term; he told me "It is a racist thing to say, because we are the people with the power."

I guess that's true..

What do you think?


Your teacher is absolutely right! That is the reason why white people dont get upset when Chris Rock makes fun of them(us) - because they(we) are the ones in power - basically everywhere.

I mean you saw what happens if you mock Mohammed in a cartoon( i am not saying religion and race is the same but the argument applies to minorities in general - race, religion, sexual orientation,..)

Well, the real question here isn't so much whether you are racist or not by pointing out this statistic, but whether the statistic is racist in itself.

Wouldn't be less racist to research crime rates within different socio-economic sectors of the population?

You stole that from American History X! - although a good point.

http://6pack.tv/Media/resources/Image/thumbs18/blackwhitesupremacist.gif

WHITE POWER!

http://6pack.tv/Media/resources/Image/thumbs18/blackwhitesupremacist.gif

WHITE POWER!
:eek:

You stole that from American History X! - although a good point.

ROFL could you tell me more about that (a book maybe?) The only history books I've read were the ones they forced me in school... and they were Portuguese History ones...

I don't agree that the last sentence is a racist sentence.

This getting overly complicated. Riddle me this, Batman - is it racist to make assumptions, and act as if those assumptions MUST be true, about an individual based solely on the color of their skin?

Okay, are you saying you've never received beneficial treatment?

I'm saying I don't have any reason to believe the net outcome of having my skin was a benefit.

Certainly racism is not all one sided; there are going to be drawbacks for being a member of a race, as well.

I wish to withdraw that statement. It should have read "most white people that I know". I can't imagine that my area is particularly unique in this regard.

I don't think it's unique. If you were simply talking about most white people I wouldn't be arguing with you.

Yes, but do you always know what qualifications the person doing the hiring is looking for?

Generally, yes. I've never actually held a job I wasn't overqualified for in retrospect, so I'm probably not the best example. I can tell you I've gained more favor in hiring by my looks than anything else.

I've lumped these together to address a separate point, which will be below.

Affirmative action is why I'm harping on this point. There are plenty of people who are against affirmative action because they don't believe that racism is prevalent or that blacks are disadvantaged. You seem to agree on this part. Where we differ is that you don't view whites as being advantaged. I do. I don't see how it's possible for one side to be disadvantaged without the other side being advantaged, even if it's only in comparison to the other side.

See, the problem is that you are not recognizing who the 'other side' is. That's why the disagreement. I don't view whites as being advantaged. I view some whites as being advantaged. I would argue that all whites were advantaged if in life we only competed with black people for jobs. We don't. White people compete against white people as well. In fact, in a society where only 13% of people are black and 78% are white, it seems like I would generally only compete with white people for work. Amusingly, I tend to think the people who are the cause of the problem are suffering as well, because rather than getting the best candidate they are getting only the best candidate from the pool they are willing to consider.

First of all, let me preface this post with two things. Firstly, in retrospect, I believe I may have been flippant when you discussed the topic of how you were beaten up for what may have been your race. I'm sorry that this happened to you, or to anyone. The second is that I believe I may have offended you when I used what I shall use when talking to you from now on as the 'N' word. It was not my intention to offend you, or anyone else with my use of that word.

I'm saying I don't have any reason to believe the net outcome of having my skin was a benefit.Perhaps not.

I don't think it's unique. If you were simply talking about most white people I wouldn't be arguing with you.Oh, no, I wasn't saying that all white people were racists, but we still have a long way to go.

Generally, yes. I've never actually held a job I wasn't overqualified for in retrospect, so I'm probably not the best example. I can tell you I've gained more favor in hiring by my looks than anything else.Well, that's a separate issue, which is also a problem, but one that can't be rectified by affirmative action.

See, the problem is that you are not recognizing who the 'other side' is. That's why the disagreement. I don't view whites as being advantaged. I view some whites as being advantaged. I would argue that all whites were advantaged if in life we only competed with black people for jobs. We don't. White people compete against white people as well. In fact, in a society where only 13% of people are black and 78% are white, it seems like I would generally only compete with white people for work. Amusingly, I tend to think the people who are the cause of the problem are suffering as well, because rather than getting the best candidate they are getting only the best candidate from the pool they are willing to consider.Actually, if that is what we're talking about then I am in agreement. If whites only compete against other whites for a particular job, then certainly it isn't possible for all of them to be advantaged. Only when whites compete against non whites would I say that whites are advantaged.

I would also agree that the racists suffer because they don't necessarily hire the best candidate.

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: There. No more racists.