NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is the thread, to bring it all out...all the white angst (or more specifically all the white male angst). Because whenever there is a discussion on racism, white people want to point out that they too suffer. And some of these complaints are legitimate...and some are smokescreens.

So come one, come all...this is the thread to debate hated things like, 'affirmative action', and 'paying for the sins of the fathers' etc, etc. It seems I can't discuss aboriginal issues without triggering white victimisation, so bring it on.

And please people...don't accuse everyone who comments of being the same as the extreme white racists...it'll only shut things down. That type are pretty easily identifiable, no need to assume that everyone bringing up an issue is a closet Aryan case.

I am the opressed middle class white male. where are the tablets


Seriously though I think everyones just a bit too good at feeling sorry for themselves. My message to them. STOP

I can agree to a certain extent...and wallowing in self pity doesn't get you too far. BUT, there is a difference, I think, in recognising systemic discrimination, both historical and present, and working to alleviate it....and just whining about how whitey keeps us down.

The problem is...it is very convenient for people to dismiss the former as simply being the latter. And that pisses me off.

I'm against affirmative action and reparations. I am also black. Zing!

I am the opressed middle class white male. where are the tablets


Seriously though I think everyones just a bit too good at feeling sorry for themselves. My message to them. STOP

Actually, I do think that there are cases where whites are legitimately victims. It seems off when someone of the non-coloured variety complains about racism because we are seem as 'immune' to it, and that we are somehow deserving of it. Further on this, we are led to believe that it isn't racism when it happens to us, and hence, we are unprepared when it does happen and don't recognised it when it happens.

I can remember a concrete example of this and it happened to me, and like I said above, it's something I didn't recognise and was not prepared for. it took someone, a casual observer to report it to my boss, and for my boss to ask me if I had any grievances. I told him I didn't understand and when he told me that another had witnessed racism against me, I admitted I didn't even realise it had happened.

White people are never prepared for it and have become soft targets for racists of other ethnic backgrounds because we are conditioned to believe that racism doesn't happen to us even when it does.

Kryozerkia...

There are plenty of instances of very obvious racism against whites on a one-to-one level...'fucking whitey' is something a lot of Indians say all too often, and it always makes me cringe. It definitely exists, and some of it is pretty blatant. More subtle stuff? Yes, that might be harder to see.

But as with racism against non-whites, I'm less interested in the one-on-one variety as with systemic racism. Citizens can be total douchebags to one another, and use whatever weapons they can come up with...race, weight, disability, fashion sense...whatever. But when those attitudes are backed up by official (or even non-official) policies of the state, then it becomes particularly worrisome.

So I suppose I'm looking for those kinds of examples...where white people feel they are systemically discriminated against.

I'm against affirmative action and reparations. I am also black. Zing!

Details! What about these things cause you to oppose them?

I can agree to a certain extent...and wallowing in self pity doesn't get you too far. BUT, there is a difference, I think, in recognising systemic discrimination, both historical and present, and working to alleviate it....and just whining about how whitey keeps us down.

The problem is...it is very convenient for people to dismiss the former as simply being the latter. And that pisses me off.Indeed. The other board members on my university course's Board of Students noted a deep distrust for German students among the non-German student body, particularly the Africans. I wasn't in the board long enough to formulate my own opinion, having stepped in for someone. But then again, that's nothing compared to what the Africans and Indians face from some members of the populace when they go to town.

On other occasions, I've had people call me names for being German or American, once even for both on the same day. But yeah, in the end its just namecalling.

I am fully willing to discuss this in a reasonable fashion, and I endevour NOT to bite in the throat of any person who brings their concerns to the table here. So please folks...I know plenty of you have an opinion on this...go ahead and share it!

People say I cant be a pimp because I´m white.


I know, its appalingly that white men are so heavily discriminated in that job. We can bully money out of prostitutes just as well as they can!

People say I cant be a pimp because I´m white.

Details! What about these things cause you to oppose them?

It's simply just the fact that hiring on basis of race is wrong, in my opinion. You should hire based on qualification and ability to do the job, and those two only. The white guy with all the qualifications and ability shouldn't get shorted because the black guy with the same applied for the same job. The interview should be the decider, because you can get a feel for who they are and what they're like as a person, which is important.

I'm against reparations for the simple fact that the blacks around today didn't witness and weren't a part of slavery. Why should I get paid for something that happened to my great-grandparents? That's ridiculous. There are, however, people still alive from those days who did witness and live it, and I think they deserve a little something for going through such a horrible and despicable event in US history. Then again, money alone won't heal the wounds that these events inflicted on them, so it seems pointless.

I don't suffer because of the colour of my skin, I suffer because of the choices I've made and make, because of the individual choices of others that affect me negatively, and random happenings that is well beyond my control.

Oh, and I don't really "suffer" either. My life could be better, but then again, whose couldn't? I'm lucky when looking at the grand scheme of things, so I won't complain.

I'm out of chocolate though... :p

i don't know of any examples of institutional racism against whites, not in the UK or US anyway. however, i do think affirmative action is unhelpful and potentially counterproductive. it is a solution to a symptom of institutional racism not to the root of it. it is something that breeds resentment rather than a will to make amends. racists who are forced by affirmative action legislation to meet quotas of ethnic minorties in their institutions (or however else it is implemented) will only find new ways to act on their racist attitudes. on its own affirmative action is definitely counterproductive. as a long-term strategy it is something that could eventually have a positive impact, but it needs support from other measures that may be directed at weeding out the racists, removing them from executive positions and selection committees (perhaps too much like the thought police), or at removing the possibility of using 'race' as a selective criterion by removing 'race' or 'ethnicity' sections from application forms and the like. i'm sure there are other supplementary measures but those are the first two i can think of. the only way, as i see it, to solve instituional racism is to recognise 'race' or 'ethnicity' for the arbitrary classificatory invention it is and to make sure that institutions realise this too.

It's not my fault I come from superior genetic stock. Quit making me feel guilty about it.

People say I cant be a pimp because I´m white.

I've seen plenty of white pimps.

It's simply just the fact that hiring on basis of race is wrong, in my opinion. You should hire based on qualification and ability to do the job, and those two only. The white guy with all the qualifications and ability shouldn't get shorted because the black guy with the same applied for the same job. The interview should be the decider, because you can get a feel for who they are and what they're like as a person, which is important.But affirmative action means that when two candidates are equally qualified, preference should be given to the minority or female candidate. That would mean after they are equal after the interview too.

There are, however, people still alive from those days who did witness and live it, and I think they deserve a little something for going through such a horrible and despicable event in US history. Then again, money alone won't heal the wounds that these events inflicted on them, so it seems pointless.

I'd just like to point out to you while that it is obvious that money can not heal wounds...the US legal system compensates victims monetarily ALL the time, and that is rarely questioned as being unjust or improper. Someone breaches a contract with you? Compensation. Someone injures you negligently? Compensation. Someone destroys your favourite guitar? Compensation.

I do not believe compensation, in any way is even MEANT to heal wounds.

It's not my fault I come from superior genetic stock. Quit making me feel guilty about it.

Hahahaha, thanks for summing it up.

But make your own fucking sandwich :D

I'm against affirmative action and reparations. I am also black. Zing!

I'm also against both... but white. I suppose this makes it a bit less newsworthy. :p

But affirmative action means that when two candidates are equally qualified, preference should be given to the minority or female candidate. That would mean after they are equal after the interview too.When you interview two people, one of them is going to appeal to you more than the other.

I'm also against both... but white. I suppose this makes it a bit less newsworthy. :p

Go on, state your reasons...this is the white people thread you know :p

My experiences with racism have been so insignificant that they're not worth relaying. Although, the time over Martin Luther King weekend when I was heckled on the street as I came back from volunteering at a homeless shelter really pissed me off. Here I was trying to help demonstrate that these idiotic attitudes are dying, and I get promptly greeted by members of the community with the exact same thing.

When you interview two people, one of them is going to appeal to you more than the other.

And the reasons are often very subjective. I've been on a lot of hiring committees, and I'm always amazed at how candidates are finally chosen. So if the candidates are roughly equal, and the choice is based on 'gut feeling', affirmative action provides one more criterion to affect the process, rather than, 'the black guy will probably listen to rap in the office and I hate rap' or 'the woman will probably get pregnant within the year and force us to hire again anyway'.

But affirmative action means that when two candidates are equally qualified, preference should be given to the minority or female candidate. That would mean after they are equal after the interview too.

That would still mean that the minority and/or female would get preferential treatment and the white guy gets shafted. Hardly fair, the interview should be the determining factor if their resumes offer the same qualifications and if all else fails, flip a coin. More fair then getting a leg up because of gender and skin color.

It's not my fault I come from superior genetic stock. Quit making me feel guilty about it.

Nobody's even going to call me out on this? Just how horribly racist of a statement do I have to make to get attention over here?

My experiences with racism have been so insignificant that they're not worth relaying. Although, the time over Martin Luther King weekend when I was heckled on the street as I came back from volunteering at a homeless shelter really pissed me off. Here I was trying to help demonstrate that these idiotic attitudes are dying, and I get promptly greeted by members of the community with the exact same thing.

Where are all the people that come out of the wood-work when I discuss systemic racial discrimination against natives? If you believed their hysteria, it would seem as though there is a pandemic of racism against whites just festering under the surface that the general populace seems to ignore.

I'd just like to point out to you while that it is obvious that money can not heal wounds...the US legal system compensates victims monetarily ALL the time, and that is rarely questioned as being unjust or improper. Someone breaches a contract with you? Compensation. Someone injures you negligently? Compensation. Someone destroys your favourite guitar? Compensation.

I do not believe compensation, in any way is even MEANT to heal wounds.The US legal system is a sack of shit, I know.

The lady who sued Mcdonalds because she spilled hot coffee on herself. She was holding it between her legs while driving, and she won solely based on the fact that the coffee was two degrees hotter than it was supposed to be, even though it would have still burned her at two degrees less.

Nobody's even going to call me out on this? Just how horribly racist of a statement do I have to make to get attention over here?
It's all in the timing; and seeing as how New Mitanni is back on the board today, I figure you've got to make a real effort of it to stand out...

The US legal system is a sack of shit, I know.

The lady who sued Mcdonalds because she spilled hot coffee on herself. She was holding it between her legs while driving, and she won solely based on the fact that the coffee was two degrees hotter than it was supposed to be, even though it would have still burned her at two degrees less.

I'm glad you brought up this case, because it is likely THE most misunderstood case out there. Read this (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm), and/or this (http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm), and you will realise there was so much more to it. There was nothing frivolous about this case.

Nobody's even going to call me out on this? Just how horribly racist of a statement do I have to make to get attention over here?

I just presumed you were were being sarcastic or ironic.

Nobody's even going to call me out on this? Just how horribly racist of a statement do I have to make to get attention over here?

Sorry DC, most of us just know you too well.

I apologise that we are not taking your claims of being a racist seriously.

Where are all the people that come out of the wood-work when I discuss systemic racial discrimination against natives? If you believed their hysteria, it would seem as though there is a pandemic of racism against whites just festering under the surface that the general populace seems to ignore.
You mean like New Nordland who claims that the white race is under attack, and that it's being out-bred systematically?

I don't know, but I'm not upset that I don't see them around as much, even in this thread.
I'm also against both... but white. I suppose this makes it a bit less newsworthy. :p
What do you mean, you're WHITE??!? :eek:




:p

You mean like New Nordland who claims that the white race is under attack, and that it's being out-bred systematically? No, not even the extremes like that...Socialist Pyrites (sp?) is the one that springs to mind, going on in my aboriginal thread.

I've seen plenty of white pimps.
0.o

0.o

I do activist work with prostitutes.
There are a lot of Russian pimps. And almost all of the aboriginal prostitutes with pimps have white pimps.

The bitch should be smacked across the face. Stupid people piss me off.

Read the links I provided (http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm), you're working from false information.

I'd post the entire story here, but let's keep this thread semi on track, shall we?

The US legal system is a sack of shit, I know.

The lady who sued Mcdonalds because she spilled hot coffee on herself. She was holding it between her legs while driving, and she won solely based on the fact that the coffee was two degrees hotter than it was supposed to be, even though it would have still burned her at two degrees less.

The bitch should be smacked across the face. Stupid people piss me off.

Go on, state your reasons...this is the white people thread you know :p

Well reparations are pretty foolish when all of the "victims" are long dead. Giving money to people who never experienced that shameful event in our history don't deserve to profit financially.

As for affirmative action, what we need is true equality where no on gets an advantage of any kind because of skin color, which affirmative action clearly does. One would think that it would be at least fairly insulting anyway, to suggest that minorities need help when applying to schools or jobs. They can't achieve their goal on their own but need the government to make it easier for them or lower standards so that quotas can be met? Ridiculous. People should be able to rise or fall on their own merit without anyone giving them a push. By of course knocking over someone else (with paler skin tones) to get them there.

Where are all the people that come out of the wood-work when I discuss systemic racial discrimination against natives? If you believed their hysteria, it would seem as though there is a pandemic of racism against whites just festering under the surface that the general populace seems to ignore.

It's a garden variety unwillingness to understand other people that brings this shit up. It's just playground bullying all over again, people trying to affirm who they are by deriding others with whatever means they find possible.

Sometimes, it's literally people who ridicule others for the pure fact that they're different than themselves. Myself and several of my friends had just gotten off of MARTA in Atlanta near Five Points to grab some lunch. We were fairly well dressed as we'd just been at a meeting. These two kids just walk up to us and start shouting "90210, 90210, The OC, The OC" totally unprovoked. Honestly, it reminded me of when kids in middle school would go around and act like "Oh, look at the silly goth, all dressed in black, gothy, gothy, gothy", or "Look at the stupid prep, being a little bitch". It's so damn juvenile.

I mean, it's so lame and pathetic that it's not really even worth bothering with, except as an illustration.

It's definitely not an everyday thing, it's very rare.

Well reparations are pretty foolish when all of the "victims" are long dead. Giving money to people who never experienced that shameful event in our history don't deserve to profit financially.

As for affirmative action, what we need is true equality where no on gets an advantage of any kind because of skin color, which affirmative action clearly does. One would think that it would be at least fairly insulting anyway, to suggest that minorities need help when applying to schools or jobs. They can't achieve their goal on their own but need the government to make it easier for them or lower standards so that quotas can be met? Ridiculous. People should be able to rise or fall on their own merit without anyone giving them a push. By of course knocking over someone else (with paler skin tones) to get them there.

What about the fact that white males have traditionally been given hiring preference? Isn't that an issue of an advantage based on skin colour and/or gender? And do you honestly believe that suddenly, at one point in time (recent time) everyone became enlightened enough to stop the practice, all at once? Affirmative action should be a temporary measure, for sure...but just getting rid of it and then declaring that race is no longer a hiring issue is...rather far-fetched.

She was still dumb for trying to add cream and sugar to hot coffee while he was driving.

Read again. He stopped to let her do that.

She was found 20% at fault for the accident, and awarded less damages because of that. But that still leaves a whopping 80% fault on McDonald's doorstep.

Most people I know have spilled coffee on themselves at one point or another. It's not something you do on purpose, accidents happen. But having to get extensive skin grafts because of that accident is NOT okay.

I'm not homophobic... I have sex with men too.

She was still dumb for trying to add cream and sugar to hot coffee while he was driving.

I'm not homophobic... I have sex with men too.

Hehehehe...I just love it when people say, 'I'm not racist, my best friend is black, BUT' and then go on to say something terribly racist :D

She was still dumb for trying to add cream and sugar to hot coffee while he was driving.

actually it says the car was motionless. and she was found to be "20% responsible" for the spillage and subsequent burns. 20% is negligable.

So I suppose I'm looking for those kinds of examples...where white people feel they are systemically discriminated against.

It is hard to be systematicaly discriminated against when you are in the majority, however I have on occasion been discrinimated against by employees at my local council offices.

I grew up in a largely asian area of London (Hounslow) and consequently most of the staff at the council were from these areas. While I am a white male.

On numerous occasions when I have gone there while I have been waiting I see the person behind the counter being very very helpful to all the people of their ethnic groups ina friendly manner, when a white person goes up all they will do is take the form from them. They will not smile, they will not answer questions or help with any problems and they will not provide any information that you might need but don't know about.

One one-to-one levels I experienced a lot from both asian and white people who did not like the look of me walking down the road holding my Indian girlfriends hand - getting abuse and threats of violence on a fairly regular basis.

From my exeriences all I can really say is that people from any race can be really sucky individuals.

What about the fact that white males have traditionally been given hiring preference? Isn't that an issue of an advantage based on skin colour and/or gender? And do you honestly believe that suddenly, at one point in time (recent time) everyone became enlightened enough to stop the practice, all at once? Affirmative action should be a temporary measure, for sure...but just getting rid of it and then declaring that race is no longer a hiring issue is...rather far-fetched.

There is going to still be racism in the workplace and probably will be for the near future. If it turns out that repeatedly a white and minority candidate had equal shots to get a position but the white male got it every time then an investigation into the company's hiring practices can begin. I don't think though that we need to have a policy that will by helping the minority, discriminate against the white. That is hardly a fair practice either. I don't expect our race problems to be solved anytime soon, but shoving "fairness" down our throats at the expense of others is hardly the correct thing to do.

What do you mean, you're WHITE??!? :eek:




:p

Gravlen, you have filled my amusement quota for the day. I thank you. :D

From my exeriences all I can really say is that people from any race can be really sucky individuals.

I agree. I think that no matter the 'race' of the people in the majority, the minority will be made to feel uncomfortable at some point. That just seems to be human nature :(

Read again. He stopped to let her do that.

She was found 20% at fault for the accident, and awarded less damages because of that. But that still leaves a whopping 80% fault on McDonald's doorstep.

Most people I know have spilled coffee on themselves at one point or another. It's not something you do on purpose, accidents happen. But having to get extensive skin grafts because of that accident is NOT okay.

And its McDonald's fault that she spilled, how?

I'm glad you brought up this case, because it is likely THE most misunderstood case out there. Read this (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm), and/or this (http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm), and you will realise there was so much more to it. There was nothing frivolous about this case.I never thought it was frivolous. I just thought she didn't deserve the compensation she received. She dropped coffee on herself, which resulted in a burn. She sues Mcdonalds for serving hot coffee, what?! No sense.

While at a restaurant, a waiter dropped a hot plate of pasta on my leg, which resulted in a 3rd degree burn. I got compensation because he dropped the plate on me, I didn't drop the plate on myself. I wouldn't have deserved compensation if he had, say, handed me the plate and then I dropped it.

The lady at Mcdonalds bought the coffee with the knowledge that it was hot and had the potential to cause harm, yet she put the coffee between her legs (which is pretty much asking for it to spill - Styrofoam bends, which could result in the top coming off or the contents to spill), and then she sues because it burned her.

Sigh.

And its McDonald's fault that she spilled, how?

Are you being dense on purpose? They aren't at fault for her spilling...they are at fault for the unreasonable damage that it caused to her. They knew that superheating the coffee was dangerous. There had been many cases of horrible burns to customers over 10 years, and internal documents revealed that they did it anyway, because the super-heating increased the good aroma of the coffee. So they knew what they did was dangerous, and unreasonably they continued to do it. Damn rights they should be held accountable for that.

And its McDonald's fault that she spilled, how?

no one claimed mcdonalds was at fault for the spillage, they were at fault for the burns.

The US legal system is a sack of shit, I know.

You don't know shit

The lady who sued Mcdonalds because she spilled hot coffee on herself. She was holding it between her legs while driving, and she won solely based on the fact that the coffee was two degrees hotter than it was supposed to be, even though it would have still burned her at two degrees less.

you mean the woman sitting in the passenger seat of a stationary car who spilled coffee that was 50 degrees hotter than it should have been?

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee...it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste...Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Here is the thread, to bring it all out...all the white angst (or more specifically all the white male angst). Because whenever there is a discussion on racism, white people want to point out that they too suffer. And some of these complaints are legitimate...and some are smokescreens.
So come one, come all...this is the thread to debate hated things like, 'affirmative action', and 'paying for the sins of the fathers' etc, etc. It seems I can't discuss aboriginal issues without triggering white victimisation, so bring it on.
And please people...don't accuse everyone who comments of being the same as the extreme white racists...it'll only shut things down. That type are pretty easily identifiable, no need to assume that everyone bringing up an issue is a closet Aryan case.
I'm sick and tired to have my country's past reduced to 12 terrible years (or two great wars) and not having acknowledged that we Germans have come a long way since then - and had an even longer past before that. Not always peaceful (well, not at all) - but not as bad as some people might think of us.

Arthais101,

I've already been corrected, but that didn't change my stance on the issue.

And its McDonald's fault that she spilled, how?

Because McDonalds is a corporation and corporations are always evol and always at fault. Plus, it was their product and if you know anything about juries, if I punch myself on YOUR property and stab myself with YOUR pencil, YOU, not me, are at fault and YOU, no me, shall be forced to pay money to me and repay me for hte cost of my frivilous lawsuit. that's how jury trials work. If I take a picture of Ronald McDonald and paper cut myself, McDonalds will be found at fault.

I'm sick and tired to have my country's past reduced to 12 terrible years (or two great wars) and not having acknowledged that we Germans have come a long way since then - and had an even longer past before that. Not always peaceful (well, not at all) - but not as bad as some people might think of us.

German 'guilt' is a very odd thing. I'm very uncomfortable around it. And yet, I never assume someone is a racist just because they are German...but there is always this feeling that they are expecting just that of you.

I never thought it was frivolous. I just thought she didn't deserve the compensation she received. She dropped coffee on herself, which resulted in a burn. She sues Mcdonalds for serving hot coffee, what?! No sense.

While at a restaurant, a waiter dropped a hot plate of pasta on my leg, which resulted in a 3rd degree burn. I got compensation because he dropped the plate on me, I didn't drop the plate on myself. I wouldn't have deserved compensation if he had, say, handed me the plate and then I dropped it.

The lady at Mcdonalds bought the coffee with the knowledge that it was hot and had the potential to cause harm, yet she put the coffee between her legs (which is pretty much asking for it to spill - Styrofoam bends, which could result in the top coming off or the contents to spill), and then she sues because it burned her.

Sigh.

As I understand it McDonalds had heated the coffee much hotter then they needed to. If the woman needed skin grafts because of it then it was at a dangerous unneccessary temperature when served. This is one of the few lawsuits I've heard about that I agree with completely.

Big differance than that finger from Wendy's hoax.

Hehehehe...I just love it when people say, 'I'm not racist, my best friend is black, BUT' and then go on to say something terribly racist :D

I'm not racist, I'm married to a hot asian whose pussy is slanted and gets tighter the wider I spread her legs.

I never thought it was frivolous. I just thought she didn't deserve the compensation she received. She dropped coffee on herself, which resulted in a burn. She sues Mcdonalds for serving hot coffee, what?! No sense.

While at a restaurant, a waiter dropped a hot plate of pasta on my leg, which resulted in a 3rd degree burn. I got compensation because he dropped the plate on me, I didn't drop the plate on myself. I wouldn't have deserved compensation if he had, say, handed me the plate and then I dropped it.

The lady at Mcdonalds bought the coffee with the knowledge that it was hot and had the potential to cause harm, yet she put the coffee between her legs (which is pretty much asking for it to spill - Styrofoam bends, which could result in the top coming off or the contents to spill), and then she sues because it burned her.

Sigh.


You still don't know shit:

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

They knew the temperature was at the point that would cause burns, they knew it HAD caused burns, they knew that at that temperature it was not suitable for consumption, and they knew people would consume it when driving. Additionally, had they served it at a temperature where it is normally served, the burns would not have occured.

You know NOTHING about this case. McDonalds, was ABSOLUTLY liable. They knew it was dangerous, they knew that this had ALREADY caused serious burns, they KNEW it would be consumed in a car, in that bendable cups, they KNEW they had been warned that it was already a matter of time until someone got hurt, they KNEW exactly what could happen. They KNEW that someday someone was going to get extremely burned.

And they knew how to prevent that from happening.

And they did not care. They just didn't care. That's why the punitive damages were so high. Punitive damages are punishments. It's to say "you did something bad, and you must pay for that". They did something inherently dangerous to their customers, they KNEW that it was inherently dangerous.

And they did not care.

Arthais101,

I've already been corrected, but that didn't change my stance on the issue.

So, if a company sells you a defective product, knowingly, and you do something to trigger the defect and cause totally unexpected and severe injury to yourself...it's your fault and you deserve no compensation? Interesting.

Arthais101,

I've already been corrected, but that didn't change my stance on the issue.

because your stance has been based on shitty information, and what i must conclude is only wilfull ignorance.

As I understand it McDonalds had heated the coffee much hotter then they needed to. If the woman needed skin grafts because of it then it was at a dangerous unneccessary temperature when served. This is one of the few lawsuits I've heard about that I agree with completely.

Big differance than that finger from Wendy's hoax.Then I agree they should pay for the medical costs and nothing more. She shouldn't get rich off of their (and her) mistake.

And its McDonald's fault that she spilled, how?

they weren't. It was their fault for serving something they knew had a significant chance of being spilled that, if it were spilled, would cause severe burns.

Then I agree they should pay for the medical costs and nothing more. She shouldn't get rich off of their (and her) mistake.

their's was not a mistake it was an act of willful negligence in the pursuit of profit. she paid for her mistake by getting burns.

okay okay, back to talking about POOR WHITEY :D

So, if a company sells you a defective product, knowingly, and you do something to trigger the defect and cause totally unexpected and severe injury to yourself...it's your fault and you deserve no compensation? Interesting.Super hot coffee and a defective product are two different things. If I bought a defective product and they knew it, and that resulted in me getting a severe injury of some kind, I deserve some kind of compensation for the medical costs that ensued, the bills that weren't paid for my time in the hospital, lost wages, etc.

I do activist work with prostitutes.
There are a lot of Russian pimps. And almost all of the aboriginal prostitutes with pimps have white pimps.
It was just that I've never actually seen a pimp. I've seen prostitutes and worked to improve their situations, but still never seen one.

(Oh, and maybe it was a teeny bit amusing the way you phrased it, but that's a personal choice of mine :p)
Gravlen, you have filled my amusement quota for the day. I thank you. :D
You're welcome ;)
Then I agree they should pay for the medical costs and nothing more. She shouldn't get rich off of their (and her) mistake.
Then they should have given it to her. The large sum she was awarded came about because they wouldn't settle out of court, and the jury slapped them with punitive damages. Apart from those, she got $160,000.

because your stance has been based on shitty information, and what i must conclude is only wilfull ignorance.Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, I see. Telling me I don't know shit about the US legal system and saying my opinion is based on shitty information isn't going to go anywhere, because even if I had known the rest to begin with, I'd have still come up with the same conclusion, hence you just have a problem with my opinion and not that I supposedly don't know shit, which is quite far from the truth.

Then I agree they should pay for the medical costs and nothing more. She shouldn't get rich off of their (and her) mistake.

then you know nothing about punitive damages.

If we decide what McDonald's did was bad, how do we get them to stop, other than to make it hurt?

What's to stop them from keeping the same thing over and over again, unless they know that every time will cost them a quarter million?

Punitive damages are high for a reason. They are meant to HURT.

It was just that I've never actually seen a pimp. I've seen prostitutes and worked to improve their situations, but still never seen one.

(Oh, and maybe it was a teeny bit amusing the way you phrased it, but that's a personal choice of mine :p) Don't worry, I know exactly what you were getting at :D

okay okay, back to talking about POOR WHITEY :D


poor me

I grew up as a minority in Los Angeles: I learned right away that it was stupid to talk shit about someone because of their skin color because I got it all the time.

I grew up as a political minority in a few no non-Calif states as beiong too liberal for most of the people I worked with no matter where it was

I grew up as a sexual minority being a bisexual male.

poor poor me

Super hot coffee and a defective product are two different things.

How?

The super hot coffee was created in a mannor that deviated from the norm and created a substantial risk of injury

How is that ANY different than a defective product?

poor me

I grew up as a minority in Los Angeles: I learned right away that it was stupid to talk shit about someone because of their skin color because I got it all the time.

I grew up as a political minority in a few no non-Calif states as beiong too liberal for most of the people I worked with no matter where it was

I grew up as a sexual minority being a bisexual male.

poor poor meDamn, I'm just not buying it. Why is it that the "POOR WHITEY" crowd never comes in when invited? What's WITH that?

German 'guilt' is a very odd thing.
How so?
I'm very uncomfortable around it.
Why?
And yet, I never assume someone is a racist just because they are German...
Good! I'm human before anything else. And then I'm a German European.
but there is always this feeling that they are expecting just that of you.
Who's they? We?
We're expecting to have other people expect us to be racists?

What?
Now I'm confused. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/AngryGerman.gif
okay okay, back to talking about POOR WHITEY :D
:fluffle: (You did mean me, right? Right?)

then you know nothing about punitive damages.

If we decide what McDonald's did was bad, how do we get them to stop, other than to make it hurt?

What's to stop them from keeping the same thing over and over again, unless they know that every time will cost them a quarter million?

Punitive damages are high for a reason. They are meant to HURT.

Exactly. McDonalds knew perfectly well that the temperature of the coffee was dangerous but they didn't care. The best way to make sure they change their policy is to hit them in the wallet. Seems to always be the best tactic when you want to get someones attention.

Damn, I'm just not buying it. Why is it that the "POOR WHITEY" crowd never comes in when invited? What's WITH that?

you dont buy that I grew up as a minority or you dont buy that my offspring deserve reparations?

How so?

Why? Well, I've known a few Germans who tend to bring up Nazism and its effects, even when there is really no need to. They always make it clear that they don't agree with it, but they express this sort of cultural stain/shame...honestly, it reminds me of flagellants. It's like...it is brought up as a sort of self-punishment. I can't explain it any better, sorry.


Who's they? We?
We're expecting to have other people expect us to be racists? Yes, I think so. Not all of you of course...and I'm basing my experience on about 7 people over my lifetime. But it's like..."I'm from Germany" and then they flinch. Like you're going to attack.

you dont buy that I grew up as a minority or you dont buy that my offspring deserve reparations?

That you actually feel like "poor whitey".
My messages keep bouncing again.!

Maybe its because whites don't get oppressed until they grow up? :p

It is also hard to talk about your poor distressing childhood when you really didn't have one I suppose.

But plenty of whites do, for socio-economic reasons.

Damn, I'm just not buying it. Why is it that the "POOR WHITEY" crowd never comes in when invited? What's WITH that?

Maybe its because whites don't get oppressed until they grow up? :p

It is also hard to talk about your poor distressing childhood when you really didn't have one I suppose.

Don't worry, I know exactly what you were getting at :D
That'll teach me not to misunderestimate you again, won't it... http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/surrender.gif

:p
Damn, I'm just not buying it. Why is it that the "POOR WHITEY" crowd never comes in when invited? What's WITH that?
You could try to make another thread like you've done before, and then ambush them after three or four pages... "Funny you should say that, because what I really wanted to know was..." "You didn't see the white text?" "Those who posted in my "best friend is white" thread were all in on it" ;)

You'll never last long here in this world if you don't have a sense of humor. :D You can never get rid of racism, so, we should try our best to be EQUALLY racist to one another :D.

You'll never last long here in this world if you don't have a sense of humor. :D You can never get rid of racism, so, we should try our best to be EQUALLY racist to one another :D.

Hehehehe...it works among friends, for sure. But on a wider scale, with people you don't know as well? Mmm, maybe not.

You could try to make another thread like you've done before, and then ambush them after three or four pages... "Funny you should say that, because what I really wanted to know was..." "You didn't see the white text?" "Those who posted in my "best friend is white" thread were all in on it" ;)

Yeah, open invitations never work. And I like ambushes!

That you actually feel like "poor whitey".
My messages keep bouncing again.!

Oh well um, affirmative action and stuff. I'm only working now because I got a tan.

OH yeah and the B.E.T. and black history month! WHeres my W.E.T. and white history month? No wonder I have no idea about my families history and noone celebates the accomplishments of white people... ever.

And don't even get me started on the names. Ok, I'll get started. Can you believe someone called me a cracker!?!?! It was my friend, sure, and he was joking but it really hurt me deep inside. Deep deep inside where you cant look to see the scar that was left.

*giggles*

Hehehehe...it works among friends, for sure. But on a wider scale, with people you don't know as well? Mmm, maybe not.

You might be right, no wonder I got those nasty stares in the subway, and I thought I was helping humankind :D

You might be right, no wonder I got those nasty stares in the subway, and I thought I was helping humankind :D

Yeah, no. You sholdn't have been shouting, "******/kike/wop/chink/towelhead..." etc.

We should just be able to tell distasteful jokes about each other without anyone taking it too seriously. There are some pretty funny jokes out there that aren't precisely PC.

There are some things it is just better you do among friends. I think that's a fair restriction.

You'll never last long here in this world if you don't have a sense of humor. :D You can never get rid of racism, so, we should try our best to be EQUALLY racist to one another :D.

We should just be able to tell distasteful jokes about each other without anyone taking it too seriously. There are some pretty funny jokes out there that aren't precisely PC.

Bet you wouldn't be sayin that to these CRACKAS SITTIN OVER HERE.


I could feel the HEAT from his finger pointing at me during each "CRACKAS SITTIN OVER HERE" and during the fourth or fifth "CRACKAS SITTIN OVER HERE" I turned to the people next to me and said "Hey shouldn't we be getting offended by now?"

Here is the thread, to bring it all out...all the white angst (or more specifically all the white male angst). Because whenever there is a discussion on racism, white people want to point out that they too suffer. And some of these complaints are legitimate...and some are smokescreens.

So come one, come all...this is the thread to debate hated things like, 'affirmative action', and 'paying for the sins of the fathers' etc, etc. It seems I can't discuss aboriginal issues without triggering white victimisation, so bring it on.

And please people...don't accuse everyone who comments of being the same as the extreme white racists...it'll only shut things down. That type are pretty easily identifiable, no need to assume that everyone bringing up an issue is a closet Aryan case.

If both of my parents came to the US in the 1950s, long after the robbing of aboriginals of their land, etc., was essentially complete, and nearly 100 years after the issue of slavery was over in the US, why should I have to pay for restitution to either of them?

Especially since I'm not "white"?

Well, I've known a few Germans who tend to bring up Nazism and its effects, even when there is really no need to. They always make it clear that they don't agree with it, but they express this sort of cultural stain/shame...honestly, it reminds me of flagellants. It's like...it is brought up as a sort of self-punishment. I can't explain it any better, sorry.
I never bring it up voluntarily - but if there's one thing that Germans abroad (and even at home) are constantly reminded of without even the slightest connection to it, it's our country's past.
Maybe it'll be different in the future, but we (my generation?) were raised to feel bad about what happened from early on - there's not much one can do about it.
Yes, I think so. Not all of you of course...and I'm basing my experience on about 7 people over my lifetime. But it's like..."I'm from Germany" and then they flinch.
When you tell people abroad that you're from Germany, from personal experience I can say that at least half of them mention nazis, one third cars or the Autobahn, and about 10% that they've been to Germany and love the food/beer.
So, sharing that you're from Germany usually lets people associate you with what had happened. I can usually tell by how their facial expression changes for a second. Like they picture you in uniform or something...
I'd wager the flinching you refer to is the anticipation of what's going to come next.
Like you're going to attack.
Wha...? Why? Because of our past? See what I mean?!? You're doing it, too!!!

Noooooooooo.....

If both of my parents came to the US in the 1950s, long after the robbing of aboriginals of their land, etc., was essentially complete, and nearly 100 years after the issue of slavery was over in the US, why should I have to pay for restitution to either of them?

Especially since I'm not "white"?

Yes yes, half Korean, so you might get a pass.

Except that it's not really YOU personally paying, it's the state, and you don't (unfortunately) get to opt out by asking that your tax dollars not be spent on this, based on the fact you had nothing to do with it. (not that reparations in this case will happen anyway)

The thing is...the idea is not that individual citizens are being 'punished'...because we're talking about official state policies. The state is being punished...but the only way they can pay up is via tax revenue.

Wha...? Why? Because of our past? See what I mean?!? You're doing it, too!!!

Noooooooooo.....

Hahahhaa, no...but when I feel like someone is expecting me to think something about them, I can't help thinking about what they expect me to think about. You know?

I never bring it up voluntarily - but if there's one thing that Germans abroad (and even at home) are constantly reminded of without even the slightest connection to it, it's our country's past.
Maybe it'll be different in the future, but we (my generation?) were raised to feel bad about what happened from early on - there's not much one can do about it.

When you tell people abroad that you're from Germany, from personal experience I can say that at least half of them mention nazis, one third cars or the Autobahn, and about 10% that they've been to Germany and love the food/beer.
So, sharing that you're from Germany usually lets people associate you with what had happened. I can usually tell by how their facial expression changes for a second. Like they picture you in uniform or something...
I'd wager the flinching you refer to is the anticipation of what's going to come next.
Gotta agree with that.

And have nothing to really add to the topic of the thread, I'm afraid. Except of course to point out how small the step is from the above to making ourselves out to be "the victims".

There are some things it is just better you do among friends. I think that's a fair restriction.

There is that. You really shouldn't be telling questionable jokes to strangers. They might take umbrage on the material. Unfortunate but in the climate we live in it is best.

I never bring it up voluntarily - but if there's one thing that Germans abroad (and even at home) are constantly reminded of without even the slightest connection to it, it's our country's past.
Maybe it'll be different in the future, but we (my generation?) were raised to feel bad about what happened from early on - there's not much one can do about it.

When you tell people abroad that you're from Germany, from personal experience I can say that at least half of them mention nazis, one third cars or the Autobahn, and about 10% that they've been to Germany and love the food/beer.

Hehe,...I totally do the cars/autobahn thing. And the filmmakers.

And how different Hogan's Heroes would have been if the Germans won WWII...



but that last one usually just gets blank stares...

Hehe,...I totally do the cars/autobahn thing. And the filmmakers.

And how different Hogan's Heroes would have been if the Germans won WWII...



but that last one usually just gets blank stares...*stares blankly*

*stares blankly*

Oh. I get it now.

I never bring it up voluntarily - but if there's one thing that Germans abroad (and even at home) are constantly reminded of without even the slightest connection to it, it's our country's past.
Maybe it'll be different in the future, but we (my generation?) were raised to feel bad about what happened from early on - there's not much one can do about it.

When you tell people abroad that you're from Germany, from personal experience I can say that at least half of them mention nazis, one third cars or the Autobahn, and about 10% that they've been to Germany and love the food/beer.
So, sharing that you're from Germany usually lets people associate you with what had happened. I can usually tell by how their facial expression changes for a second. Like they picture you in uniform or something...
I'd wager the flinching you refer to is the anticipation of what's going to come next.



What's really weird is when you're expected to feel guilt simply because you're of German descent. Never mind that your ancestors were all in the United States at the time of the World Wars...

Crackerosity. Beautiful!

What's really weird is when you're expected to feel guilt simply because you're of German descent. Never mind that your ancestors were all in the United States at the time of the World Wars...

One of my classmates had a grandfather in the SS though.

That might be a bit different situation, when old grandpappy got into his cups and mourned the fall of the Reich.

*stares blankly*

I don't imagine that Hogan's Heroes gets much play in Germany...


To the OP, I'm a middle class (well, I was raised middle class, now I'm certifiably poor) cracker-a cracker even who played jazz for some time, and frankly I never feel for a moment that I suffered from my cracker-osity. The musicians wouldn't cut me 'cause I was white, they'd cut me if I couldn't play (cut being figurative). No doors where shut to me, no opportunities thwarted or given preference. I just don't see it. I went through the education system, didn't suffer-I'm poor because of circumstance and poor decisions and not because the EO/AA Man kept me down. The way I see it, I actually tried to have it work against me and didn't. So I have to give a head shake to middle class crackers that complain about the short shrift that is given to middle class crackers.

And saying 'cracker' amuses me. So there.

No, not really - you could just act normal and... you know... not go there.
Shut up you nazi. *ducks*

Hahahhaa, no...but when I feel like someone is expecting me to think something about them, I can't help thinking about what they expect me to think about. You know?
No, not really - you could just act normal and... you know... not go there.
Gotta agree with that.

And have nothing to really add to the topic of the thread, I'm afraid. Except of course to point out how small the step is from the above to making ourselves out to be "the victims".
I'm not a victim, and I don't want to be considered one (that's for sure) - but I also don't want to be considered a culprit, either, just because I'm German.

I do know that I have a certain responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again here or be forgotten - and see to it that I at least voice my concern/opposition/opinion on similar matters elsewhere. Other than that, I don't owe anyone anything.

Which reminds me of an episode I had back in the States. Some black guy came up to me and started the "you owe me" speech. When I told him I didn't owe him anything, and I wasn't even a U.S. citizen and hence didn't share his country's past, he was startled for a second. He then asked me where I was from, which I told him - and bam! - didn't I expect it, he called me a nazi. Looks like some people are living in the past and not in the present!

Oppressed whites? Well? I guess it could happen depending on where you are.

I haven't lived in country where the majority was another color so I haven't seen overt forms of it.

There are subtle forms of it. A certain university rejected me when I had a 3.82 GPA and accepted a guy I was tutoring who had a 2.5. He was Viet Namese. I was pissed at the time but I got over it.

It all depends on your outlook in life I guess. I could have stewed about it and ranted about how easy the Viet Namese have it or I could move on.

My Granddad was a Pole. He ran to England after Poland was conquered. He fought for England. He once mentioned that England basically told him to go back to Poland after the War. Never mind the fact that the USSR controlled it. Is that white on white racism?

You should know your history but you shouldn't let your history control your destiny.

...But some of my best friends are named Neesika...

omg i can't believe someone actually made this thread.

I've been the victim of racism all throughout gradeschool. I was the only white girl in my 8th grade graduating class. In sixth grade a girl told me I was part black because white people had raped slaves, so my ancestors must have raped slaves. Well, okay. Except that my ancestors came over from Ireland and Hungary in the late 1800s, settled in states that never had a strong slave history, oh, and were Catholic, so were the victims of WASPs, too.

In 8th grade I got yelled at for reading the N-word in a book the teacher had assigned. My parents and brothers had kept me sufficiently sheltered that I had never even heard of the word before reading the book. Honest to God I had no idea what it meant!

More recently, some *expletive* has been trying to get with my ex, which is fine. 'Cept this *expletive* has the gall to call me "that white girl." I'm sorry but if any of my friends asked me if i was still with "that black guy" I'd be like, asshole, he has a name. I really wanna look at her and be like "bitch, who is you?!" But no, I refrained myself. I refuse to be the crazy ex.

I know people have called me sister "white bitch." And that makes me soooo angry. I judge people by the content of their character, and it pisses me off when people won't do that for me and my family.

Anywho, thanks for the opportunity to vent.

...But some of my best friends are named Neesika...

:fluffle:

Which reminds me of an episode I had back in the States. Some black guy came up to me and started the "you owe me" speech. When I told him I didn't owe him anything, and I wasn't even a U.S. citizen and hence didn't share his country's past, he was startled for a second. He then asked me where I was from, which I told him - and bam! - didn't I expect it, he called me a nazi. Looks like some people are living in the past and not in the present!

Meh. You shouldn't get offended by stupid people. I am willing to bet he couldn't even point out Germany on a map. ;)

I know people have called me sister "white bitch." And that makes me soooo angry. I judge people by the content of their character, and it pisses me off when people won't do that for me and my family.

Anywho, thanks for the opportunity to vent.
No problem, I got called white bitch plenty when it suited the full-bloods...and nechie bitch when the whites felt like it. People are douchebags.

I thought I'd add this to the discussion (it's a forwarded message I got from someone else & didn't send on until right now & here, for the sake of discussion, so please don't anyone jump on my ass over it):

Proud To Be White
>
> Someone finally said it.
> How many are actually paying attention to this?
>
> There are African Americans, Mexican Americans,
> Asian Americans, Arab Americans, Native Americans, etc.
> And then there are just Americans.
>
> You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.
> You Call me "White boy," "Cracker," "Honkey,"
> "Whitey," "Caveman" .. and that's OK.
>
> But when I call you, ******, Kike, Towel head, Sand-******,
> camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink . you call me a racist.
>
> You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you,
> so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
>
> You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin
Luther King
> Day. You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez
Day. You
> have Yom Hashoah You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi You have the
NAACP.
> You have BET.
>
> If we had WET (White Entertainment Television) . we'd be
racists.
>
> If we had a White Pride Day .. you would call us racists.
>
> If we had White History Month . we'd be racists.
>
> If we had any organization for only whites to "advance" OUR
lives
> we'd be racists.
>
> We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of
> Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of
Commerce.
> Wonder who pays for that?
>
> If we had a college fund that only gave white students
scholarships
> ... you know we'd be racists.
> There are over 60 openly proclaimed
> Black Colleges in the US , yet if there were "White
colleges" .
> THAT would be a racist college.
>
> In the Million Man March, you believed that you were
marching
> for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and
rights,
> you would call us racists.
>
> You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and
you're
> not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white
pride > you call us racists.
>
> You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white
police
>officer
> shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer
running
> from the law and posing a threat to society .
> you call him a racist.
>
> I am proud.
> But, you call me a racist.
>
> Why is it that only whites can be racists?
>
> There is nothing improper about this e-mail.
> Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on.


I will wrap up this post by quoting Type O Negative - "Shit comes in all hues."

People are douchebags.

QFT

Unfortunately, my sisters wouldn't tell me who said it. Or maybe fortunately. Cuz if they had I woulda opened up a good ol' fashioned can o' whoop ass on the kid. And generally 8th graders beating up 5th graders is frowned upon. Who said violence isn't the answer?

Meh. You shouldn't get offended by stupid people. I am willing to bet he couldn't even point out Germany on a map. ;)
I'm older and wiser now - but that just came as a surprise for me.
Yet, I do get offended when people call me a nazi...

[B]I thought I'd add this to the discussion (it's a forwarded message I got from someone else & didn't send on until right now & here, for the sake of discussion, so please don't anyone jump on my ass over it):

-snip-

That e-mail makes me think of the movie American History X.

I thought I'd add this to the discussion (it's a forwarded message I got from someone else & didn't send on until right now & here, for the sake of discussion, so please don't anyone jump on my ass over it):

Proud To Be White
~snip~


I will wrap up this post by quoting Type O Negative - "Shit comes in all hues."

I remember being a junior and there was like a Black Pride option to get on the class ring, and Asian pride, and I said "Why isn't there a white pride?" And all my friends looked at me, and were like "What, like KKK on the side of ur ring." I mean they know I'm not racist, but that's how it sounded.

For one thing, you should know that black colleges are now called Historically Black Colleges, and they are open to White people, if they want to go, and can get in. And if you think there aren't historically white colleges that almost no black people go to, your kidding yourself.

I'm proud of my heritage. But my heritage isn't "white." My heritage is Irish and Hungarian.


On a side note, I also get frustrated when people talk about "ethnic" things, meaning anyone who isn't white. Like I don't have an ethnicity? wtf.

Ok, really, I'm done venting now.

Oh, and Neesika kicks major ass. *nods*

Oh, and Neesika kicks major ass. *nods*
Ya both do, ya yankee :p :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I remember being a junior and there was like a Black Pride option to get on the class ring, and Asian pride, and I said "Why isn't there a white pride?" And all my friends looked at me, and were like "What, like KKK on the side of ur ring." I mean they know I'm not racist, but that's how it sounded.

It is not as if double standards are anything new. I don't see what we can really do, "white pride" will only be seen as some kind of Aryan crap.

*shrugs*

As a White Man with a capital Dubyou Emm, I am proud of my white culture! Yes, I take credit for Beethoven, Bach, Goethe, Shakespeare and Rembrandt! Sure, they didn't technically share any culture with me whatsoever... it's doubtful we could even understand each other in communication... but hey, they're white, I'm white, therefore I get the credit!

Because if White People do something, that means it's BECAUSE they're White! It's the same as when Black People do something, it's cuz they're black. Why else would they do it?

And yes, I may be illiterate, and I may not even listen to Bach, but dammit, they're White Geniuses and God Bless White Culture!

...

However, as I not only have White (tm) ancestors, but also Native American ones, I have to feel somewhat conflicted about the White part of me conquering, subduing, and in all likelihood committing near-genocide of my Red parts. I feel shame, and I feel pride. I feel hurt and I feel guilt. It's been real tough until someone pointed out to me that I am only 3/16ths Native American. We live in a Democracy, remember, so since the Native part of me is in a definite minority, I have finally sided with what I know must be the right and true version of my ethnic makeup - Whitedom!

...

Also, White People have declining birth rates. This is fact shown from a real statistic that I'm conveniently not going to reference. What does this fact mean, though? One thing only: NON-WHITE PEOPLE ARE KILLING US ALL! THE GENOCIDE MUST BE STOPPED LEST WE ALL WAKE UP DEAD AND/OR BROWN!

...but I'm not racist. I have a Jewish friend.

...

I don't imagine that Hogan's Heroes gets much play in Germany...
Maybe Auto focus (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0298744/) gets more airtime ;)

That e-mail makes me think of the movie American History X.

Hmmmm.... I'll have to watch that movie. I've never seen it.



<snip>I'm proud of my heritage. But my heritage isn't "white." My heritage is Irish and Hungarian.


On a side note, I also get frustrated when people talk about "ethnic" things, meaning anyone who isn't white. Like I don't have an ethnicity? wtf. <snip>

Well, I'll admit I get annoyed at the word "Caucasian." Where exactly is Caucasia, anyhow? ;)

My heritage is Scottish, German, English & Welsh, for the most part. I'm told I have epiphicanthric (spelling?) folds, which implies "asian" heritage somewhere along the line, but I don't know where from... & no one really notices it except other people with the same physical feature. I don't know where you live, but hereabouts (Oregon, USA) we have "Celtic societies" devoted to helping those of us with Scottish & Irish heritage learn more about what our ancestors did. I found it to be a lot of fun & all are welcome, even those without "Celtic" heritage.

And, my research found that I'm descended from Catholic clergy (partially)... does this mean I am to be held responsible for the molestations?? :p

On a side note, I also get frustrated when people talk about "ethnic" things, meaning anyone who isn't white. Like I don't have an ethnicity? wtf.
That reminds me....

Just before Christmas, there was a college carol service at the local church. You either went, or stayed in the library. Being atheist and feeling uncomfortable in a church singing Christian songs... I stayed in the LRC, with one other girl from my class. Then a group of asian guys came in and asked "why're you here?" When we said we weren't going to the church, they said "Why not? Are you ethnic?".

I really wanted to say "Ethnic? Everyone is ethnic. Or do you mean ethnic minority? That changes in various countries though so that's a bit complicated too... Either way, why would I have to be african or asian or whatever to not go to church? Do you assume that every white person is a church-going Christian?" but, being the easily intimidated person I am, I just said "No, I'm just an atheist" and raised my eyebrows in a more subtlely questioning way...





ps. GNM, you have a TG :)

Well, I'll admit I get annoyed at the word "Caucasian." Where exactly is Caucasia, anyhow? ;)

Caucasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus) is a region in Eurasia bordered on the south by Iran, on the west by the Black Sea, on the east by the Caspian Sea, and on the north by Russia. The Persian name for the region (harking of Asiatic links) is Qafqâz. Caucasia includes the Caucasus Mountains and surrounding lowlands. The Caucasus Mountains are commonly reckoned as a dividing line between Asia and Europe, and territories in Caucasia are variably considered to be in one or both continents. The northern portion of the Caucasus is known as the Ciscaucasus and the southern portion as the Transcaucasus. The highest peak in the Caucasus is Mount Elbrus (5,642 m) which, in the western Ciscaucasus in Russia, is generally considered the highest point in Europe.

The Caucasus is one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse regions on Earth. The nation-states that compose the Caucasus today are northeastern Turkey, the post-Soviet states: Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, as well as various parts of Russia and Iran.

(Not that it has much to do with being white. But hey, same with "Aryans.")

Caucasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus) is a region in Eurasia bordered on the south by Iran, on the west by the Black Sea, on the east by the Caspian Sea, and on the north by Russia. The Persian name for the region (harking of Asiatic links) is Qafqâz. Caucasia includes the Caucasus Mountains and surrounding lowlands. The Caucasus Mountains are commonly reckoned as a dividing line between Asia and Europe, and territories in Caucasia are variably considered to be in one or both continents. The northern portion of the Caucasus is known as the Ciscaucasus and the southern portion as the Transcaucasus. The highest peak in the Caucasus is Mount Elbrus (5,642 m) which, in the western Ciscaucasus in Russia, is generally considered the highest point in Europe.

The Caucasus is one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse regions on Earth. The nation-states that compose the Caucasus today are northeastern Turkey, the post-Soviet states: Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, as well as various parts of Russia and Iran.

(Not that it has much to do with being white. But hey, same with "Aryans.")

Thanks. It's good to know that I can now say proudly "NO I am NOT Caucasian!" lol

Hehe,...I totally do the cars/autobahn thing. And the filmmakers.

And how different Hogan's Heroes would have been if the Germans won WWII...

but that last one usually just gets blank stares...

I don't imagine that Hogan's Heroes gets much play in Germany...
It's a funny show that has had its umpteenth rerun over here. But it wouldn't be the same had we won the war - besides, it's dubbed and very slapsticky.
[And for those of you who don't know the German title - yes, I'm looking at you, WYTYG - it's Ein Käfig voller Helden]
What's really weird is when you're expected to feel guilt simply because you're of German descent. Never mind that your ancestors were all in the United States at the time of the World Wars...
Now that's just stupid.
But I am German and both my grandfathers served in the Wehrmacht (not that they had much of a choice, mind you) until both were severely injured and disabled during the Russian winter campaign - "luckily" before they reached Stalingrad!
Shut up you nazi. *ducks*
*blitzkriegs Neesika's half-Indian ass*
There. I feel better now. And that smirk on your face tells me you enjoyed that, too?

Maybe Auto focus (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0298744/) gets more airtime ;)
I've never heard of that movie before!
Hmmmm.... I'll have to watch that movie. I've never seen it.
Glad I'm not the only one!
Well, I'll admit I get annoyed at the word "Caucasian."
Hahaha! That reminds me of the looks I got when I had to fill out those stupid questionaires in the U.S. - and they always asked for my race. So I first put down human, which they wouldn't accept. Then I put down German and people told me I had to write "Caucasian". I told'em that I wasn't from the Caucasus and if they didn't like my first or second answer, they could shove the questionaire where the sun don't shine - and I wasn't talking about the dark side of the moon... :p

That reminds me....ps. GNM, you have a TG :)
http://www.section.at/img/smiley/mail.gif (I'll answer that soon - but probably not today. Just so you know! Thanks, though!!!)

Ok, I'll try to play devils advocate.

Police, Military and Fire services experience affirmative actions that result in people who are hired that might either not have the physical capabilities needed, or have various racial/religious requirements that negate the possibilty of wearing various items of safety equipment.

Boohoo. Thats not racism or sexism.

It does become sexism when they hire a five foot tall woman over a 5'6" man, but the topic isnt sexism.

Nor is hiring a sikh that needs to wear his turban.

A construction worker is hired who is a sikh, and he is willing to wear a safety helmet due to religious reasons. One day at work, he is hit on the head with a board and is injured. Neither he nor the employer is found to be at fault, and he is awarded workers compensation. Affirmative action has upheld, and rightly so, his right to religion.

In another instance, a "whitey"(TM, Cree nation, wink at Neesika) is hired for a construction job, and is also injured in the head, also due to no safety helmet. The investigation shows that the employer provided safety equipment, and that the employee "chose not to wear it for personal reasons". He is found at fault and is not awarded compensation.

On the face of it, both decisions are correct, but when lined up beside each other, we see a form of racism against the white guy, by the system in place(comprised, likely, by mostly white people).

Its immaterial to the fact that you'd have to be an idiot to not wear a hemet in construction sites, and thats you dont see a lot of sikhs in those trades.

Urg. I dont believe in race, although I can entertain the idea..

Glad I'm not the only one!

Its a good movie. Edward Norton plays the neo-Nazi well.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120586/

Its a good movie. Edward Norton plays the neo-Nazi well.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120586/
Oh, that one is a very good movie, I enjoyed watching (and later on debating) it with my friends - and indeed, Edward Norton plays very well!

What I haven't seen was Auto focus (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0298744/). I thought you meant that one...

Oh, that one is a very good movie, I enjoyed watching (and later on debating) it with my friends - and indeed, Edward Norton plays very well!

What I haven't seen was Auto focus (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0298744/). I thought you meant that one...

Uh... well I was referring to American History X but I haven't seen either of them.

Why is it white men are always considered "the oppressors"?

When non-whites and women are getting jobs they are qualified for just as often as white males, then affirmative action will have done it's job and can be done away with. Until then, it is still necessary.

When non-whites and women are getting jobs they are qualified for just as often as white males, then affirmative action will have done it's job and can be done away with. Until then, it is still necessary.

Because of inadequate education in poor minority neighborhoods, there simply aren't enough people to equal the white males. The only thing affirmative action really does is force companies to start hiring less qualified people on top of truly qualified minorities because of quotas that must be met.

I've never heard of that movie before!

If you have seen a lot of Hogan's Heroes, let Auto Focus shatter all your illusions about Bob Crane, AKA Hogan. :)


A day without sex is a day wasted. - Bob Crane

I am so sick of having to show everyone just how awesome western culture is. I mean seriously, centuries of genocide and some of these brutes still don't get it.

If you have seen a lot of Hogan's Heroes, let Auto Focus shatter all your illusions about Bob Crane, AKA Hogan. :)

A day without sex is a day wasted. - Bob Crane
I'd rather not... (And I saw that tagline, too!)

Reading through this thread's going to be fun...

I'd rather not... (And I saw that tagline, too!)

Well he was a kinky guy...

Well he was a kinky guy...
Which makes me wonder about his time in POW camp... :eek:;):p

I don't have white angst. I think about all the horrible things my anscestors did to various ethnic groups, and I feel so awful. I'm actually okay with affirmative action, to a point. For example, I am okay with the fact that First Nations people get alot of government assistance, because I have a native friend, and we've discussed this, and it's not really how it seems. However, I'm not really okay with my 1/8 métis friend getting free university tuition, as she's much better off financially than I am.
Campaigning for white rights is just stupid. I'm too busy with my feminism to care.

I'd imagine a similar faulty logic present with discrimination against "non-whites" is present with discrimination against "whites".

To me, if someone is faced with a barrier to an opportunity (within the sphere of reasonable human activity) not of his/her making, or not within their power to circumvent, it makes sense to try to remove that barrier.

However, I am leery of arbitrary statistical categories being used to "help target group X" where there is no reality check at the individual level;
especially if it is likely to harm (or miss a worthy opportunity to help) other individuals who happen to fall outside that target group.

Just to make a clear point. The whole term white is a bit subjective. Is it anyone with a skin paler then a certain tone or a geographic disposition?

Are only people of northern and western european ancestry meant? Or of european ancestry on whole? Spaniards and souther Italians have skin tones sometimes darker or as dark as that of North African Arabs, does this make them non-whites or the Arabs white?
Or some Asians have paler skin then many except the palest of northern european peoples, yet they are not counted as "white?"

By white do we mean of european ancestry? Say I would be of Kauk-Slavic stock, I am in no way european but my skin would be as pale as those of most Scandinavians.

I just want to get what you mean by "white" in comparison to say "African (a clear geographic measure)." However would South African's of dutch heritage count as African-Americans if they emigrated to America in your logic? Since many have roots in South Africa longer then the descendants of slaves in America. Yet they are seen as American and no longer African, so are Boer Africans for example seen as Africans and no longer europeans?



The whole terminology in my opinion is getting highly confusing. Not every white person is anglo-saxon. Many "white (as in pale skinned)" people come from countries in Asian and the far reaches of far away places, they have never in their lives seen Africans. Their race, presumably slavic is not related closely to Anglo-saxon for example. And yet at a job interview they are put in as white and so have to put on a mantle of so-called "white guilt (if such a thing exists in the first place)".


Neesika, out of interest. Do you personally think Armenian or Georgan immigrants to the US (most who probably never saw a black person before reaching America) have anything to do with slavery or black history? So why should they deserve to be affected by affirmative action? What is your personal view of these people, do they due to their skin pigmentation have an inborn guilt and duty to pay reperation to you because of your dark skin color and the abomination of slavery? Since at a job interview between the Armenian and Black-African affirmative action will be pure racism. Since the Armenian is not even related race or bloodwise to an anglo-saxon or italian european.


/Edit If this sounds a bit wierd what I wrote, it is 2 am in the morning and I am not in perfect condition

People say I cant be a pimp because I´m white.
ROFL
Feel ya dude :rolleyes:

I'm white. Not racist i'd say 1.5 out of 10. So just a little.

Just to make a clear point. The whole term white is a bit subjective. Is it anyone with a skin paler then a certain tone or a geographic disposition?
<snip>

Well, I've yet to meet anyone paler than me who doesn't have some kind of liver problem.... I'm not sure what that means though, other than that I can scare people by pretending I'm a vampire. :p

Because of inadequate education in poor minority neighborhoods, there simply aren't enough people to equal the white males. The only thing affirmative action really does is force companies to start hiring less qualified people on top of truly qualified minorities because of quotas that must be met.

Utter bullshit.

There are no such quotas requiring the hiring of unqualified people.

Utter bullshit.

There are no such quotas requiring the hiring of unqualified people.

That's the end result here in the DC area in government contracting firms.

We either meet the 17% quota for African Americans, or we get sued and fined.

If we can't find qualified people, that's tough shit for us. We had better fucking find some bodies. So we do.

There are no such quotas requiring the hiring of unqualified people.

Why does this never sink in?

Oh? You are saying that if there is a more qualified white male candidate and a less qualified black candidate that the white will get the job? I find that unlikely as it is affirmative action that demands that the minority, though less qualified, gets hired.

That's the way it happens here in DC, if you are below the 17% mark for the African-Americans.

Just to make a clear point. The whole term white is a bit subjective. Is it anyone with a skin paler then a certain tone or a geographic disposition?

Are only people of northern and western european ancestry meant? Or of european ancestry on whole? Spaniards and souther Italians have skin tones sometimes darker or as dark as that of North African Arabs, does this make them non-whites or the Arabs white?
Or some Asians have paler skin then many except the palest of northern european peoples, yet they are not counted as "white?"

By white do we mean of european ancestry? Say I would be of Kauk-Slavic stock, I am in no way european but my skin would be as pale as those of most Scandinavians.

I just want to get what you mean by "white" in comparison to say "African (a clear geographic measure)." However would South African's of dutch heritage count as African-Americans if they emigrated to America in your logic? Since many have roots in South Africa longer then the descendants of slaves in America. Yet they are seen as American and no longer African, so are Boer Africans for example seen as Africans and no longer europeans?



The whole terminology in my opinion is getting highly confusing. Not every white person is anglo-saxon. Many "white (as in pale skinned)" people come from countries in Asian and the far reaches of far away places, they have never in their lives seen Africans. Their race, presumably slavic is not related closely to Anglo-saxon for example. And yet at a job interview they are put in as white and so have to put on a mantle of so-called "white guilt (if such a thing exists in the first place)".


Neesika, out of interest. Do you personally think Armenian or Georgan immigrants to the US (most who probably never saw a black person before reaching America) have anything to do with slavery or black history? So why should they deserve to be affected by affirmative action? What is your personal view of these people, do they due to their skin pigmentation have an inborn guilt and duty to pay reperation to you because of your dark skin color and the abomination of slavery? Since at a job interview between the Armenian and Black-African affirmative action will be pure racism. Since the Armenian is not even related race or bloodwise to an anglo-saxon or italian european.


/Edit If this sounds a bit wierd what I wrote, it is 2 am in the morning and I am not in perfect condition

You are all over the place. Let me make a few observations.

1. Race is a socio-political concept. It has little or no validity as a matter of biology or anthropology. You are "white" if society considers you white.

2. Racism exists in the U.S. It has existed in the past, the recent past, and today. To be a person of color is to be at a disadvantage in the U.S. To be a person who appears "white" is to have an advantage.

3. Affirmative action doesn't work the way you think it does. Nor is it solely justified as some form of reparations.

Utter bullshit.

There are no such quotas requiring the hiring of unqualified people.

Oh? You are saying that if there is a more qualified white male candidate and a less qualified black candidate that the white will get the job? I find that unlikely as it is affirmative action that demands that the minority, though less qualified, gets hired. Preferential treatment and all. Companies have to make sure they have enough minorities so they aren't accused of racism. It may require the hiring of people that wouldn't be normally hired without this expectation of meeting a quota.

Oh? You are saying that if there is a more qualified white male candidate and a less qualified black candidate that the white will get the job?

Yes. Show me where it has happened otherwise without their being a discrimination action.

I find that unlikely as it is affirmative action that demands that the minority, though less qualified, gets hired.

No. A legal affirmative action program does not do this.

Preferential treatment and all. Companies have to make sure they have enough minorities so they aren't accused of racism. It may require the hiring of people that wouldn't be normally hired without this expectation of quotas.

Point me to an example of a law or a program that uses a quota to require the hiring of unqualified minorities. If it happens, it should be easy to prove.

I know that always sounds ridiculous, but some times it's true. One time I was accused of being anti-semitic because I do not support Israel. I'm was like "Dude, my best friend's jewish." Which is actually true.

That's the way it happens here in DC, if you are below the 17% mark for the African-Americans.

Interesting comment for someone who claims they were not formerly known as Deep Kimchi.

[And for those of you who don't know the German title - yes, I'm looking at you, WYTYG - it's Ein Käfig voller Helden]Never heard of it.

Point me to an example of a law or a program that uses a quota to require the hiring of unqualified minorities. If it happens, it should be easy to prove.

http://www.nas.org/reports/river_change/affirm-act_soc-sci.pdf

This is for college admissions, unfortunately I haven't found one for job applications yet but as far as I'm concerned, university and job affirmative action are pretty much the same thing. I can keep looking if it is really important to you.

It comes from this (http://www.nas.org/print/pressreleases/hqnas/releas_18oct04.htm) site btw, the report is quite long. This gives a quick look at what the study says.

Here is the thread, to bring it all out...all the white angst (or more specifically all the white male angst). Because whenever there is a discussion on racism, white people want to point out that they too suffer. And some of these complaints are legitimate...and some are smokescreens.

So come one, come all...this is the thread to debate hated things like, 'affirmative action', and 'paying for the sins of the fathers' etc, etc. It seems I can't discuss aboriginal issues without triggering white victimisation, so bring it on.

And please people...don't accuse everyone who comments of being the same as the extreme white racists...it'll only shut things down. That type are pretty easily identifiable, no need to assume that everyone bringing up an issue is a closet Aryan case.
I really don't understand why white males have angst, simply because we're not as dominant as we once were. At least in the US, there's still no single greater advantage in any number of cases than simply being a white male.

This is for college admissions, unfortunately I haven't found one for job applications yet but as far as I'm concerned, university and job affirmative action are pretty much the same thing. I can keep looking if it is really important to you.

"Racial preferences" and quotas are different things.

"Racial preferences" and quotas are different things.

Making it easier for minorities to get into college simply because of being a minority or hell, 1/8 of a minority or some crazy thing like that is something just as bad. And universities still need to have a certain number of minorities attending their school just like employers need a percentage of minorities working for them yes? The difference isn't really that big to me.

http://www.nas.org/reports/river_change/affirm-act_soc-sci.pdf

This is for college admissions, unfortunately I haven't found one for job applications yet but as far as I'm concerned, university and job affirmative action are pretty much the same thing. I can keep looking if it is really important to you.

It comes from this (http://www.nas.org/print/pressreleases/hqnas/releas_18oct04.htm) site btw, the report is quite long. This gives a quick look at what the study says.


setting aside the absurd source and the fact that college admissions is a different issue from employment, care to point out where in the "study" it shows that colleges are using quotas that require them to admit unqualified applicants?

No, it isn't. It isn't promoting unqualified candidates over qualified candidates; it's differentiating between more or less equally-qualified candidates so as to increase diversity.

Is it a matter of offering preference to one of many equal candidates because of his or her race?

Making it easier for minorities to get into college simply because of being a minority or hell, 1/8 of a minority or some crazy thing like that is something just as bad.

No, it isn't. It isn't promoting unqualified candidates over qualified candidates; it's differentiating between more or less equally-qualified candidates so as to increase diversity.

And universities still need to have a certain number of minorities attending their school just like employers need a percentage of minorities working for them yes?

Um... no and no.

I know that always sounds ridiculous, but some times it's true. One time I was accused of being anti-semitic because I do not support Israel. I'm was like "Dude, my best friend's jewish." Which is actually true.

You met IDF!:eek:

I can't say I've ever really been the victim of racism. I'm generally in favour of affirmative action programs, and pro-immigration and multi-culturalism. Having said that, I can say I feel slightly uncomfortable with some cultural offenses.

For instance, several years ago, I was introduced to the word 'mungacake', by my girlfriend's Macedonian family. It's used quite proliffically by the Macedonian/Greek/Italian community, and is generally used to refer to 'white folks without culture'. Being from the Balkans, bloodline and ethnicity was very important to them(I'm speaking of this family specifically). They had opinions on every race in Toronto, and I, as a mungacake, was fortuitous to even be dating a member of their family.

The discussion of marriage came up at one point, and my girlfriend was quick to point out that she wouldn't have a 'Canadian' wedding. By this, she meant a 'wedding' that was held in someone's backyard with cheese and crackers as the meal, while someone on a Harley performed the nuptials. This, from a girl who grew up in Canada. When I pointed out to her that the examples she was giving was hardly indicitave of Canadian 'culture' (which she denied even existed), and rather a matter of one's financial standing, she claimed that we were irreconcilably different, and things could never work out.

Clearly, she was right.

But this goes into another area, which I find rather irritating. I find that people who speak another language often will communicate with each other knowing full well that you can't understand what they're saying. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-language or something, but I'm talking about a matter of politeness.

For example, I was walking home with two Hungarian girls. Partway through the conversation, they both switched to Hungarian. Now, they claimed that they only did it to practice their Hungarian, however, it left me effectively out of the conversation for a good 15-20 minutes. I turned the tables on them later on, when a fourth friend arrived and we started whispering. They found it extremely 'rude'. ;)

I find that in embracing multi-culturalism, and immigration in general, many 'white' people resent the implication that therefore, we have no culture (as I've heard many immigrants tell me.) This is espescially bad in Canada, where we constantly seem to be trying to find a national 'identity', since we can only seem to do so by comparing ourselves to the US. We have no 'ethnicity', since apparently our predominately british background doesn't count.

You are all over the place. Let me make a few observations.

1. Race is a socio-political concept. It has little or no validity as a matter of biology or anthropology. You are "white" if society considers you white.

2. Racism exists in the U.S. It has existed in the past, the recent past, and today. To be a person of color is to be at a disadvantage in the U.S. To be a person who appears "white" is to have an advantage.

3. Affirmative action doesn't work the way you think it does. Nor is it solely justified as some form of reparations.


1) Yes however who in soceity. For example let's take pale skinned people from central Asia and the Kaukasus again. Typically "white" people ala British and Germans might not see them as white, they are not so-called "Aryans" but Slavs and other groups. For example the average German or Brit, is closer in blood related to the very tanned skin Sicilians or southern Spaniards then the pale Siberian Slavs. Also when asking the slav what ethnicity he is, he will probably not say white, but slavic.


2) So even if by definition you aren't a european, you are not at all related to the european people's. However your skin color and tone is paler if not similar to theirs you get an automatic advantage?

3) Indeed. Why should an impoverished Armenian be at a disadvantage to a middle-class African-American in a job interview for example? The Armenian is to europeans (british, german, swedish, italian, etc..), what an African is to Aborigines or Indian (as in India not native american) to some extent. Not at all related by race, completely different culture, history and religion.

Typically "white" people ala British and Germans might not see them as white, they are not so-called "Aryans" but Slavs and other groups.
That's nonsense the Nazis popularised. Even racialist anthropologists such as Coon rejected that nonsense.

For example the average German or Brit, is closer in blood related to the very tanned skin Sicilians or southern Spaniards then the pale Siberian Slavs.
Correct.

Also when asking the slav what ethnicity he is, he will probably not say white, but slavic.
Then he'd be incorrect.

@#$@$#'n Jolt!

I had a big old rant about cultural bias and it's all gone cuz it looked like I had three posts, and apparently it was only two. And I deleted both of them.

Bah.

Anyway, I'll rant about it some other time. Maybe.

@#$@$#'n Jolt!

I had a big old rant about cultural bias and it's all gone cuz it looked like I had three posts, and apparently it was only two. And I deleted both of them.

Bah.

Anyway, I'll rant about it some other time. Maybe.
Um, keep pressing the "Back" button on your browser? Works sometimes. :/

1) Yes however who in soceity. For example let's take pale skinned people from central Asia and the Kaukasus again. Typically "white" people ala British and Germans might not see them as white, they are not so-called "Aryans" but Slavs and other groups. For example the average German or Brit, is closer in blood related to the very tanned skin Sicilians or southern Spaniards then the pale Siberian Slavs. Also when asking the slav what ethnicity he is, he will probably not say white, but slavic.


2) So even if by definition you aren't a european, you are not at all related to the european people's. However your skin color and tone is paler if not similar to theirs you get an automatic advantage?

3) Indeed. Why should an impoverished Armenian be at a disadvantage to a middle-class African-American in a job interview for example? The Armenian is to europeans (british, german, swedish, italian, etc..), what an African is to Aborigines or Indian (as in India not native american) to some extent. Not at all related by race, completely different culture, history and religion.


OK, I'm not getting dragged further into another debate about affirmative action. I've filled long threads on the subject before and it bores me. Go read my old threads.

As to your 3 points:

1. Again, race doesn't make sense as a matter of biology or anthropology, it is a socio-political construct.

2. Yes.

3. Why should the one with lighter skin have an advantage? Multiple factors go into affirmative action. We have to be talking about equally qualified applicants. Neither one "deserves" the job more than the other. So what decides the difference. Diversity is a valid goal of the workplace. So is making up for discrimination -- both past and present.

Only a small portion of jobs are decided due to an affirmative action preference. This small portion is way outweighed by white privilege. You tell me how that is fair.

Um, keep pressing the "Back" button on your browser? Works sometimes. :/

I habitually hit the 'back' button for other purposes, such as getting back to Page 1 of general and so forth. After which, clicking on a different thread, I lose what was 'back' before.

Although, having said that, I realize I could have hit the 'back' button at the time. Je suis 'stupide'. :headbang:

setting aside the absurd source and the fact that college admissions is a different issue from employment, care to point out where in the "study" it shows that colleges are using quotas that require them to admit unqualified applicants?

*shrug*

I am not going to find you some source that is perfect for you. I find it silly that you think that affirmative action doesn't require the acceptance of applicants of lower quality to meet standards of the needed minority percentages. And I never tried to claim incompetant applicants got in. Simply that white candidates who may have been MORE qualified would be denied to allow the acceptance of the minority candidate with lesser qualifications (not none).

As for the report itself, the proof is buried somewhere in there and I am too tired to search for it. However the concluding paragraph mentions how it sees how it sees people seeing blacks continually as merely people instead of "pitiable victims" and that meritocratic values will become more important. I can only assume that such a conclusion will not be given without the needed proof in the body. But even if it turns out to be a weak paper in the end, it is not going to alter my view on the matter. Though somehow I think that even if strong, it won't alter yours anyway.

That's nonsense the Nazis popularised. Even racialist anthropologists such as Coon rejected that nonsense.


Correct.


Then he'd be incorrect.

How is it Nazi popularised nonsense? The image we have of a white person is of a western european, or someone of western european descent. And we just agreed that "white" is anyway a term defined by soceity. So logically since they are not western european they wouldn't be white? But yet they are pale-skinned. Which is just me saying this whole thing is nonsense. There is no such thing as "white people." There are many diverse peoples, with a large range of skin tones (from dark spanish/greek to an almost ghostly finnish pale) who we associate with pale skin, also with little logic. Since we don't give them a geographic ruling, nor a skin tone ruling.
If you really look into it and think a bit deeper about it, it simply doesn't make sense. On one hand, Spaniards are western europe, so whiteness is geographic? But no, since slavic people living deep in Siberia are also white, but have little to nothing to do with europe, especially not western europe. So it is then a matter of skin paleness? But no we have the spaniards and southern Italians who are still counted then as white, or people from Singapore are on average of paler complexion then spaniards, yet we count them as Asian not white because despite them having pale skin they have asian eyes and don't seem european, which brings us back to the geographic arguement.
We cannot even make a term for "white people," for a census. We cannot call them European-Americans such as we call African-Americans, because then those living in deep Russia would be considerred Asian-Americans and be per paper in the same group as chinese and vietnamese. And that doesn't fit our view of the world. So we have this term Caucasian, which really doesn't mean that much either. What is a caucasian?

I habitually hit the 'back' button for other purposes, such as getting back to Page 1 of general and so forth. After which, clicking on a different thread, I lose what was 'back' before.Yeah. That being one of the times when it doesn't work. :/

Although, having said that, I realize I could have hit the 'back' button at the time. Je suis 'stupide'. :headbang:Aw, mon pauvre petit. Next time you'll remember. =)

How is it Nazi popularised nonsense?
It's a relic left over from that age. Hitler needed something to justify going against the Slavs - what the best way? Turn them into Untermensch. He later recanted, and admitted he was wrong.

The image we have of a white person is of a western european, or someone of western european descent.
Not really - I am not sure where you are from, but Eastern Europeans are always seen as whites - just not Westerners.

And we just agreed that "white" is anyway a term defined by soceity.
"We" have agreed on nothing so far.

So logically since they are not western european they wouldn't be white? But yet they are pale-skinned. Which is just me saying this whole thing is nonsense. There is no such thing as "white people." There are many diverse peoples, with a large range of skin tones (from dark spanish/greek to an almost ghostly finnish pale) who we associate with pale skin, also with little logic. Since we don't give them a geographic ruling, nor a skin tone ruling.
Incidentally, I do not disagree with this. The whole "white" thing is stupid, and racialist anthropologists such as Coon would be most adverse to the use of such a word to describe any sort of group.

But no we have the spaniards and southern Italians who are still counted then as white, or people from Singapore are on average of paler complexion then spaniards, yet we count them as Asian not white because despite them having pale skin they have asian eyes and don't seem european, which brings us back to the geographic arguement.
Which is stupid, yes. On Spaniards and southern Italians, take them out of the sun for a couple of years and see what happens to their complexion.

So we have this term Caucasian, which really doesn't mean that much either. What is a caucasian?
Europeans would be classed as "Europid Caucasoids". Caucasian in and of itself is a useless term, one that is incorrectly used.

Yeah. That being one of the times when it doesn't work. :/

Aw, mon pauvre petit. Next time you'll remember. =)

:) Merci (heh..)

im not racist, im not xenophobe either. im white and i think that in this moment there are more racist black people than white. all we do to not exclude the "black people" from the "white people" so they dont call us racists and they form all forms of gangs, rather all black people, not a single white, they actually dont like white people, ofc there is a relative large number of white people gangs, even neo-nazi or whatever, but still i think there is more from "the other side". my relutance goes when we try to help "black people" communities and they end up degrading it, will they point its our fault? the ones that do and promote that its our fault are the most racist.

this was kind of discussed in my region, i ended up saying racism is a propaganda against some "other side" people. people to blame for example, happened in nazi germany, blaming the "other side" for bad comunity, etc.

i had alot of black friends, more than half of them are in gangs and are active criminally, ofc i also know white people like that, but its nothing compared to the black ones i know, and the majority i see, not only in europe but america too.

ending: my guess is that the "black people" are revenging the "white people" for past racism by being racists.

im european btw, i just read about saying white people are from western europe, happens that im from the most western europe that exists, we actually have more qualifications of tons of white, western and southern europeans are darker than central and northen ones. specially the nordic are very white almost marble, with light hair, like blond or something. southern and western europeans are darker and have darker hair. so we call white people the nordic, but funny we dont have more than 1 "quassification" of black people, theres ethiopians, theres northen africans, theres west-africans that are lighter than the others. anyway they take more offended if you try to soft the issue of skin color, by for example calling them "people of color" or "african" than calling actually "black", and they gladly respond us as "white", so theres no trouble on that nowadays, is it?

as i said in my region, i think more nations should follow the german resolution, if you have a racist comment you can have heavy fees or 1 year in jail, for racist actions is mcuh more worse if you can imagine. i might write a proposal for this game's UN someday with this german resolution as base. or maybe someone else that wants to do it, i'll support.

oh and as you know, we dont call them african-americans, no one is american around here, americans seem to like to use that term anyway.

The lady who sued Mcdonalds because she spilled hot coffee on herself. She was holding it between her legs while driving, and she won solely based on the fact that the coffee was two degrees hotter than it was supposed to be, even though it would have still burned her at two degrees less.

Please at least get some of the facts straight:

lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonalds.htm

She was not driving with it between her legs. It was not two degrees hotter than it should have been, it was 40 degrees hotter. It was held at a temperature they knew would cause a serious injury in 2 to 7 seconds. They had had many scalds before and decided to do nothing.

Honestly, if you're going to pull out the Liebeck lawsuit as an example of how crap the system is, at least understand the BASIC facts about it.

I'm not really okay with my 1/8 métis friend

There's no such thing as a 1/8 Metis. You are, or you aren't, and it isn't about blood quantum.

*snip*
I think the term 'white' is hilarious, because where I grew up, the Germans hated the Poles who hated the Irish who detested the Italians etc. "White" only came into play when it was convenient to toss around insults, either from the suddenly 'united whites' or against them.

To me, restitution for past wrongs is not about punishing individual citizens...it's about the state that perpetrated those wrongs making amends. The people who should be held personally liable generally are...and sued the fuck out of in court for their part in the abuse. (I'm talking about Canada here)

Interesting comment for someone who claims they were not formerly known as Deep Kimchi.

No one believes his protestations anyway.

@#$@$#'n Jolt!

I had a big old rant about cultural bias and it's all gone cuz it looked like I had three posts, and apparently it was only two. And I deleted both of them.

Bah.

Anyway, I'll rant about it some other time. Maybe.

Rant restored.

There's no such thing as a 1/8 Metis. You are, or you aren't, and it isn't about blood quantum.

Well, she really hasn't had any straight natives in the family for like two-hundred years. She's completely whitewashed; she shouldn't be getting free University.

Rant restored.

I always forget to utilize the power of Mods. Thanks!

Well, she really hasn't had any straight natives in the family for like two-hundred years. She's completely whitewashed; she shouldn't be getting free University.

How in the world do people tell who is what? There's no genetic basis for it. Is there a scientific standard that can be tested?

Well, she really hasn't had any straight natives in the family for like two-hundred years. She's completely whitewashed; she shouldn't be getting free University.

She's not native, duh, she's Metis. The Metis are a distinct aboriginal people, who by defination can never be full blooded Indians. They have their own language (Michif) and established their own governments and societies. Some Metis are very white, some are very native looking. Colour is not at all the issue...culture is. And you are, or you aren't.

How in the world do people tell who is what? There's no genetic basis for it. Is there a scientific standard that can be tested?

I really don't know. The only thing I know about this situation is that she has a nice house, car, furniture, fancy re-done kitchen, and a loaded gradma who's offered to pay her full tuition anyways, while my mum and I are scrounging every week to pay the heating bills. Yet she's the one who gets offered free tuition, because a century or two ago, one of her anscestors married a Native guy. That's ridiculous, and it completely discredits Affirmative Action for people who really do need it.

1) Must be descended from a historic Metis community. Extensive lineage research is used as proof.
2) Must self identify as Metis.
3) Must be accepted by a Metis community.

It's not about fucking science, it's about culture.

Sounds like bullshit to me. Sounds racist.

How in the world do people tell who is what? There's no genetic basis for it. Is there a scientific standard that can be tested?
1) Must be descended from a historic Metis community. Extensive lineage research is used as proof.
2) Must self identify as Metis.
3) Must be accepted by a Metis community.

It's not about fucking science, it's about culture.

1) Must be descended from a historic Metis community. Extensive lineage research is used as proof.
2) Must self identify as Metis.
3) Must be accepted by a Metis community.

It's not about fucking science, it's about culture.

Well, she doesn't live with Métis culture, that's for sure. Her grandparents did, hence I refer to her as part-Métis.

I really don't know. The only thing I know about this situation is that she has a nice house, car, furniture, fancy re-done kitchen, and a loaded gradma who's offered to pay her full tuition anyways, while my mum and I are scrounging every week to pay the heating bills. Yet she's the one who gets offered free tuition, because a century or two ago, one of her anscestors married a Native guy. That's ridiculous, and it completely discredits Affirmative Action for people who really do need it.

Seriously, fuck off. It's not affirmative action. What province are you in? Then I can give you the specifics on the funding arrangements. Either she's getting a few years paid for by hobbling together bursuries and scholarships (private monies that the donors can create ANY criteria for) that are for Metis students, or the Metis Nation is paying for some of her studies via their own monies. And each Metis Nation is involved in various business ventures, in addition to being funded by private citizens, or donations from businesses, with a trickle of funding from the government generally used for reasearch...so once again, PRIVATE, NOT STATE money.

You want that? Go find a fucking Irish or whatever you are association that will help you apply for bursaries for Irish students (they exist) and ask them to help you out. It's not as though she's stealing money from you to go to school, which is essentially what you're making it sound like. Your financial situation is hardly her fault.

Sounds like bullshit to me. Sounds racist.
Because it's not about blood? Nice criteria you have there.

Doesn't matter what it sounds like to you, frankly. The Metis people are recognised as one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. And the Canadian government (as always) has defined how Metis people will be recognised. Take it up with the Supreme Court if you don't like that definition.

Diversity is a valid goal of the workplace.
In what way?

Well, she doesn't live with Métis culture, that's for sure. Her grandparents did, hence I refer to her as part-Métis.

Sorry...you're an expert on Metis culture? Do you also expect Indians to live in teepees and hunt with a bow and arrow?

Do Chinese people have to speak Chinese and eat Chinese food, or get disqualified as being ethnically Chinese?

No.

So why do you suddenly think you get to tell a Metis person how 'authentic' they must be to be called Metis?

Quick answer...you don't.

1) Must be descended from a historic Metis community. Extensive lineage research is used as proof.
2) Must self identify as Metis.
3) Must be accepted by a Metis community.

It's not about fucking science, it's about culture.
2. and 3. sure seem to be about culture, but number 1 sounds like your parents have to be Metis, and your grandparents etc etc.

How is number 1 not about genetics?

I'm white and I just love analsex. thats right, I'm not gay, I love anal sex with women. Get used to it.

I also think there is much confusion over the term white. For example, as was mentioned before Germans don't typically think that high of Polish people, the Dutch don't really like the Germans, and the Germans and French have the same. There are so many european and "pale-skinned cultures" that to put them all under one deck mantle is going to be highly innaccurate and plainly doesn't bring much. Much better to split them up into West European, East European, Russo-Slavic, Eurasian and there was even a case in the US courts about a family from India wishing to imigrate under the pretext of being "white" (Indo-european, the term itself shows some of the point, especially in North India there are Indians which have paler skin then many British and the same bone structure as european people's; Same with Iran the Persian Emperor Xerxes held as one of his titles "Lord of the Aryans (an old term for persians)" the Middle Eastern Iranians are in general of paler skin color then greeks, and still are).

White people or pale-skinned people's are by languages, appearance (the only race with such variable features, black, brown, blond, red, and many other hair tones, and also by eye color, blue, green, bluegreen, brown, light blue, steel blue, etc..) and different cultures probably the most diverse race of humans on this earth. I would say it is troubling and difficult to say the least to put them all under one definition.

2. and 3. sure seem to be about culture, but number 1 sounds like your parents have to be Metis, and your grandparents etc etc.

How is number 1 not about genetics?

To be a status Indian in Canada, you must be at least 50%. There is NO blood quantum for Metis. Even if your parents and all the way down the line to your great, great, great, great grandparents were hardcore Metis...but you are no longer accepted by a Metis community, or you don't self-identify, you are not Metis. On the flip side, you could have someone whose great-grandparents were Metis, and they themselves are hardcore members of the community and self-identify...that person is Metis.

Capiche?

I'm white and I just love analsex. thats right, I'm not gay, I love anal sex with women. Get used to it.

This deserves a prize for being the most random comment ever.

White people or pale-skinned people's are by languages, appearance (the only race with such variable features, black, brown, blond, red, and many other hair tones, and also by eye color, blue, green, bluegreen, brown, light blue, steel blue, etc..) and different cultures probably the most diverse race of humans on this earth. I would say it is troubling and difficult to say the least to put them all under one definition.

Race is a fiction that you seem to like subscribing to.

To be a status Indian in Canada, you must be at least 50%. There is NO blood quantum for Metis. Even if your parents and all the way down the line to your great, great, great, great grandparents were hardcore Metis...but you are no longer accepted by a Metis community, or you don't self-identify, you are not Metis. On the flip side, you could have someone whose great-grandparents were Metis, and they themselves are hardcore members of the community and self-identify...that person is Metis.

Capiche?

I see. If I was adopted by Metis parents, and the tribe accepted me, I would be Metis. How silly.

If we're still looking for serious "poor whitey" type comments, here's something.

I'm a white male and a sociology major whos primary area of interest happens to be in race and gender studies.....You can imagine the hilarity that ensues. Every time I express an opinion that isn't significantly to the left of Betty Friedan or Malcom X I have an annoying tendency to get these very snooty looks and instant dismissal. But maybe that's just me....

I see. If I was adopted by Metis parents, and the tribe accepted me, I would be Metis. How silly.

Tribe. Jesus Christ, Eve, educate yourself (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sjm5_e.html).

" A comment to the Commission from Delbert Majer makes the point:

I'll say I'm Métis or other young people that I know that are Métis have been confronted with the same question: 'Oh, I didn't think you were Métis. You don't look it.' You know, it's not a biological issue. It's a cultural, historical issue and it's a way of life issue; and it's not what you look like on the outside, it's how you carry yourself around on the inside that is important, both in your mind and your soul and your heart."


Guess what...if you were adopted by a Cree family, you'd be Cree too.

But you don't get to marry in and become Cree or Metis. And you don't get to 'join' in any other way.

A family from up in the NWT adopted a black boy from Harlem. He was raised Gwich'in, has status as Gwich'in...but shockingly, AMAZINGLY, he's STILL BLACK. You can be more than one thing...

And before any one asks...no, not every person who has an Indian in the woodpile is Metis. Not all half-breeds were Metis.

2. and 3. sure seem to be about culture, but number 1 sounds like your parents have to be Metis, and your grandparents etc etc.

How is number 1 not about genetics?

I never understood this culture bullshit. To me culture is nothing more than how different groups of people abuse their children. Culture is group identity through shared beliefs on abusing children.

I never understood this culture bullshit. To me culture is nothing more than how different groups of people abuse their children. Culture is group identity through shared beliefs on abusing children.
The trolls are out in force today!

The trolls are out in force today!
Well when I am not under a bridge I like to come onto this website. I would just like you to explain to me how culture is not child abuse. There a few good things in culture like shared foods and traditions that may be fun and enjoyable for individuals. But what hold cultures together is the abuse of children mainly through irrational religious beliefs and cultural traditions. Culture is nothing more than breaking the will of a child so that they conform to society. Examples of this can be seen in every place on earth. Culture is the absolute enemy of humanity.

*snip*
Well, I can't find any disagreement with this. :)

Well when I am not under a bridge I like to come onto this website. I would just like you to explain to me how culture is not child abuse. There a few good things in culture like shared foods and traditions that may be fun and enjoyable for individuals. But what hold cultures together is the abuse of children mainly through irrational religious beliefs and cultural traditions. Culture is nothing more than breaking the will of a child so that they conform to society. Examples of this can be seen in every place on earth. Culture is the absolute enemy of humanity.
Rather, culture IS humanity.

Well when I am not under a bridge I like to come onto this website. I would just like you to explain to me how culture is not child abuse. There a few good things in culture like shared foods and traditions that may be fun and enjoyable for individuals. But what hold cultures together is the abuse of children mainly through irrational religious beliefs and cultural traditions. Culture is nothing more than breaking the will of a child so that they conform to society. Examples of this can be seen in every place on earth. Culture is the absolute enemy of humanity.

???

Well when I am not under a bridge I like to come onto this website. I would just like you to explain to me how culture is not child abuse. There a few good things in culture like shared foods and traditions that may be fun and enjoyable for individuals. But what hold cultures together is the abuse of children mainly through irrational religious beliefs and cultural traditions. Culture is nothing more than breaking the will of a child so that they conform to society. Examples of this can be seen in every place on earth. Culture is the absolute enemy of humanity.

The textbook definition of culture I was given is:

How members of a society interacts with other members of that society.

Well when I am not under a bridge I like to come onto this website. I would just like you to explain to me how culture is not child abuse. There a few good things in culture like shared foods and traditions that may be fun and enjoyable for individuals. But what hold cultures together is the abuse of children mainly through irrational religious beliefs and cultural traditions. Culture is nothing more than breaking the will of a child so that they conform to society. Examples of this can be seen in every place on earth. Culture is the absolute enemy of humanity.

Uh, culture is not child abuse for the same reason that culture isn't a cheese sandwich. Culture is just a "way of life" for various groups of people. Different customs, different clothes, food, language, etc etc. What's the big deal? Without culture you don't have humanity, you just have some hive-mind collectivist totalitarianistic fiction. Is that what you want, commie?

Well when I am not under a bridge I like to come onto this website. I would just like you to explain to me how culture is not child abuse. There a few good things in culture like shared foods and traditions that may be fun and enjoyable for individuals. But what hold cultures together is the abuse of children mainly through irrational religious beliefs and cultural traditions. Culture is nothing more than breaking the will of a child so that they conform to society. Examples of this can be seen in every place on earth. Culture is the absolute enemy of humanity.

How can we talk about humanity without culture? Culture is what glues people together, allows us to work together in a community instead of simply looking out for yourself. Or as dictionary.com tells me about culture:

The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.

You are trying to simplify culture into something that makes absolutely no sense. How families operate is only a single aspect of culture, it doesn't solely define it.

How can we talk about humanity without culture? Culture is what glues people together, allows us to work together in a community instead of simply looking out for yourself. Or as dictionary.com tells me about culture.
Assuming one values the division of labour, sure, this is all correct.

However, what does this have to do with humanity, either as the totality of humans or as the characteristic of being human? Autarky certainly doesn't make one less than human.

Assuming one values the division of labour, sure, this is all correct.

However, what does this have to do with humanity, either as the totality of humans or as the characteristic of being human? Autarky certainly doesn't make one less than human.

Well, can't you say that culture is built on top of the concept of humanity? That our intelligence, our "nature", whatever term we use, is necessary for us to have any culture to begin with. And it is not merely division of labor I was considering but the overall way that we interact with others inside and out of that community that determines culture. It is certainly more complex then the simplistic version of that previous poster.

Well, can't you say that culture is built on top of the concept of humanity? That our intelligence, our "nature", whatever term we use, is necessary for us to have any culture to begin with.
The origin of our specific functions may be due to evolution within a social context - that doesn't mean that it presently requires it though (assuming one were to be sufficiently autarkic). If autarky were within an individual's reach, they could avoid culture altogether, undergoing minimal interaction, without becoming inhuman. The earlier poster's position is stupid though, since it isn't.

And it is not merely division of labor I was considering but the overall way that we interact with others inside and out of that community that determines culture. It is certainly more complex then the simplistic version of that previous poster.
The division of labour is largely why we interact, as well as the fact that there is safety in numbers, especially for members of a more frail species.

The origin of our specific functions may be due to evolution within a social context - that doesn't mean that it presently requires it though (assuming one were to be sufficiently autarkic). If autarky were within an individual's reach, they could avoid culture altogether, undergoing minimal interaction, without becoming inhuman. The earlier poster's position is stupid though, since it isn't.


The division of labour is largely why we interact, as well as the fact that there is safety in numbers, especially for members of a more frail species.

I would like to think that it is more than economic reasons that humans interact with each other. We are social creatures (for the most part anyway) who need contact with others for mental stability. Even if we could be self-sufficient without any human contact I don't see how mere survival would be enough for humans to be truly happy.

I would like to think that it is more than economic reasons that humans interact with each other. We are social creatures (for the most part anyway) who need contact with others for mental stability. Even if we could be self-sufficient without any human contact I don't see how mere survival would be enough for humans to be truly happy.
Devoting one's time (which is scarce) to another in exchange for the pleasure they provide (assuming there is a demand for this) is an economic exchange. ;)

I would like to think that it is more than economic reasons that humans interact with each other. We are social creatures (for the most part anyway) who need contact with others for mental stability. Even if we could be self-sufficient without any human contact I don't see how mere survival would be enough for humans to be truly happy.

Definitely. From what I understand of psychology people need to interact with other people. If you need to have that in an economic sense Europa Maxima, just think of it as the human psychological operating expenses include socialization games in order to turn a profit of satisfaction and good health. :)

Definitely. From what I understand of psychology people need to interact with other people. If you need to have that in an economic sense Europa Maxima, just think of it as the human psychological operating expenses include socialization games in order to turn a profit of satisfaction and good health. :)
Hah, read my post above. :p

Devoting one's time (which is scarce) to another in exchange for the pleasure they provide (assuming there is a demand for this) is an economic exchange. ;)

Well, all right. If you look at it this way... :D

Devoting one's time (which is scarce) to another in exchange for the pleasure they provide (assuming there is a demand for this) is an economic exchange.

Exactly. After all, ITES.

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l91/empyreanimperator/Random/CBAforfriends.jpg

A little cheap, simplified CBA I did on spending time with a friend.

Now, theoretically, you could go beyond that by jutting into TIME as a whole for the day (or more)/

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l91/empyreanimperator/Random/CBAgraph2.jpg

Now, the Red line is as before. This would be a single friend, or a group of friends, perhaps.

The green line is representing a significant other, who you would probably want to spend more time with. But everyone gets sick of the other person at some point.

The blue point is a special case, so isn't on a line. This is for, say a bad movie. You are therefore not using your time to the fullest, as you are getting very little enjoyment. However, the gold dot could be represented as, say, hot sex with your significant other. It (hopefully) will take some time (say, foreplay, wanting it to last a bit, afterplay, a second go, perhaps?), and will maximize pleasure.

:confused: To be a status Indian in Canada, you must be at least 50%. There is NO blood quantum for Metis. Even if your parents and all the way down the line to your great, great, great, great grandparents were hardcore Metis...but you are no longer accepted by a Metis community, or you don't self-identify, you are not Metis. On the flip side, you could have someone whose great-grandparents were Metis, and they themselves are hardcore members of the community and self-identify...that person is Metis.

Capiche?

I am still not seeing how this does not involve a genetic component.

I see that a person can be genetically metis but not be accepted by a metis community, however it looks like you have to have metis parents to be considered for being a member of a community - I don't see how that is not a genetic requirement :confused: