I would certainly agree with the poster on the emphasis on equal opportunity in education and other areas. Supreme Court decisions such as this latest one have a tendency to bastardize political debate; and I think it would be fair to say that it will poison the ability of public figures, scholars and regular people alike to talk constructively on how best to address issues of integration, segregation and opportunity.

The 'necessity' of these integration schemes from a standard liberal viewpoint is that high school enrollment left to itself will result in largely (or at least partially) segregated schooling (and also that this is undesirable). Now, what I see as the most important thing is why this would be the case - and it is, of course, because what determines more than anything where you go to school is where you live. The lack of natural integration in schools is the result of a lack of natural integration in communities. This I suppose is akin to the 'band-aid on the gaping wound' that is frequently alluded to in this discussion.

With regard to opportunity, the quality of your education is also largely determined by where you live and how prosperous the area is. Given the divide between the living standards between whites and non-whites, this results in a) de facto segregation in schools and b) worse schools for African-Americans. I think it would be pretty hard to argue that, even with affirmative action, there is an 'equal opportunity' to education.

The concurrence of Kennedy in this latest case is a classic example of why the Supreme Court is not in a position to decide effectively on an issue as difficult and controversial as this. He clearly seems to be sympathetic of the aims of integration, as evidenced by his refusal to join the majority in codifying the constitution as "color-blind". However, he also seems troubled by the concept of any student being turned away from an educational opportunity due to his or her race, whatever that race may be. His moral and, one hopes, constitutional dilemma (dilemmas that are shared by many) is not one that is going to have a positive outcome through the Supreme Court.

As with Roe v Wade and, more recently, Hamdan v Rumsfeld, you a decision that may affirm a principle that is desirable but at the expense of intelligent and constructive debate on the best way to tackle the underlying issues. Too often it treads on the muddied waters between what is 'constitutional' and what is 'right', with frequent attempts to make the latter the same as the former.

..you sound like a racist yourself, perhaps the product of your surroundings but in any case someone who needs to stop hating Whitey and contributing to the problem yourself.

I'm aware that individual blacks can be arrogant and stupid or smart and humane, but that NEITHER is characteristic of black people as a whole. They're just PEOPLE.

My wife is one of the very few black teachers I've ever known to be competent in knowledge of subject matter (better than most of her white colleagues) and can manage discipline.

Ooh! Sounds like you got one of the good ones! Did you also do an informal survey of how many whites (at inner-city or non inner-city schools) had a difficult time passing the TECAT or its equivalent?

My wife is one of the very few black teachers I've ever known to be competent in knowledge of subject matter (better than most of her white colleagues) and can manage discipline.

Ooh! Sounds like you got one of the good ones! Did you also do an informal survey of how many whites (at inner-city or non inner-city schools) had a difficult time passing the TECAT or its equivalent?

p.s. I am an African American woman. I taught public school for a time. I passed both sections of the Praxis, both the general and my subject matter, the first time around, despite having been told the likelihood, based on the experiences of others, black, white, or other, was slim. Though a certified "expert" in my subject matter, I floundered at disciplining the children at the inner-city school to which I had been assigned, while I watched a teacher's assistant, also a black female, who had been unable to pass the Praxis after several attempts, have better luck with disciplining the children. I am not sure of why you are conflating discipline skills with blacks passing or not passing subject matter tests, but I know from experience that being good with one does not guarantee being good with the other, but that both skills are necessary in inner-city schools. I found it very curious that the black teacher with whom I worked could not seem to pass the Praxis. I know that people, regardless of knowledge level, have varying degrees of comfort with standardized tests. I left it at that, having not conducted a formal study, or having a significant number of other examples to compare and contrast with. I refrained from attempting to draw some sort of conclusion about black teachers based on the limited sample that I had - myself and another woman, both teachers at one school, in one state. I assume that you were not so conservative in your interpretation of the below data? Or is this simply a self-congratulatory statement in terms of having found an intelligent and articulate (liberals love that word, and even though it's not stated here, it's implied: "better than most of her white colleagues") black woman?

My wife is one of the very few black teachers I've ever known to be competent in knowledge of subject matter (better than most of her white colleagues) and can manage discipline.

Some of what this person is saying is correct; blacks and whites can, in fact, share this society without having to actually arrive at some real world point of integration that would satisfy everyone's definition of "brotherhood" or "colorblindness."

I think it's worth noting, however, that this person does not speak for all blacks, or even a majority of them, he speaks for himself alone, especially when he uses phrases like "white enemy."

I see many people trying hard to change this person's mind-- some seem to think they can shame him into "brotherhood" by calling him a racist, others seem to want to inspire his conversion by appealing to something MLK said, or to warn him against Karma, or to present him with reasons for why they're not racist, implying presumably, that if they are not prejudiced, neither is he allowed to be-- I think this misses the point.

A better way to respond to a person who feels this way is to simply let him feel it. Fighting him or trying to convert him, though perhaps well intentioned, does not work. For one thing, his basic observations are correct, and for another, American blacks and other marginalized groups probably do benefit from setting their own agendas apart from those of the dominant culture. If you give a guy like this his own space, he will hopefully achieve what he desires; when he does, his present life will become the focus of his attention, and when that happens, his hate may wither away. To put it another way, he will be able to distinguish between his hate for the past and his attitude towards the flesh and blood people around him TODAY. Note that he recalls that 5 to 10% of the people in his school genuinely tried to reach across the color line-- he knows that some of his stated assumptions are wrong, though for now, he relies on their defensive value. Left alone, he may achieve resolution and peace-- a thing we all want.

Resist the urge to engage... it may feel good to alternately attack, judge, or accept people-- all of which are ways to try to seize power, and such power feels good for a moment or two, but eventually, someone else will snatch it back from you. Eventually, both of you are trapped in the web.

Instead, make yourself more honest, more deep, and more accepting. You won't regret it.

Awesome post dmerrin10000!

Some of what this person is saying is correct; blacks and whites can, in fact, share this society without having to actually arrive at some real world point of integration that would satisfy everyone's definition of "brotherhood" or "colorblindness."

which post are you referring to here? I'd like to read it.

I think it's worth noting, however, that this person does not speak for all blacks, or even a majority of them, he speaks for himself alone, especially when he uses phrases like "white enemy."

I agree! This is how this person *feels*, and it is a valid response to what he has experienced. Many blacks may have felt this way, and some of us are able to struggle out of this mode and remember that not all whites are out to get us. It is difficult, given what we have endured in this country. To deny us the right to feel pain in response to these injuries is, in fact, inhuman. To deny this person his or her reality is to deny his or her humanity.

I see many people trying hard to change this person's mind-- some seem to think they can shame him into "brotherhood" by calling him a racist, others seem to want to inspire his conversion by appealing to something MLK said, or to warn him against Karma, or to present him with reasons for why they're not racist, implying presumably, that if they are not prejudiced, neither is he allowed to be-- I think this misses the point.

Yes!! I am guilty of being one of those people who got caught up in the fray of responding passionately, even while attempting to be the "voice of reason." I didn't want to persuade this person of anything, but I wanted to support him, in terms of the place he was coming from. Your response is more holistic, the place I am striving to get to.

A better way to respond to a person who feels this way is to simply let him feel it. Fighting him or trying to convert him, though perhaps well intentioned, does not work. For one thing, his basic observations are correct, and for another, American blacks and other marginalized groups probably do benefit from setting their own agendas apart from those of the dominant culture. If you give a guy like this his own space, he will hopefully achieve what he desires; when he does, his present life will become the focus of his attention, and when that happens, his hate may wither away. To put it another way, he will be able to distinguish between his hate for the past and his attitude towards the flesh and blood people around him TODAY. Note that he recalls that 5 to 10% of the people in his school genuinely tried to reach across the color line-- he knows that some of his stated assumptions are wrong, though for now, he relies on their defensive value. Left alone, he may achieve resolution and peace-- a thing we all want.

Brilliant, and so true. You have much wisdom! Thank you for sharing. I think it goes without saying that we would all like to live in the kind of world where these issues don't exist, or at least get to a semi-happy place where we're anticipating the world to come in which "the deleterious effects of racism...will die out completely." Your post has brought me back to myself, dmerrin10000. I realize that even though I feel that this response: "At any rate, the deleterious effects of racism are diminishing and will die out completely in time f you will just allow it." is ridiculous because it implies that I, I am the one who is causing racism to stay alive ("if you will just allow it"), simply by not believing in the goodness of white people and those who proclaim that "racism is over." I am struggling to respond to this in a holistic manner. Even those who claim to want all of us to live together cannot seem to grant black people enough subjectivity, enough common sense to claim, process, and validate their own experiences and reality. This is maddening, but a healthy person manages to come out on the other side and realize that, as you said, we are all *individuals.* None of us truly speaks for the majority or for our "race" (not that I even truly believe in race as a concept).

Unfortunately, those of us who must live with those effects on a sometimes daily basis are human, and cannot process a lifetime of being said minority without having some sort of emotional response, some need for intellectual processing of our lives. Even Sidney Poitier, with his cool demeanor, did not pretend that racism did not exist. He simply chose to respond in his way, the classic MLK vs. Martin, even Poitier vs. Belafonte - confrontational or non-violent. It's pointless to discuss which is "better," the fact is that we are human beings, and our complex responses to dealing with and changing the world we have inherited are all valid, unless we are hurting others.

indigo

If you did not experience integration as a black child, you cannot denigrate someone else's reality or experience of that, and to do so, calling his opinion "hateful" and "inaccurate," in the name of supposed racial tolerance b/c you have biracial children is simply using those children as a front.

Okay, since I grew up in egalitarian Iowa, I have not the "right" to question the foolish behavior that is propagated in the Houston "ghetto?"

Questioning behavior that is propagated in the ghetto has nothing to do with negating someone's response/feelings/subjective reality. Further, conditions in the Houston ghetto were not even a subject of this thread until you threw it in just now - red herring anyone? I'd prefer salmon or a fresh tuna steak.

In addition, why are you using this thread to give family history - your wife has an M.A. in Ed and her sisters are welfare queens. Okay. Many families, black or otherwise, are "mixed" as regards class and education. See my favorite show, "Frasier." The father's a straightforward working-class chap, and the sons came out with upper-middle class dreams which they made come true. Great show. See any black family with "first-generation" college graduates. Same story. "Blended" family, as regards class, in terms of money & education. Your wife's story is rather typical, and comparable to many families in this country.

Why are we now talking about "outcrossing" and the benefits of your daughters' racial heritage in terms of "escaping" the health problems on your wife's side? Are there any health issues that they escaped on your side? How did we get on this thread?

The language and reality of the black cousins that they see as "normal" and the 8-year-old's response to it is interesting, a compelling story. I don't know how you can explain this. It's complex. Perhaps you and your wife should sit her down together, once you have talked one-on-one. Perhaps you could sit the cousins down too. "white girls' clothes?"

It's the racist attitudes that blacks internalize that are most destructive. Some see racism as simply a challenge to be overcome (see: Sidney Poitier) while others see it as an occasional bother but one that can work for you as well as against you. At any rate, the deleterious effects of racism are diminishing and will die out completely in time f you will just allow it.

Thank you for advising the blacks on how we can stop destroying ourselves (is it ourselves or society that we are destroying? you didn't make this clear) by internalizing racist attitudes. Do you suggest any particular methodologies for ridding ourselves of these most destructive tendencies? I'm sure it is as simple as you imply, and should take no longer than a 60-day cleansing fast. Please write back with your recommended methods; I'm dying to cleanse myself of this foul cynicism so that I may enjoy these last days before racism dies out completely. I want to be pure so that I may enjoy this utopia that will no doubt occur in my lifetime.

donjohn5, I know a lot of my response to you has been tongue-in-cheek, but I am seeing something here that I want to respond to from the heart, rather than taking offense. I don't believe that you intend to come off as a self-righteous liberal, so I'm going to act on that, and remember that as someone else pointed out, we are all individuals speaking from our individual realities. That said, I can see from what you said about your wife's cousins that it seems that when your children interact with the wife's family, they are coming into contact with some of that "internalized racism" (now I think I see the link between the cousins and that Sidney Poitier paragraph) of the cousins. I get that, and that must be painful for your wife: you intimated that she had trouble from other blacks I assume for being "too smart" which is conflated with "acting white." I assume it is also possible that your wife still smarts from those wounds and perhaps does not find it possible to engage the cousins or your daughter on these hurtful moments. Since you asked what could *you* do, I assume you are affording her her space from these issues. This means that you realize that the effects of racism form a vicious circle, whites hurt blacks, who hurt themselves and each other, etc. etc. It sounds like you have allowed yoru wife space to deal with the effects of racism on her life. I hope that your wife is able to engage your daughters and their cousins at some point on these issues. It may afford her and everyone involved some healing. I wish you both luck with that process.

What I worry about most is how to explain to my daughters the blatant racism her black cousins see as "normal." The 8-year-old cried Thursday when her cousin called her a "nigger" (though without malice). How do I explain this? The other one can't comprehend her other cousin's disparagement of her clothing (why do you wear "white girls' clothes?")

It's the racist attitudes that blacks internalize that are most destructive. Some see racism as simply a challenge to be overcome (see: Sidney Poitier) while others see it as an occasional bother but one that can work for you as well as against you. At any rate, the deleterious effects of racism are diminishing and will die out completely in time f you will just allow it.

The language and reality of the black cousins that they see as "normal" and the 8-year-old's response to it is interesting, a compelling story. I don't know how you can explain this. It's complex. Perhaps you and your wife should sit her down together, once you have talked one-on-one. Perhaps you could sit the cousins down too. "white girls' clothes?"

I am not sure of why you are conflating discipline skills with blacks passing or not passing subject matter tests, but I know from experience that being good with one does not guarantee being good with the other, but that both skills are necessary in inner-city schools.

I'm not sure, either. The fact is that inner city teachers in Houston are predominately black and the Singleton ration inserted white teachers making race a hiring issue. The black teachers complained that discipline suffered while the white teachers coming in were appalled at the abysmal scholastic achievement. The system was unable to blend the talents of both, resulting in a sort of a "white flight" of inexperienced teachers to the suburban schools after their "trial by fire" in the HISD cauldrons.

As far as "survey", suffice to say this TECAT information is shared openly, embarrassing some teachers and infuriating others. I'd say I have a a broad perspective of who is teaching what, having taught Journalism, English, and Social Studies at five different schools in my 22-year career. While I have many anecdotal stories, I do relate them to hard information or discard them as anomalies.

I realize I sound racist in making the "black" comments, but put my posts together and I hope you'll see that I understand that skin color has nothing to do with intelligence or teaching skills, but that culture does. Furthermore, the politics of race make it an issue by separating scores of students and teachers, thereby heightening the contrast.

I come from a Midwest culture where a high reading level is assumed, where, as Garrison Keillor put it, we were nearly all "above average." Black kids in Iowa performed about as well as their white counterparts, so I had no preconceptions about that coming to Houston (which recruits teachers in Iowa colleges quite heavily). Imagine the culture shock when I found and found the dramatically lowered standards, even among my colleagues. Two of the coaches who were to teach Geography had no idea how to figure out latitude and longitude! Though I found the TECAT test to be ridiculously easy, several teachers in my school had taken it numerous times without passing it.

Or is this simply a self-congratulatory statement in terms of having found an intelligent and articulate (liberals love that word, and even though it's not stated here, it's implied: "better than most of her white colleagues") black woman?

It might seem to be some of that, but one doesn't marry a person, have children with her, and stay married 17 years just to prove something. It does, however, give me an insight into the homes of many inner city black families that I could not otherwise have. While a discussion of prejudices is important here, I'll save it for another thread or respond to direct questions.

Suffice to say, I regard my wife as an equal in every respect; she knows about the same amount of trivia, has a similar reading and scholastic background, and has a similar educational philosophy: we both feel strongly that education is being "dumbed down" and that few care about what happens to our students (their parents included).

Though I detest Texas Republican politics, I don't consider myself a "liberal." I'm more of a "Pragmatist" or Progressive" and prefer Barack Obama not because he's black, but because he tells blacks and others true things they do not want to hear.

Ironically enough, I'm a white guy who was born in 1954. I've also had the opportunity to live in black neighborhoods, work in majority black settings, and reflect on the white racism of my family, co-workers, and people I've met on the way.

In the final analysis, soulgroove07 is overly generous toward whites. In fact, he doesn't mention police brutality toward African-American men, the tremendous bias of the judicial system, the continual incidents of racial violence, the discrimination against black shoppers, etc. And that's just the overt behavior. Outside the ears of blacks, there's also a non-stop racist banter and social bonding that creates the impression that racism is a primary mode of life among many white people.

Certainly, I can't blame soulgroove07 for looking at whites as the enemy. If I were black, I'd do the same--probably with a lot of vehemence.

But I don't believe that there's a realistic choice other than integration. Segregation was not racial separation, it was a system of oppression and King and DuBois were wrong to think that education could be separated out from the denial of voting rights, exclusion from employment, exclusion from public facilities, and ritual racial violence culminating in lynching. From everything I've read (and seen), racial segregation in the South was more oppressive than apartheid and closer to slavery than social equality. Whites and blacks had always been "integrated" in such a way that all their interactions were defined by white supremacy. What Brown v Board, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other legislation did was to mandate that whites no longer operate a brutal system of oppression and start interacting with African-Americans as citizens,customers, students, and the like. That's what is meant by "integration."

Martin Luther King wrote in "Letter from Birmingham Jail" that civil rights activism was needed to raise whites from "the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood." Of course, not many have gotten to the "majestic heights of brotherhood," but the path of civil rights has gotten a substantial part of the white population out of the "dark depths of racism" and enabled much of the black population to get out of the "living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next" way of life that characterized segregation according to King.

In many ways, we live in a limbo state between segregation and equality, but that state of things strikes me as better than segregation and I often see things that are signs of hope. The Barack Obama candidacy is one of them.

As disappointing as integration has been, I still think it's the best path.

Thank you for advising the blacks on how we can stop destroying ourselves (is it ourselves or society that we are destroying? you didn't make this clear) by internalizing racist attitudes. Do you suggest any particular methodologies for ridding ourselves of these most destructive tendencies? I'm sure it is as simple as you imply, and should take no longer than a 60-day cleansing fast. Please write back with your recommended methods; I'm dying to cleanse myself of this foul cynicism so that I may enjoy these last days before racism dies out completely. I want to be pure so that I may enjoy this utopia that will no doubt occur in my lifetime.

That there is no utopia should be apparent to all, but much of my understanding of black studies is based on the solid research of John McWhorter In Authentically Black, he maintains that "black ideology of the 1960s was sidelined by the triumph of the New Left among thinking whites." He attributes this for black thought being "bruised into a racial inferiority complex." Progress is not possible, therefore, until black thinkers become more independent of those who seek plantation workers to provide politically correct poverty pimps that serve their political purpose.

I do not seek to regulate anyone to perpetual ignorance, yet I can daily view the forces within the educational hierarchy that seek to do so. It is functional to warehouse urban blacks so that the best they can be is Wal-Mart assistant managers and military cannon fodder. Telling them how wonderful they are in the name of "self-esteem building" is the classic way to accomplish this self-underestimation.

I don't believe that whites can or should be the primary influences in the necessary shift of black attitudes from the self-destructive tendencies statistically evident. Instead I read Clarence Page, Leonard Pitts, Gregory Williams (not Clarence Thomas) and other moderate/conservative black writers whose works, I hope, will be more influential in shaping future society (not just black) than Ronnie Dyson, Earl Ofari Hutchison, Russell Simmons, and Tavis Smiley.

From McWhorter's Losing the Race:

"Victimology stems from a lethal combination of ...inherited inferiority complex with the privilege of dressing down the former oppressor. Encouraged to voice umbrage on one hand, and on the other hand haunted by the former oppressor's lie that black is bad, many African Americans have fallen into a holding pattern of wielding self-righteous indignation less as a spur to action than as a self-standing action in itself because it detracts attention from the inadequacies we perceive in ourselves by highlighting those of the other."

Could this be what is happening here? I inserted a brief family history only to establish credentials (in much the same way that others professed to being bussed during racial desegregation), not as a brag. Why am I being made the issue?

I think dating was chosen as a particular guide mark because it represents a whole hearted acceptance of another person as an individual. At this point in time it is expected behavior to treat others respectfully and equally. Outward racism is condemned by the vast majority of people in this country. However, there is a vast difference between not discriminating against a person, and accepting them without thought as your equal.

Interracial couples are the ultimate rejection of racism. Ignoring the sexism issue for the moment, when you chose to date someone seriously, marry them, have children together, they should (must) be someone you can trust, love, and respect. It is one thing to not protest that children of another race share a classroom with your children, to support the idea of mixed race neighborhoods, etc, interact with people of a different race casually, call some of them your friends. I think it is still one step further to look at those people who look differently from you, who subtly or not you have been taught are different, and say I don't care about your race, it is not an issue, I want to get to know you personally. I choose you not because it is the politically correct thing to do (because who would marry someone to be politically correct?), but because I love you and care for you as a person.

That is not to say that to be non racist you have to marry someone of a different race. However, when you don't have to think twice about bringing a person of a different race home to your parents, when you get no weird looks on the subway, when your friends see it not as an anomaly, but as a natural occurrence, that is when race actually becomes a non issue.
As a final thought, to return to the sexism issue. While I think equality in marriage is an important issue, particularly in certain countries, I don't think it is applicable to this discussion. In male dominated relationships, the choices might be made for different reasons, but I think the racism question is still solved when a man looks at a woman of a different race and sees an acceptable wife.

Seriously, dude, stop spouting a bunch of pompous noncense, and try to be somewhat more careful with facts and analysis. It's not that difficult, you know. Let go through your post, step by step...

>How tpical of you Gringo start off with name calling.

You called me a racist, degsme-boy. So, if you have any decency, you must either prove that based on what I said, or apologize. Do you have any decency?

Depends on what you mean by "society". The government law and regulations? Most definitely not. Some private individuals - most definitely some of them do. Of course, there are racists in any society, so what's your point?

>ERNH sorry gringo, the research by organizations as diverse as the Federal Reserve >Bank of New England, Chicago Housing Authority, MS. Magazine, LAPDs Internal >Affairs, and various teaching colleges all support that racially based unearned privileges >accrue to whites.

Okay, lets discuss this. So these studies prove that all whites, some whites, unknown number of whites have unearned priviliges? In this case - do the following.

1. Define the term "unearned privilige"

2.Bring the evidence from those studies that prove this, and don't forget to mention what percentage of whites is covered in this evidence.

In short - you made an assertion, now prove it. Or - shut up about it already. It's your choice.

>And when you get court decisions like the recent Seattle SD decision, that pretends we >have a colorblind society (and ignores the legal racism causes of seattles segregated >housing stock), you have a government that lets the laws be used to enforce and >continue this racially based privilege.

So far, you haven't even attempted to define "racially based privilige". Which kind of makes your whole outrage moot. What exactly do you mean by this term? That whites in average are more successful than blacks? Well, Asians are in average more successful than whites. But I don't want to spoil the pleasure of seeing you do your best to define the terms you use so freely. Go ahead, punk, make my day.

Secondly, discrimination based on race, aka "affirmative action" is racist. It comes at no surprise that all people of good will (white, black, asian, brown) would be against it. It's an afront to decency, and all normal people see it as a threat - even if they can benefit from it.

>First off, the opposition to AA is almost exclusively white and primarily male.

So far, most if not all of referendums on the government discrimination based on race wasa won by the opponents of such. And yes, they got much more than 50%. Since white males are a minority in America, such result conclusively proves that your statement is factually wrong. Somehow, I doubt it matters to you, though. After all, if you repeat the lies many times, some people will believe it. Right?

> Sure you have some insecure minorities like Thomas, Connerly and Watts who have to >believe in their Horatio Alger self-mythology to assauge their egos, but Colin Powell, >Condoleeza Rice, Ben. Hooks, L. Guinier and similar - individuals of actual >accomplishment - more than offset them.

Hm. Actually, a man who says he does not want the policies that discriminate against people of another race clearly shows that he is quite secure in his beliefs.

>And no, Affirmative Action isn't racism.

Affirmative action is an action, while racism is a belief. So yes, discrimination based on race is not racism, but it is based on racist assumptions. And it is particularily true when it is supported by white folks.

>Racism is the application of untrue mythos based on physiognomic markers.

Oh. Hm. How can a myth be based on markers? Stop drinking, dude.

> Affirmative Action simply accepts the imposition of those markers by those with power (>whites) and applies mechanisms that ameliorate the FACTUAL unearned privileges that >are given to whites and white males in particular. To equate that with racism is to equate >D-Day with Pearl Harbor.

A better example would be to compare discrimination based on race with a demand to bomb Japan today, 66 years after Pearl Harbor - so we could avenge the past wrongs.

Anyway, stop using generalities and come back with actual definition of "white privilige".

>We know both 1 and 2 are not true.

Actually, we know the 1st is true, while the 2nd is so badly formulated, it's not even obvious what you are trying to say.

>OK - show

>Show me the data that supports your claim that whites no longer get unearned >privileges.

You made this assertion - you prove it now. As for me - I clearly said that the US government does not discriminate in support of whites. I also clearly said that some racists discriminate against all kinds of people. I know what I said. Do you have a beef with that? If not - then you should spend some time proving your assertions.

> Refute the work by FRBNE on how whites get preferred treatment in mtg applications, >the work by CHA on how whites receive preferred treatment in housing, the outcome of >the Rampart scandal where LAPD relied on racism for their targets, the in class research >that shows that even the best teachers give white males more chances to get answers >correct, the broad anti-immigrant response focussed on meztisos, academic research on >the impact of accents on hiring etc.

Fine - bring the evidence, I will find counter-evidence. Also, don't forget to explain whether the evidence you brought means ALL whites have a privilege, and define the term privilige. Go ahead.

>Sorry, you have no data to back your claim and the data to the contrary is overwhelming. >Sorry ERNHH

I made a claim that you failed to discuss. Again, the government does not discriminate in favor of whites. Soem individuals clearly discriminate in support of whites. Are you debating this?

>I'd say this isn't prejudice,

Hating all whites is not prejudice? Hm. In this case, does it mean that you hate yourself? I mean, you are white, right?

>Acknowledging that my choices have given others reasons to dislike or hate me isn't the >same as hating myself.

Okay. I am sure you thought long and came up with the list of choices you have made that should make all blacks hate you. Okay. What did you do?

>Furthermore, as the poster corrected you, its not about "hating" all whites, its about >being angry at all whites for their continued willingness to benefit from racism.

This is a clear mistake in logic. Hating all whites, being angry at all whites are pretty much the same things in this context. Which makes my statement quite accurate. What you are trying to say is that this skinhead has a good reason to hate all whites. This does not dispute my main point, though....

>And since the benefits of racism continue, and most whites actively oppose eliminating >those benefits, and ALL take advange of them, yeah, the poster has a rational basis for >anger.

Hm. Again, you use a bunch of generalities, but fail to define the terms. Which benefits exactly? And who proved that they are available to all whites? Go ahead, prove your main assertion, stop patting yourself on the back.

>Anger based in factual harm isn't prejudice anymore than the USA being angry at Japan >for Pearl Harbor was prejudice.

Or - a better example - Hitler hating all Jews for betraying Germany in WW1. Or, hating all japanese for Pearl Harbor. Aren't those better examples?

> it is T.Jefferson's >Avenging Angel we reap what we sow. And society still sows hatred of minorities.

When you said "we" - did you include yourself in this description? And if so, could you explain what you personally did - that makes it okay to punish you? I am all anticipation.

>Yup, we includes all of us.

All of you, I am sure. I can easily believe that all that you achieved in your life is solely due to the fact that more talented blacks were denied an opportunity to compete with you. But since I am not a liberal like, I would like to hear some evidence, not assertions.

> I receive unearned benefits EVERY DAY in being white and male.

Okay, name them. And since you get them every day, there must be plenty of them...

>nd while I often notice them, I usually don't resist them - and sometimes I take explict >advantage of them (something as simple as stopping by an elite yacht-club and running >in to use their restroom when I had a stomach flu despite not being a member).

Wow. Are you telling me that you achieved everything in your life because you took a dump in a yach-club? Surely, you haven't achieved much. Moreover, did you actually check whether a black guy can do the same? If not, then I don't see how this proves anything at all...

>Am I as deserving of emnity as you? Probably not.

Oh, now you think I deserve enmity. Okay. Explain what I personally did that makes me deserving enmity. Don't forget, kid, that just because I disagree with you on particular factual claims does not make me an evil man. Or does it? After all - disagreement with a liberal is a bona fide proof of evil. Right?

>But much of my extremely comfortable life is a direct consequence of my willingness to >take advantage of those privileges just as you do.

Sure. You took a dump in a yach-club, and you were set for life. Some people don't need much. Tell me this - if a black guy takes a dump in the same yach-club - would it make you change your mind about discrimination based on race? Would you then agree to defend fellow Americans like me from being discriminated?

"...to further segregation would be to foment all-out racial war." So if significant numbers of white people choose to avoid contact with blacks - even if they do so in a non-malevolent manner and are entirely courteous and civil in what contact they may have with blacks - doing so is tantamount to fomenting all-out racial war? Is that a common view of blacks in general? If so, maybe we should just get it over with and start the war now. The only other alternative is a creepy totalitarianism that completely dictates with whom one "chooses" to associate, which is the trend anyway. "A pluralistic society, with rich, diverse communities is always valuable, however these communities can't be at war with each other." Robert Putnam's temporarily self-suppressed research seems to indicate that diversity isn't as great a thing as it's purported to be.

I'll maintain that at least in Houston, it's blacks who avoid contact with whites. My wife has ALWAYS been welcome at any gathering we've attended on any social class level. (Being teachers, the rich occasionally invite us over to express awe and sympathy.) Most of these event have varying degrees of integration (several parties had Jews talking and Arabs NOT arguing politics). Frequently, however, I've attended events put on by people she grew up with, and I'm usually the only white present. Her class reunion was attended by 400 former classmates and their spouses, all black.

Diversity is desirable, but should not be forced. The error is in the justifications voiced to remain segregated. When minority groups understand it is to their advantage, they will allow strangers in; the idea is for it not to be so strange.