> We just had a black man elected to his second term as president, so I think that's a pretty good sign we aren't that racist.
Sir, I say this with as much respect as I can muster: Absent significant study, it is absolutely not the place of someone who is a member of the racial majority to declare the extent or impact of racism. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
A mixed race man was, indeed, elected to high office. He was elected over the objections of people who claimed him to be, among other things:
- A Kenyan
- A secret muslim
- A liar inelegible for the presidency under the terms of Section I, Article II of the United States constitution
These claims have been made and repeated for over four years. They are made, in part, because Barack Obama looks different from the men who have previously run the country. They are repeated because that fact scares the absolute shit out of a certain subset of the country.
Racism – far from vanquished – has proven to be a politically expedient tool. (Though, thankfully, one with toxic side effects.)
Have we made progress since the civil war and the civil rights movement? Yeah.
But racism is an ugly, nasty force that persists in both overt and subtle ways. It's not over. And for the people who must still grapple with its effects, it's a big problem.
White guy here. I grew up in rural Georgia and got out as fast as I could. I still visit every Xmas. While we've come a long way since Jim Crow, I still hear the n-word all the time. Not just from rednecks, but from educated people who are respected leaders in their community.
I think we're at least another generation away from that word being expunged from common discourse.
> Absent significant study, it is absolutely not the place of someone who is a member of the racial majority to declare the extent or impact of racism. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
The opposite is also true: "Absent significant study, it is absolutely not the place of someone who is a member of the racial minority to declare the extent or impact of racism." Why not say simply it is not the place of someone to declare the extent or impact of racism without study?
Also I believe you are assuming the race of the parent. For all you know they could be a member of a racial minority.
More to the point what is our goal WRT racism? To eliminate associating traits with a person purely based on their race that are not backed up by a correlation? If that's the case affirmative actively works against that goal.
But the rest of silliness about white people having it harder than minorities was the giveaway.
> The opposite is also true: "Absent significant study, it is absolutely not the place of someone who is a member of the racial minority to declare the extent or impact of racism." Why not say simply it is not the place of someone to declare the extent or impact of racism without study?
Being a minority can be a graduate level course on the extent and impact of racism. In America, most blacks and hispanics have had ample time to study up, sadly. And if you're from anywhere in the vicinity of the Middle East, god help you.
> Being a minority can be a graduate level course on the extent and impact of racism. In America, most blacks and hispanics have had ample time to study up, sadly. And if you're from anywhere in the vicinity of the Middle East, god help you.
That could all be correct however the person would still lack perspective and sample size. Without studying it on a large scale you could never be sure.
You also ignored my question of what is the goal in the end. My personal end goal is to have no one look at a person and label/judge them based on characteristic without facts to back it up and I think affirmative action takes us away from that.
>> But the rest of silliness about white people having it harder than minorities was the giveaway.
I grew up poor, light skin (white?) part Scottish descent small part Native American Indian. I trained myself to get into the profession I love, buying my own books and writing code in several languages for a dozen years on the side while maintaining a full time job and family, before I started writing code for pay.
No one person in America deserves more than any one else based on the color of their skin.
Right, but you're light skinned. Imagine that, in addition to all the hardships you probably had to overcome, you also had to deal with systemic racism because you had dark skin.
The opposite is also true: "Absent significant study, it is absolutely not the place of someone who is a member of the racial minority to declare the extent or impact of racism."
People of marginalized groups are often much more familiar with racism and what is and isn't racist than people of privileged groups. It's like talking about sports with a sports fanatic and someone not that into sports. One person is going to know a lot more than the other.
Sir, I say this with as much respect as I can muster: Absent significant study, it is absolutely not the place of someone who is a member of the racial majority to declare the extent or impact of racism. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
A mixed race man was, indeed, elected to high office. He was elected over the objections of people who claimed him to be, among other things:
- A Kenyan
- A secret muslim
- A liar inelegible for the presidency under the terms of Section I, Article II of the United States constitution
These claims have been made and repeated for over four years. They are made, in part, because Barack Obama looks different from the men who have previously run the country. They are repeated because that fact scares the absolute shit out of a certain subset of the country.
Racism – far from vanquished – has proven to be a politically expedient tool. (Though, thankfully, one with toxic side effects.)
Have we made progress since the civil war and the civil rights movement? Yeah.
But racism is an ugly, nasty force that persists in both overt and subtle ways. It's not over. And for the people who must still grapple with its effects, it's a big problem.