OMG

Mar 29, 2006 02:05

I've deleted this post for two reasons:

1. I've cooled off considerably since writing the initial post.

2. I don't want my friend stumbling across the post and thinking that it was a bigger deal than it actually was.

If you still wanna chime in, feel free.

:-)

Leave a comment

Comments 18

britbear March 29 2006, 15:29:48 UTC
As a foreigner, but a white male speaking ENglish as a first language (I'll spare you the joke there) it's interesting that I do not suffer the prejudice a non-white-skinned foreigner would experience. I am taken for AMerican until I open my mouth, taken for straight until I hear Kylie and squeel like a stuck pig :)

Also, the Paris thing - not so egalitarian on the race front as you might think. London on the other hand - is there a more mixed city and better for it ?

:)

Miss your friendship, when m I gonna see u 'gin ?

Reply

tonymorg March 29 2006, 17:02:36 UTC
Well, (and perhaps I didn't stress this firmly enough above), it's not that I expect to find less racism in other places . . . I'm quite aware that there isn't a place on earth without its problems . . . it's just that I'm so frustrated that the American electorate seems either blind to the problem or unwilling to make (m)any personal sacrifices for the common good.

Reply

Oh, and also? tonymorg March 29 2006, 17:16:29 UTC
I'd love to see you boys again, soon, too . . .

Y'all should visit soon . . . we're having so much rain here that you'd scarcely know you ever left home.

Reply

Re: Oh, and also? britbear March 30 2006, 15:23:13 UTC
ya never know !
we want to visit SF on a non-party w/e ...

Reply


squalidbear March 29 2006, 16:47:07 UTC
It's still there in London, just based on a different set of criteria, e.g. what school you went to, who your parents know, where you grew up, etc. Of course they can't call black people "African-American" there, so I don't know what they call them... "persons of color"?

Reply

tonymorg March 29 2006, 16:56:17 UTC
I'm sure that's true, but at least I'd feel better I wasn't so woefully out of step with the majority of the electorate there . . . although I'm sure that could change pretty quickly, too.

Reply


markosf March 29 2006, 17:29:04 UTC
While what you say is true and whites certainly have a history of advantages over blacks, instituting racial bias to correct it seems to cause more problems at this point than it corrects. By giving priority over another because of race is saying that "those" people need a crutch, are less than, and cheapens the real accomplishments of people of color. It also gives racists an excuse to continue to be so through resentment, thereby keeping racism alive. Do we start requiring Asians higher SAT scores to get into schools because they are disproportionately educated? Jews? I think it's all dangerous.

There must be a better way to base institutionalized assistance for those who need it that would be colorblind.

Reply

tonymorg March 29 2006, 17:45:49 UTC
I agree that affirmative action might not be the absolute best solution to the problems of institutionalized racism, but it's certainly better than nothing.

I don't think it's a "crutch" to offer persons of color options that they otherwise wouldn't have; that argument assumes that everyone starts on a level playing field, which (in my opinion) is clearly not the case.

And as long as discrimination, inequality and injustice obtain along color lines, we cannot offer assistance that is colorblind. The color of a person's skin, sadly, is still a factor.

Reply

abearius April 15 2006, 19:40:31 UTC
Back when I wanted to see and save the world, I used to write stuff. Funny stuff, I thought, but insightful. If you read the Book of Numbers (which is a real snore except for this part) you find out that Moses married a black girl. Yep. "And Moses took unto himself a Cushite wife." Or something appropriately Biblical like that. Naturally, the spiritual leader of Israel had no good business marrying a schvatze, so Aaron and Miriam led a revolt among the children of Israel. Jehovah got pissed off at Aaron and Miriam, probably because they should have known better than to be a bunch of racist boobs, "and he smote them with whiteness." I find this amusing because "whiteness" (leprosy) becomes the stain of clannish racism, the stigma that you bear for refusing to embrace the universality of human dignity. So Miriam and Aaron had to live outside the camp of Israel for seven days to be cured of their whiteness. Later in, I think, Jeremiah, a "day" is compared to a "generation ( ... )

Reply

abearius April 15 2006, 19:47:20 UTC
Another thought: It is easier to liberalize institutions than it is to liberalize the marketplace. Note that the black bourgeoisie is gerally professional and not entrepreneurial. The prejudice of the marketplace and the common people have created affirmative action as much as they deplore it.

Reply


nursetomsf March 29 2006, 18:45:22 UTC
First - what is it you do? I don't think we've ever talked about it.

Second - I completely agree with you. It would be one thing if the playing field truly was even, but that is not the case - and has never really been. Taking all the Health Education classes I am this semester, this is sonething we look at constantly - the difference in power between white Americans and Americans of color.

And you're right - until we can make the playing field truly even (and I don't think that will happen in our generation - too many people benefit way too much off things the way they are now) we need to take steps to alleviate the discrepancies. Yes, affirmative action may not be the ideal solution, but considering that fact that the scales have been, and continue to be, tipped against people of color and the poor (which often are the same), it's better than doing nothing.

Reply

tonymorg March 29 2006, 19:20:13 UTC
I'm in grad school studying religious and political ethics . . .

And one of the areas I'm focusing on is economic equity.

Reply


Interesting bvig01 March 29 2006, 23:25:05 UTC
I come from a background of Italian immegrants. My parents came here straight off the boat in 1952. They came with language barriers and poor. I still think they had a better chance of becoming economically healthy because they are white. No doubt they worked hard, however opportunities were more accessable to them because of that.

Moving right into SF, their was a thriving Italian community at the time where opportunities presented themselves. Very interesting conversation. It seems as though they still hand a bit of an upper hand due to their background and skin color.

Reply

Re: Interesting bvig01 March 29 2006, 23:29:19 UTC
I meant to spell "immigrants." LOL!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up