George Zimmerman, race and the NAACP

Syphon

A Smooth-Skin
NCCAAP profiles itself, but I cannot say "Black" as white man?

Zimmerman, whose half white, has helped divide the nation, one that is stuck in a place right before finding complete racial harmony and acceptance.

The story of a vigilante, who should of stayed his ass in his truck after dispatch instructed him to do, proceeded against municipal instruction, and advanced to confront a shenanigan. A conflict ensued and the youngman was killed, though he was unarmed.

Trayvon was a shenanigan in my eyes. He wasn't a hood rat. He wasn't even a drunk hooligan. He was a normal kid, in the life of a male who took pictures of himself with a pistol and smoked pot occasionally, to claim his meaningless position in the male hierarchy. We're all guilty of puffing our chest and acting hard. But HE didn't have a jacket (criminal folder) and neither do I, to claim true criminal tendency. Anyway, he gets shot. The murderer walks unscathed.

The African-American community is fucking pissed that one of their children has been killed and NO justice was inflicted. They have a point. I have a buddy who accidentally killed his son while enduring a life-long disease of epilepsy and lost control of his vehicle. He is spending 55 years in medium-security prison at Riverbend, without the possibility of parole. He will 78 if he lives to see the day on the outside. All because he had trace amounts of marijuana in his system, making epilepsy null and void by voluntarily smoking.

Anyway, this fucking guy, Zimmerman, in my opinion has tattered any hint of racial compatibility at this point. BUT is it really Zimmerman or our nation of social groups that is to blame for this outrage? Is it wrong that NCAAP (national advancement of african american people) distinctly groups themselves off on racial term though rejects the idea of a white man identifying a person of color as "black"? I see a double-standard. If I call someone "black" or profiles them as such, its obviously racist.

So should profiling yourself as a group be racist in itself? Dividing minority or majority populace as a group and the act of putting up a wall only makes things worse. Their saying, no your not American, your African American, or Latino American. When the fuck did we have sub sects of this nation? If we are not all but American, then will forever be divided by the barriers we put on ourselves.

Times have to change if we're ever to see complete harmony, and ban RACIALLY SELECT GROUPS! Please state your opinion, if you care or even have one. Am I wrong to see it like this? Am I racist for thinking that NCAAP keeps this cherade going? Thanks for letting me vent.. Kind of hard for me not too, considering CNN and Guardian posts daily updates!
 
Agreed. Why would an ethnic 'minority' try to segregate themselves from the white men, and then complain about being subjected to racism?
 
This nation helps allot of minorities man, my family has always worked and paid taxes which goes to EVERYONE's health, education and food stamp/cash assistance(man that sounds socialist as shit). But these same racially labelled groups still see a divide?? Don't they realize that unbeknownst to them, white people has helped their cause all along with their very basic human needs ??
 
"I don't think it's justice. If it had been a black kid who killed a white man in self defence would he have been aquited? Hell no! He would have had 100 or 200 years or whatever!"

Yeah man! Equality!
 
Re: NCAAP profiles itself but I cannot say "Black"

Syphon said:
Times have to change if we're ever to see complete harmony, and ban RACIALLY SELECT GROUPS! Please state your opinion, if you care or even have one. Am I wrong to see it like this? Am I racist for thinking that NCAAP keeps this cherade going? Thanks for letting me vent.. Kind of hard for me not too, considering CNN and Guardian posts daily updates!

Say it with me; FREEDOM!!

Also the American justice system as I see it is broken beyond measure. Civilian police are already a bad idea in my books (if there's profiling in normal police, imagine in untrained one, and especially in racially hot districts...), and then you get all sorts of shit laws that allow you to gun down people if they look at you funny in the name of ''self-defense'' (I'm exagerating but still) and give vastly inflated sentences while it's been proven that this kind of method is bullshit and only works to stroke the ego of those who give them. Or like in California, where prisons make some people rich, so let's send as many people in them as humanly possible. Freedom and equality, gentlemen.

The root of the problem as I see it seems to have been that we pretty much had to take Zimmerman's word for it, because the kid was, well, fucking dead. Legally shot and killed and nobody seems to bat much of an eyelash save some media and Black groups. We had a similar situation over here and the police still isin't hearing the end of it even after they did all sorts of dirty shit to shift attention to the kid's brother.
 
This topic touches on a lot of different points, and the whole issue is complicated and multi-faceted. So, let's go through a few, shall we?

The jurors did the right thing

I know, this is a little hard to hear for some, but that's simply the truth. The jurors are there to apply the law, and by the letter of the law it was very difficult to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, let alone murder in the second degree. The burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is very high, and there is reasonable doubt here. It is certainly plausible that Zimmerman thought he was being attacked with fatal violence and reacted under duress with what he thought was the only way to save his life. This is plausible, not likely, but it is enough to cast reasonable doubt on any conviction.

This does not mean that what Zimmerman did was right

Nor does it mean that Trayvon Martin was wrong. That's a separate issue. When you carry a weapon, you have a burden to not put yourself in positions where you will have to use it unnecessarily. You cannot go around stalking random dudes in the middle of the night because you think they look suspicious. You are consciously putting yourself in positions where it's more likely you could feel compelled to kill a man.

At the very, very least Zimmerman was guilty of being incredibly irresponsible, and of racial profiling. The fact that he got away with it isn't nearly as significant as the fact that many people defended this behavior. Whether or not there are racial motivations behind those defenses, that fact for many black people reinforces something they've experienced their entire lives: that there are many ways in which race affects their lives. And the fact that they can legitimately feel that way is an issue.






Let's move on from Zimmerman's case, which wasn't particularly interesting, to the other racially charged topics you talked about. Bear with me, I'm going to go through a lot of different concepts and it's going to be long. Try to read all of it before jumping to any judgments, and read it carefully. Feel free to ask for clarification on any subject if I'm not being clear, or if you want some sources for my claims where I didn't provide them.

Racial prejudice does not require malice, or conscious discrimination

The human mind is a curious thing. It's very imperfect and uses a lot of shortcuts to jump to conclusions. One of the effects is that prejudices become ingrained in people. Those prejudices don't need to be conscious. They certainly don't require malice. But that doesn't mean they're not real.

If two people walk in for the same job interview with the exact same qualifications, but one of them is black and the other is white, the latter is more likely to be hired. That's an empirical fact -- we have countless studies to back it up. That doesn't mean that the person doing the hiring was consciously racist or acting maliciously -- but prejudice works in curious ways. Maybe he thought the white guy looked more trustworthy, or maybe he just wasn't comfortable with the black guy. Those feelings are real, and largely subconscious. They don't make the employer a bad person, just a human being with biases and prejudices like everyone else.

But that doesn't make those effects any less real.

The U.S. justice system is racist in some respects

Did you know that punishments for possession of crack are much higher than those for powder cocaine? The difference used to be insane: 5 grams of crack was enough to get you charged with a felony, whereas it took 500 grams of powdered cocaine to get a felony charge. This changed in 2011 -- when the bar for crack was lifted to 28 grams. Still a pretty big 18 to 1 disparity for what is essentially the same substance. Couple that with the fact that black people are a lot more likely to smoke crack than blow cocaine (due to socio-economic and cultural issues) and you have what amounts to a justice system that selects by race, whether or not the motivations are racist. It's the effects that matter -- and the effect is that the drug war is racist in its effect for no good reason.

There are other issues, too. There's racial profiling, which is absolutely real. A black man in an expensive car is looked upon much more suspiciously than a white man in the same car. Whether or not this is justified based on personal experience doesn't matter: people are being prejudged by their skin color. That is racist by definition.

Similarly, stop-and-frisk policies routinely and explicitly target blacks. Mayor Bloomberg even defended this. Whether or not they are effective (and there's quite a bit of evidence that suggests they're not) or whether those profilings are justifiable from a statistical perspective doesn't diminish a simple fact: if you are black, you will be targeted solely because of your skin color. You are not being treated equal to other citizens.

The justice system has racist effects in other ways too. Blacks are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be convicted, more likely to be targeted, more likely to be on death row, more harshly punished when they are convicted etc. Remember: none of this means the people doing those things are consciously racist or acting maliciously. They're not evil people trying to keep black people down. They just have subconscious prejudices. But the effects are still very real.

Even simple prejudices can have very large effects

There are many, many scientific studies on the subject of the effect of prejudices. Prejudices do not need to be conscious and the person harboring does not need to be malicious for them to be real, and have an effect. Blacks are less likely to be hired for a job, given equal qualifications. They're less likely to be born into a position where they could have these equal qualifications to begin with. They're more likely to be selected by police for stop-and-frisk or other legal procedures. When they do commit crimes, they're both more likely to get caught and more likely to be punished harshly. During the last elections, many voting rules seemed to explicitly target blacks (or rather, poor constituencies). Early voting was limited or eliminated in many Republican-controlled states and areas, voter registration rules that disproportionately affect blacks were installed, gerrymandering tried to limit black participation in government. Again: those policies didn't state that as their goals, but that was their effect. And if you're black, what you feel, what you experience, is that effect.

Don't think about this from the perspective of an outsider looking in, seeing that there are some justifications for these policies. Look at it from the perspective of a black man. How would you feel if you saw those policies target your people? If you had felt suspicion at every police stop? If you had

I could show you all these studies, but they don't do a very good job of communicating the emotional impact. I feel that this is a fairly easy (though not very scientific) and powerful demonstration of the effects of racial profiling:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ge7i60GuNRg" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Another one is this story of a black family adopting a white girl, and the reactions it sees every day. Those people reacting are not acting maliciously. They are not consciously racist. But that does not make those reactions and less painful for the family.

Historical realities are very important in this discussion

Here are some painful but very real facts that affect every black family to this day, regardless of their social status. Everyone knows these facts, but it's a little different when you would have been one of the people this talks about.

Slavery was practiced in the United States for 150 years.

Slavery was followed by 100 years of legal oppression of black people. Segregation, Jim Crow, it was all real.

This was coupled with illegal but still very real violence against blacks. Lynchings in the south were not isolated incidents. White on black violence was rarely prosecuted. Whole towns were burned down in racial violence. This lasted up until the 1960s.

When Democrats turned away from these racist policies in the 1960s, the Republicans consciously started to court racists with racially abusive policies in what they dubbed the Southern strategy. Let me say that again: in the 1970s and 1980s (and in some ways to this day) one of the two major political parties was consciously and maliciously racist to get more votes. They never did so explicitly, but they did it implicitly. We have tapes of major political advisors for the Republican party (most notably Lee Atwater) plainly stating this as fact. This doesn't just say something about thosee Republicans, but it also says something else that many people miss:

There were(/are) so many racists that appealing to them was a successful political strategy.

When these legal barriers were (largely) eliminated in the 1960s, things got a lot better. But different mechanisms took over and some still remain to this day. Prejudices are real and do not need to be conscious or have malicious intentions to still have real effects. The fact that things are now better, especially from a purely legal standpoint, does not mean that racism is now a thing of the past.

The racial gap, too, is a very real thing

If there really is no difference between whites and blacks, why is racial inequality still this large? Nonwhites earn 65% of what whites earn. Nonwhites' houses are worth half of the houses of whites. White families have six times the net worth of non-white families. Those are staggering numbers.

I don't mean to belittle the plight of poor white people, though. They people have it bad, too, and deserve assistance too. I'm in favor of more and more comprehensive welfare, of more measures to help all groups better their lives. But the fact is that black people on average have it worse than white people, in a variety of ways. And any policies specifically meant for minorities are meant to help remedy that fact. Those policies should be evaluated by whether or not they work, and not on gut feel or ideological feelings about treating people equally.

So yes, there is still a racial gap. If you look at any collection of numbers you can see that. Neither are blacks treated equally even if laws are on their face race-neutral. Discrimination doesn't need to be explicit or codified to be very real in its effects.

You don't wash away 250 years of oppression and continuing discrimination with 40 years of legislation. This is a deep-running issue, and a very complicated problem that requires and will require a lot of work to solve over the coming generations. And you can't solve it by pretending that racial discrimination is gone when it really isn't. When the income disparity between the groups is still very real, when there are policies that implicitly if not explicitly target blacks, when the prejudices of employers and people on the street still negatively affect blacks.

Combine all of this, and you should not be surprised that many blacks feel that society is still racist, still judges them and still makes life harder for them than for others. Mostly, because society really still does that.

Affirmative action is in place to correct these issues

Treating everyone completely equally and pretending that these income disparities do not exist is the same as denying reality. Yes, you can get support that is specifically aimed at your ethnic group. This is so to help that group transcend

And those policies do not make up for the worse positions that many blacks start out in. The schools in their districts are worse. They are born in poorer families. They are born into a culture that does not treat them like equal citizens, especially so when they come from the shittier parts of town.

Blacks still earn significantly less than whites. They have fewer possessions and the possessions do they have are worth less. That's why affirmative action still exists.

It's also why the NAACP exists. It exists because back in the day, someone had to come up for black rights. It exists because these days, racial disparity is still a real thing. It exists because not talking about race doesn't make these problems go away. Also, as far as I know the NAACP does not object to people using the word black. If they do that's silly, but not particularly salient -- a detail.

On a positive note, things are improving slowly

We do not live in times of Jim Crow. Legally, blacks are much better protected and there have been real gains in income and assets, too. But those gains have been slow and steady, and they will require attention for several generations before the problem is solved. It will require more targeted and more aggressive action, too, in many areas.

Tragically, recent resurgences of the post-racial society hypothesis only make this more difficult. While those people may think that they're helping society move beyond race, they're actually standing in the way of policies that are slowly helping minorities crawl out of the morass of centuries of oppression. It's a lot more harmful to stop that progress prematurely than it is to let it go on a little too long. And we're not nearly at the point where we can stop those policies.




Frankly, Syphon, it seems to me that you're reacting from emotion, gut feel and general statements rather than thorough research into these issues. There is a lot of literature on this subject, and it's very very complicated. It's hard to get into, but there are very good reasons for a lot of the things you're complaining about. We're talking about a contentious and very ugly topic, about the feelings of very large groups of people, and about the difficulties in empathizing with situations you've never been in. It doesn't really do to speak quickly and easily about these topics without putting in time to understand all sides of the debate.

Might I suggest something? You should read more on this subject, because there's a lot to be said. A good way to start might be by reading The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, which deals with the racial effects of the current American judicial system and prison complex. It's just one aspect of a much larger problem, but it does show how that one aspect affects black people, and its very serious problems.
 
Sounds to me like you didnt even follow the trial. The court system wasnt broken, it made the decision fairly according to the available evidence and the laws that applied. If the same events occurred except the shooter was a black man and the kid was white, the same outcome would be reached. The only difference is it wouldnt be such a national issue.

I do think there comes a point when an oppressed group needs to stop viewing themselves as a separate group from the rest of society.. the us vs them mentality creates enemies out of people that otherwise wouldnt be and that kind of thinking started the problem in the first place.
 
Coordinator of the neighborhood watch sees a suspicious black youngster with a hoodie. Black youngsters of similar description have been burglarizing houses across the neighborhood. He follows him to see if something is wrong, and calls the police dispatch to inform them. Police dispatch suggests not to follow, but hey, it's a free world, right?

Meanwhile, Trayvon tells a friend on the phone that he's being followed by "a coon", but that he's almost home. Instead of entering his house, he backtracks a fairly long distance and confronts Zimmerman. Zimmerman tries to defuse the situation, by trying to talk him down (and most notably by NOT brandishing his gun), but is attacked anyway. Trayvon smacks Zimmerman to the ground, and "mounts" him. Zimmerman's head is smacked into the ground repeatedly (enough for him to be bleeding pretty nicely). Zimmerman finally draws his gun in the struggle & shoots Trayvon.

We've been fed lies about Trayvon & Zimmerman all the damn time. Prosecution went as far as withholding evidence found on Trayvon's phone regarding texts about theft, posing with guns and posing with a cannabis plant. It has cost the IT administrator his job, as he was fired over bringing this information to the defense...
Zimmerman has been "whitened" in pictures by media, whereas the media initially used pictures that were 6 (yes six) years old to portay poor lil' Tray Tray.
When it was assumed that Zimmerman had said something racist to police dispatch (which he hadn't, as it turned out when the police tapes got released), the press was all over it. But when Trayvon called Zimmerman a coon, half the media didn't think it was worth mentioning. (Who's the racist here?)

I don't care what you think about concealed carry and about neigborhood watches, but Zimmerman showed a fuckton more restraint than most... Many would've drawn the moment Trayvon came at them. Instead he tried to defuse the situation.
When someone beats your head into the ground, shooting that person is a clear cut case of self-defense. Even if you think someone is stalking you, you do not have the right to beat that person into the fucking ground. You on the other hand have the right to "stand your ground".
All of the prosecution's witnesses and experts basically made the defense's case by telling the jury time & time again that the action was justified (although often not in that many words).
 
BonusWaffle said:
I do think there comes a point when an oppressed group needs to stop viewing themselves as a separate group from the rest of society.. the us vs them mentality creates enemies out of people that otherwise wouldnt be and that kind of thinking started the problem in the first place.
That, of course, is a lot easier to say when you're not part of that minority that clearly sees itself being treated differently from the rest of the population. Trying to pretend that it isn't so isn't going to make it go away.


SuAside: I think you're making a lot of assumptions and inferences there that really aren't warranted. Why would Trayvon Martin being pictured with cannabis be relevant? Why are you trying to attack his character? It has no bearing on the case. On the other hand, Zimmerman's character does have a bearing on the case. The two are not equal in import, here.

Second, you talk about "the media" as one big entity trying to push an agenda. But this is nonsense. There's no homogenized "media", and when you talk about that construct in that way you're also excluding the single biggest US network (Fox News, 40% market share IIRC). That's not part of the media? That doesn't mean that there weren't a lot of egregious abuses in some media coverage, there were, but you're overgeneralizing and trying to create a homogenous picture of being lied to. Moreover, it ignores the lies and nonsensical portrayals we saw across the internet and in other media, as well. Martin has been described as a "football player" (he sometimes played pickup football in the neighborhood), pictures of him have been cherry-picked to make him look menacing (as if that somehow makes this better), pictures not his were attributed to him, he was rumored to have been a criminal based no evidence etc.

Third, you accept Zimmerman's account unquestionably as fact. We don't know if he was really attacked. We don't know if and how he tried to defuse the situation. We don't know if he was overpowered, if he was being beat into the "fucking ground". We don't know he really had no other option than to draw his weapon. We don't know about the runup or exchange directly preceding the confrontation. There is enough reasonable doubt to not convict the man, but that does not mean that his account is unquestionable truth as you present it.

Fourth, your dismissal of Zimmerman's actions with the words "it's a free world" is callous, at best. When you are carrying a weapon and are prepared to use it, you have a responsibility to be very careful and not casually put yourself in situations where you may take another person's life. You have an extra responsibility to be careful with your actions as a member of a neighborhood watch. Zimmerman had no good reason for following Martin. He had no good reason for doing so with his gun with him. He had no good reason not to just stay in his car and follow Zimmerman that way, or stay put for that matter. Zimmerman was not, in any way, careful. He was irresponsible and it led to the death of another human being. That is indefensible. That does not make what he did illegal, but it does not mean that he's cleared of responsibility, either.
 
A Black woman, mother of three fired a warning shot against her abusive husband that hurt literaly no one and she si serving 20 years in jail, Zimmerman killed a minor (a black one) after illegaly stalking him and he is free. Funny, isn't it?
 
Frankly, Syphon, it seems to me that you're reacting from emotion, gut feel and general statements rather than thorough research into these issues. There is a lot of literature on this subject, and it's very very complicated. It's hard to get into, but there are very good reasons for a lot of the things you're complaining about. We're talking about a contentious and very ugly topic, about the feelings of very large groups of people, and about the difficulties in empathizing with situations you've never been in. It doesn't really do to speak quickly and easily about these topics without putting in time to understand all sides of the debate.

Might I suggest something? You should read more on this subject, because there's a lot to be said. A good way to start might be by reading The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, which deals with the racial effects of the current American judicial system and prison complex. It's just one aspect of a much larger problem, but it does show how that one aspect affects black people, and its very serious problems.

Your right Sander, this was an emotionally-charged "outburst" if you want to call it that since I didn't put statistics and cited sources about how Europeans used colonialism to do America's dirty work. But why would I do that if you already know all about it? I wasn't discussing Zimmerman intimately, I was more aimed at asking why should profiling be shunned apon if they profile themselves? Doesn't the act of dividing a minority only keep things racist?

And your right, I and alot of others should rehash the long-line of discrimination but whats that really going to solve? Solutions people. Unless History will give us a compete-180 solution I'd rather focus on the present.

empathizing with situations you've never been in.

I don't know why you assume that MY people haven't been discriminated against. My fathers mother is from Berrafranca, Sicily. My fathers father is a Nez Perce native american who was born on a Walla Walla reservation into poverty. Discrimination? Frankly, Sander, don't assume this is just a black/white/latino issue. There is room for everybody to come together.

Walpkunt: Do you know what state that is?
 
Syphon said:
Doesn't the act of dividing a minority only keep things racist?
The short answer to this is: pretending that the minority isn't different isn't helping them, it's only stopping real solutions. Targeted solutions work. They help educate, provide jobs etc.

It's also a form of victim blaming. The issue with racism isn't the black community thinking they're different. That's not why they're much worse off and actually treated differently from everyone else. They're worse off exactly because they are treated differently. You have the causality backwards.

It's nice that you want to focus on solutions, but you're not actually proposing a solution. Banning the NAACP or any organization that makes mention of race? That's just removing vehicles for empowerment and improvement while leaving the institutional racism in place.

The whole point of that very, very large post was to show that it isn't just as simple as removing labels, because the labels are still present. It was to show that no, the world is not very close to achieving "racial harmony" and to show that no, affirmative action should not be a thing of the past -- that white people aren't just giving lots of things to black people and only helping them. These are all your contentions.

Syphon said:
I don't know why you assume that MY people haven't been discriminated against. My fathers mother is from Berrafranca, Sicily. My fathers father is a Nez Perce native american who was born on a Walla Walla reservation into poverty. Discrimination? Frankly, Sander, don't assume this is just a black/white/latino issue. There is room for everybody to come together.
So because your grandparents on one side were an Italian immigrant and a Native American you think you've gone through what black people go through?

That's just not realistic. Unless you are very, very unique, you just haven't faced that same level of discrimination.

Walpknut said:
A Black woman, mother of three fired a warning shot against her abusive husband that hurt literaly no one and she si serving 20 years in jail, Zimmerman killed a minor (a black one) after illegaly stalking him and he is free. Funny, isn't it?
That's mostly the consequence of the grotesque injustice of mandatory minimum sentences.
 
So the existance of a institution that is solely for the advancement of a select skin-tone isn't racist? My point is, if somebody identifies themselves as a "whatever" but then a Laotian calls them a "whatever", why is the Laotian now a racist if the labelee accepts that said "whatever". Makes no friggin sense to me! Its just this stupid cycle of people getting offended but then accepting it at the same time???

I just think as a step forward, we either 1)drop all racial terms and accept our sovereignty as Americans or 2) Continue to argue over the treatment of our racial-groups through tiny instances that judges us a whole.
 
Syphon said:
So the existance of a institution that is solely for the advancement of a select skin-tone isn't racist? My point is, if somebody identifies themselves as a "whatever" but then a Laotian calls them a "whatever", why is the Laotian now a racist if the labelee accepts that said "whatever". Makes no friggin sense to me! Its just this stupid cycle of people getting offended but then accepting it at the same time???

I just think as a step forward, we either 1)drop all racial terms and accept our sovereignty as Americans or 2) Continue to argue over the treatment of our racial-groups through tiny instances that judges us a whole.
This is a false dichotomy. These are not the only two options.

Why do you think that if black people stop calling themselves black that will in any way help? Why would them voluntarily giving up the affirmative action, protection against discrimination and the very few positive things they do receive help them in any way? Why would denying the historic and even present day reality be a good way of addressing a real problem?

You're not addressing any of my points, here. You're just continuing to hang on to the idea that the fact that black people have an organization coming up for their rights is a bad idea because of the label it creates. But that label exists in modern day society, whether or not there's an organization representing those people as a group or not. The label isn't going to go away because they stop calling themselves that.

Once black people as a group have actually achieved equality, then you can come back with the idea that maybe they should drop racial labels too. Until then, the NAACP and organizations like it are needed, necessary and helping the situation.
 
Woah woah, I didn't say drop EOE or Grants or anything like that. EOE will help protect against racist employers, and Grants will help kids in schools that have failed miserably due to their location/social status/federal grant $$$ based on performance/test grades. So we need that, definately.

Here's another solution then: STOP REQUIRING ALL FEDERAL, STATE, PRIVATE forms of ANY kind to ask of RACIAL HERITAGE?! Then grants, loan processes, federal contractor list, will keep any body in charge from distinguishing the person based on their skin color. If people don't see that racial term as much, maybe people won't feel racially obliged to act a certain stereotype?

IF THE MEDIA can't say well "75% of whites are on foodstamps but only 15% of asians are receiving help", their can't draw any conclusion of racial blame from the statistics.
 
racism is basic. I like people that look like me more than other people Thats just how human nature is and its how its always going to be. Other than that I think that society has pretty much put racism behind it. There is no reason to have an organization that only operates to make things better for a particular race of people. An organization to end racism and promote racial equality is a good thing, but I think syphon is right on this.
 
Sander's argument is fatally deterministic. Meanwhile, a boat full of penniless, illiterate 3rd world Asians are graduating valedictorians with Ivy League scholarships.
 
BonusWaffle said:
racism is basic. I like people that look like me more than other people Thats just how human nature is and its how its always going to be. Other than that I think that society has pretty much put racism behind it. There is no reason to have an organization that only operates to make things better for a particular race of people. An organization to end racism and promote racial equality is a good thing, but I think syphon is right on this.

Sander's posts have pretty much said that this is untrue. Blacks (among others) have much lower social and economic standings than white, and severals reasons for this stems from their skin color. This is not a society that has ''put racism behind''. There is no more lynching of blacks by crazed KKK loons or explicitely segragationist laws, but that doesn't mean racism itself is gone, not by a long shot. To claim so is to be blind to reality and want to bury th issue methinks.
 
Back
Top