Subject:
|
Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:50:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1313 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > Not going to speak for Scott, but I took his meaning as:
>
> > If we do a poll, we will find out that the *majority* of black people make a
> > lot less money and live in disadvantagious areas of the US than the
> > *majority* of white people.
>
> Okay, but so what? Statistically, one group will *have* to make more than the
> other group-- what is the point? The point is that there are haves and
> havenots-- why introduce race into the equation? How does that ultimately
> matter? And what conclusions are you trying to make to by asserting it?
How did blacks get into the "less money" hole? Are you honestly trying to
sweep slavery, racism, Jim Crow laws, blocking of access to education,
discrimination in the workplace under the rug? If you pretend that this
didn't happen, then you can pretend that the current situation isn't the
outcome of racism?
>
> > Since you, John, do not think it's a 'colour-of-skin' issue at all (a la
> > "Racist"), then Scott is asking you (tongue in cheek) what that reason may
> > be--maybe it's a genetic disposition.
>
> Well, then, it wasn't funny. Because race is a genetic disposition:
Someone else can lead him to the obvious...
>
> > DWB's happen. Pulling someone over just *because* they're black, or
> > suspecting someone for a crime just *because* of the colour of his skin is
> > racist.
>
> But is it racist if that driver is male, black, between the ages 18-25? Now
> you are starting to talk about profiling...
Actually, she was female, in her 30s, dressed to the nines, an MBA, and
working for a world-famous research facility, and a resident in the city she
was pulled over in (okay, *I* was pulled over, to go back to my example, but
the cops saw her on their side). I can cite another one where the guy the
idiot racist cop pulled over was a high police official in the neighboring
city (clean cut, desssed nice, in his 50's). I can dig up lots more of the
same ilk. "Profiling" is a convenient excuse.
>
> > Pointing out that DWB's , wrongful arrests due to skin colour, or
> > the disparity b/w income and housing of black people and white people, is
> > *not* racist, and is, in fact, pointing out the *inherent* racism in the
> > system. How much more clear can it be said?
>
> If I'm playing sandlot basketball and I pick a team that has 3 whites and 2
> blacks, am I being inherently racist?
I'd have to know alot more about the situation than that to pass any kind of
judgment.
>
> My point is that there can be other explanations as to why such disparities
> exist that are apart from any "inherent racism". The proof is that there are
> many blacks and other races doing very well in this country, and there are many
> whites that aren't. Looking to race to somehow explain these disparities
> serves no purpose (though might be statistically interesting to you, not me).
So history has no value?
>
> I'm just so tired of hearing people lumped together by race (the black
> community, the Hispanic community) These terms mean *nothing*; they are bereft
> of meaning and describe nothing of substance.
Different cultural values and background, often including religious and
linguistic differences. All those are "substance". What you really don't
want is to have to deal with anyone different from you - you wish they were
all the same. Certainly it would be easier, but pretending those
differences aren't there is telling yourself a convenient lie.
They serve no purpose except
> political gain and exploitation.
That's not exclusively true as noted above, though it does happen. Since
you admit that that does happen, why do you have a problem admitting that
blacks have been abused and exploited for gain in the past?
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...]
|
| (...) *Are* all blacks in the "less money" hole? Why not? Why are millions well off, dispite all of the things you mentioned? I am not trying to sweep all of those things under the rug; I am calling for people who use such arguments as excuses to (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...]
|
| (...) Okay, but so what? Statistically, one group will *have* to make more than the other group-- what is the point? The point is that there are haves and havenots-- why introduce race into the equation? How does that ultimately matter? And what (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
