Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:
Wow, I guess you can't know everything. Just a quick guide to American ethnic history. Not every group was considered White, and were treated as such, and they include the following: Irish, Italians, Jews, Native Americans, Chinese, and Latinos. There are several good books about the problems these groups faced, and being a de facto slave is really just a slave by another name. The Chinese died building railroads, the Irish died building northern infrastructure projects . You seem to be trying to create a moral taxonomy on oppression and discrimination, which is somewhat ridiculous. It sucks all around for everyone. Suffering isn't unique to any specific group. The social mobility of these groups were neither quick nor was it easy and to dismiss it in such a manners is both unfounded and foolish.

Hmm, there are a lot statements there.

I guess I'll start with the assertion that "being a de facto slave is really just a slave by another name." I guess it's accurate, but completely irrelevant. No group other than blacks (and a few native americans) were considered chattel property, no group was held as such for any length of time in any great numbers. The irish on the canals and the Chinese on the railroads could have left, and in fact could have not come at all. That's not slavery: that's at best indentured servitude, a completely different animal.

I think that some form of taxonomy is needed, yes. Is my stubbing my toe as bad as you dying from cancer painfully? Of course not. I'm not sure there's any reason to completely dismiss the possibility that the effects of some suffering and trauma can be greater than another forms. The while "No irish need apply" has always been a bit more myth than reality, and while there was undoubtedly discrimination, I doubt anybody would, in 1850 pick "Field Slave in Mobile" over "irish mill worker in New Haven".

Yes, there was discrimination felt by nearly all minority groups. They were different, and some were better treated than others. You need only look at the advances made by any given group, usually within two generations, and compare that to what slave ancestors faced, and it's hard not to see an order of magnitude of difference.

By 1920, there were (or had been) A jew, several catholics (including an Irish Catholic) and many sons of immigrants on the Supreme court, yet it was still essentially legal to lynch blacks. That's pretty strong evidence of social mobility for some groups, and not for others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IG_urban wrote:
I don't know if you have ever heard of strip clubs, or gentleman's clubs, or escorts...but women, pan-nationally, are treated as sex objects..its an ugly truth, but I do not think it discriminates.

It does, actually. the plight of women of color is seen by most modern feminist thinkers are the biggest threat to women's equality. Fun fact: the application of the death penalty is only slightly linked to the race of the defendent. It is, however, insanely more likely when the victim was a white woman than anybody else.

I was saying exactly to THIS sentence. Had it been a non-white at a gas station in a predominately white area we'd have a national story with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson baying for blood. It's true, you know its true, and its reverse fething racism.

Fair enough. I'm enough of a racist to say that as a white guy, I can live with that. What the hell do I care that some gas station attendent gave me lip? I'm white!

if the card had not have been removed voluntarily, there would have been a lawsuit, close enough to a ban for me.

I'm not a legal expert, but I'm closer than you, and no lawsuit would have passed the laugh test.

I have read up quite a bit on the great MLK and MLK jr. And he wanted equal rights, not special rights. If I made a NAAWP, I would be fething crucified, called a racist, and stoned, drawn and quartered and gakked upon. It's the whole victim mentality and special rights thing that the NAACP and people like Al SHarpton and Jesse Jackson propegate that causes more racism. I dont think I ever said that they were the MAIN DRIVING reason why racism still exists...the main petty and bullfeth reasons, maybe...but they just add fuel (diesel) to the fire.

I see what you're saying, but you're not understanding two things:

1) black people aren't equal today. They simply aren't, while white people still control most of the wealth and power in this country. You cant' advance white people any more.
2) the dream of MLK was for people to be judged by who they are, not by their skin color. By saying that black people are judged by a handful of individuals, you're making the point that this country is still racist. In a color blind society, we'd be saying "reasons people think the LA chapter of the NAACP are stupid."

and white people, in America, particularly in the bible belt and the midwest, but essentially everywhere, are the worst, so don't think I am being KKK advocate....ignorant white people piss me off more than anything else does...look at ICP (STAY ON TOPIC!!!)

There's plenty of racism to go around. It runs pretty deep, and not just in whites and blacks.

Polonius wrote:By 1920, there were (or had been) A jew, several catholics (including an Irish Catholic) and many sons of immigrants on the Supreme court, yet it was still essentially legal to lynch blacks. That's pretty strong evidence of social mobility for some groups, and not for others.

There were also some black non-slaves that prospered as well, does that mean now we should ignore your statements of black suffering? They may not have been labeled as property in the same sense, but they were treated like it just the same. And for the record more Whites were lynched in 1920 than blacks, or at least the same amount. Lynching has always had to do with mob justice and keeping the staus quo, not race.



Source: To Secure These Rights: THE REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS

The problem isn't in creating a taxonomy of pain, like a toe stub or a heart attack, but in trying to create a moral one comparing oppression and suffering of groups that have been discriminated against. You will never make any progress by marginalizing another groups suffering, or their ancestors suffering.

Polonius, I did not see the "Usually used as" part of your post, and I apologize for skipping that.

Having said that, I have gotten into enough of these debates to know that nothing good ever comes from them, even if you are a better arguementator than most people on this subject. I am leaving this thread before it ignites into a flame the Sisters of Battle would be envious of.

Have fun all.

Ahtman wrote:
The problem isn't in creating a taxonomy of pain, like a toe stub or a heart attack, but in trying to create a moral one comparing oppression and suffering of groups that have been discriminated against. You will never make any progress by marginalizing another groups suffering, or their ancestors suffering.

I guess I'm just not seeing how I'm marginalizing anything. Saying "Chattel slavery is far worse than anti-semitism", espeically when I'll add "and given how bad anti-semitism was should give you an idea!"

A baneblade is a lot bigger than a landraider, but that's not demeaning the size of the landraider.

I'm also not looking at a moral comparison, I'm looking at a practical one. Pick, say, the Irish. Even if in practice their condition was the same for a number of generations, by any practical measure the group escaped the status of underclass. Nobody is discriminated now because they're Irish, yet there is still discrimination against black people. How is that not worthy of note?

And, by the way, while plenty of white were lynched, the fact that blacks where, what, 15% of the population makes those numbers scarier to me.

Slarg232 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
When you have been persecuted, enslaved, raped, tortured, oppressed, exploited and discriminated against for hundreds of years I guess you get a little touchy...

Lots of people spout things that are just as ridiculous about minorities, immigrants, gays, muslims, and so forth on a daily basis. Not to mention the actual hate crimes and discrimination that still take place daily in the US.

Get over it...

Considering black slaves were purchased from other blacks back back then. Also, as far as I know, no other culteral backround in the country uses racial slurs like [see forum posting rules] and Cracker (as far as I know)

Also: Immigrants I have no problem, as long as their legal.
Gays that advertise they are gays when they know the culteral norm and the consequences of being such are not the brightest bulbs in the bunch, ya know?
And Muslim extremeists blow themselves up, what more do you expect?

Edit: And isn't it racist that one of those racial slurs up above is censored and the other isn't? Not complaining, just bringing up a point.

What do I have to do with all this? Im not racist, I have black friends
Thats my favorite excuse to "not" being racist.

Personally, I dont think groups like NAACP are the reason racism is still around, thats just silly. Sure they would be out of a job if it disappeared, but believe it or not, there really IS racists out there. I think the OP is just silly in the fact that the NAACP were bitching about that greeting card. And I agree, Al Sharpton....is one person that needs to be on the news for being found dead do to heart attack or something, that would make my day. But its not because hes black, its because hes an idiot that needs to stop running his mouth.

Polonius wrote:I guess I'm just not seeing how I'm marginalizing anything. Saying "Chattel slavery is far worse than anti-semitism", espeically when I'll add "and given how bad anti-semitism was should give you an idea!"

A baneblade is a lot bigger than a landraider, but that's not demeaning the size of the landraider.

But your pointing at it's... hmm.

I think Polonius has been quite clear, as in making a solid point.

I'm also not looking at a moral comparison, I'm looking at a practical one. Pick, say, the Irish. Even if in practice their condition was the same for a number of generations, by any practical measure the group escaped the status of underclass. Nobody is discriminated now because they're Irish, yet there is still discrimination against black people. How is that not worthy of note?

It appears that many people would agree with you.

http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/700/black-public-opinion

And, by the way, while plenty of white were lynched, the fact that blacks where, what, 15% of the population makes those numbers scarier to me.

Sure, but I would have to ask about the few states with the most lynching, and their demographics at the time. It would make a big difference if blacks accounted for more than 30% of the population. Given that information (which I can't find), I would know exactly how shocking it was.

Polonius wrote:Pick, say, the Irish. Even if in practice their condition was the same for a number of generations

So are you saying that the Irish and the English have always treated each other as equals? Or does it not matter since it wasn't here?

Polonius wrote:by any practical measure the group escaped the status of underclass.

Oh, so since they assimilated quicked we can just ignore the injustices. Does that mean that when blacks are in the same position we should then dismiss their history because "they made it"?

Polonius wrote:Nobody is discriminated now because they're Irish

Sure it isn't as common, but it does happen. I know two guys who got into a fight about a month or two ago in Indiana because one's Irish ancestors were Orangemen and the others wasn't.

Polonius wrote:yet there is still discrimination against black people. How is that not worthy of note?

Yet many different groups are still discriminated against today; it isn't a unique or special condition.

Polonius wrote:And, by the way, while plenty of white were lynched, the fact that blacks where, what, 15% of the population makes those numbers scarier to me.

Sure, 15% of the overall population, but if we limit it to just areas where blacks were actually present in large amounts i.e. the South (one black guy in Idaho doesn't really mean much) they made up a much larger percentage.

While we're on the topic of racism and sexism and the such...

Here's a tidbit of information for you all:

When a person says something along the lines of "I realize now how insignificant and small man is compared to the infinite size of the universe", he is really saying:
1) Man is insignificant, because of his size, in comparison to the universe

2) Because of this, woman is even more significant, because she is on average, smaller than man.



Just a thought, to make show you all exactly what kind of stupid argument you're arguing.

Oh yes, and to an earlier poster who said:

"...all religions have been persecuted, but only one supports people driving planes into buildings..."

No religion supports this, except perhaps the spaghetti-monster one. Islam does not support this. It is a few radical people who don't understand their own religious text, and take some but not all of for its literal meaning. They are inconsistent, both in their interpretation of their scriptures, and also in comparison to the majority of "their" religion's members.
It happens in Judaism and Christianity too, perhaps even more so, although the end result is quite different.

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote:Pick, say, the Irish. Even if in practice their condition was the same for a number of generations

So are you saying that the Irish and the English have always treated each other as equals? Or does it not matter since it wasn't here?

I have to be honest. I have no clue what's driving this discussion.

I think I wasn't clear, in that I was saying that I was granting the premise, for a hypo, that the irish condition was similar to that of slaves.

Polonius wrote:by any practical measure the group escaped the status of underclass.

Oh, so since they assimilated quicked we can just ignore the injustices. Does that mean that when blacks are in the same position we should then dismiss their history because "they made it"?

I think that pretty much everybody would be happier with equality than with Black History Month, so, sure. I think that would be a fair trade.

Polonius wrote:Nobody is discriminated now because they're Irish

Sure it isn't as common, but it does happen. I know two guys who got into a fight about a month or two ago in Indiana because one's Irish ancestors were Orangemen and the others wasn't.

If that's the best case of discrimination you can come up... I gotta say I'm not impressed. It sounds like two guys were jerks.

Polonius wrote:yet there is still discrimination against black people. How is that not worthy of note?

Yet many different groups are still discriminated against today; it isn't a unique or special condition.

And I support ending discrimination against all groups. I'm not saying black Americans are special or unique in being the targets of discrimination, I'm just saying they've been a perennially discriminated group, by law and practice, for a very long time. I'm sure the Native Americans, those that are left, would agree that there's plenty of discrimination and inequality.

Polonius wrote:And, by the way, while plenty of white were lynched, the fact that blacks where, what, 15% of the population makes those numbers scarier to me.

Sure, 15% of the overall population, but if we limit it to just areas where blacks were actually present in large amounts i.e. the South (one black guy in Idaho doesn't really mean much) they made up a much larger percentage.

A lot of lynched white folks were those that were helpful to black people too. Which goes to show how deeply rooted the racism against black people was, when even white folks would be murdered to keep it in place.

On topic.

That's goddamn stupid of Hallmark. I would have told the NAACP where to go.

Fateweaver wrote:On topic.

That's goddamn stupid of Hallmark. I would have told the NAACP where to go.

It's almost hard to believe you're not the head of public relations for a major corporation. You'd bring a fresh perspective.

I'm expecting someone to call out all mall santas and say they are sexist for saying ho ho ho. This country fething sucks.

I wouldn't let the NAACP control my company and what's said.

Seriously, Hallmark explained what the card was saying. If someone mistakes "black hole" for "black ho" that is their problem. They need to clean the proverbial gak out of their ears and learn to hear better, not assume "whitey is out to keep them down".

The NAACP are the epitome of racism. They need to get over themselves. Perhaps if they didn't bitch about everything in life deemed racist they would be taken more seriously. It's like the little boy who cried wolf. Cry it enough times and soon people will stop listening and when the day comes you have a legit reason to cry it people will just ignore you.

I couldn't do PR because I'm not PC enough and I'd hurt lots of peoples feelings doing my job.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I'm expecting someone to call out all mall santas and say they are sexist for saying ho ho ho. This country fething sucks.

The dark times are indeed upon us, as consumers now may only pick between 23 different audio graduation cards instead of 24. It's things like that that led to the fall of Rome.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I'm expecting someone to call out all mall santas and say they are sexist for saying ho ho ho. This country fething sucks.

Already been done. Seriously. The mall santa at the Mall of America wasn't allowed to say ho, ho, ho. He had to say ha, ha, ha.
I nearly gak myself when I heard that.

So yeah, I hope when the right wins in 2012 they start kicking in the teeth of these "PC embracing hippies".

Fateweaver wrote:I wouldn't let the NAACP control my company and what's said.

Yes.

Seriously, Hallmark explained what the card was saying. If someone mistakes "black hole" for "black ho" that is their problem. They need to clean the proverbial gak out of their ears and learn to hear better, not assume "whitey is out to keep them down".

Yes.

The NAACP are the epitome of racism.

No.

They need to get over themselves. Perhaps if they didn't bitch about everything in life deemed racist they would be taken more seriously. It's like the little boy who cried wolf. Cry it enough times and soon people will stop listening and when the day comes you have a legit reason to cry it people will just ignore you.

Maybe, maybe not.

I couldn't do PR because I'm not PC enough and I'd hurt lots of peoples feelings doing my job.

So? Get a job, hippy!

Fateweaver wrote:The NAACP are the epitome of racism.

I'm trying to decide if you don't understand what the word epitome means, of if you don't understand what the word racism means, because nobody fully understanding those two words could make such a statement.

The NAACP doesn't always help racial matters in this country, to be sure, and they're one of the whiniest groups in America, but your statement can't possibly be true.

I have a job building transmissions for Polaris atv's and chinese golf carts.

I already have to watch my P's and Q's at work. I wouldn't last a single day as PR or HR or any one of those fancy "lets hold hands and get along" types.

NAACP supports "affirmative blacktion". That's about as racist as you can legally get. "You. Mr. Employer Man. You MUST hire more black people, even if less qualified because we see you have more whites than black people and that is unacceptable." "What's that you say? You say that Bubba can't speak English very well so he can't work a telephone? Too bad Mr. Employer. You need to hire him because you have 80 caucasians and 65 blacks." "You say you won't hire people who didn't graduate HS? Too bad Mr. Employer. You need more black people so start hiring or we'll protest and picket outside your doors and take you to court."

Need I say more on how the reverse racism is worst than actual racism (or just as bad). If I was an employer I can't refuse to hire based on skin color but I AM forced to hire minorities if I haven't hired "enough" of them. How is one legal and the other not? Oh that's right, it technically IS illegal to hire minorities over whites. It's called DISCRIMINATION. Now say it with me class.

Fateweaver wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I'm expecting someone to call out all mall santas and say they are sexist for saying ho ho ho. This country fething sucks.

Already been done. Seriously. The mall santa at the Mall of America wasn't allowed to say ho, ho, ho. He had to say ha, ha, ha.
I nearly gak myself when I heard that.

So yeah, I hope when the right wins in 2012 they start kicking in the teeth of these "PC embracing hippies".

So, let me get this straight. You want the government to step in and tell people what they can and can't say? How can government possibly interfere with purely private actions like that without offending the first amendment? Do you realize you basically just said "i want the government to start regulating things on a purely private level?"

I love pointing out hypocrisy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Isn't this just free publicity for hallmark? Nobody with any sense thinks the card is actually racist, and it's getting people to think about hallmark. The individual card has been out for three years, so I'm guessing they've made their money back on the development.

things like this do deeply discredit the civil rights movement.

Polonius wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I'm expecting someone to call out all mall santas and say they are sexist for saying ho ho ho. This country fething sucks.

Already been done. Seriously. The mall santa at the Mall of America wasn't allowed to say ho, ho, ho. He had to say ha, ha, ha.
I nearly gak myself when I heard that.

So yeah, I hope when the right wins in 2012 they start kicking in the teeth of these "PC embracing hippies".

So, let me get this straight. You want the government to step in and tell people what they can and can't say? How can government possibly interfere with purely private actions like that without offending the first amendment? Do you realize you basically just said "i want the government to start regulating things on a purely private level?"

I love pointing out hypocrisy.

PC embracing hippies are why Santa has to say "ha ha ha", why it's mailperson and not mailman (even when referring to female mail carriers). PC hippies who espouse ebonics should be taught when kids should be taught to learn how not to talk like Xzibit.

If somebody wants to call a female mail carrier "mail person" and not "mail man" like has been used since the mail service came into being then good on them. That is their right. When the government lets the PC police take over the world and tell others that there is a right and wrong way to say things and that certain terms are derogatory, I'd say there is a problem.

Again, you're saying that the government should stop one group from advocating a position?

how do you stop the PC police? Political Correctness spread because it was good business, not because the government mandated it.

Fateweaver wrote:Need I say more on how the reverse racism is worst than actual racism (or just as bad). If I was an employer I can't refuse to hire based on skin color but I AM forced to hire minorities if I haven't hired "enough" of them. How is one legal and the other not? Oh that's right, it technically IS illegal to hire minorities over whites. It's called DISCRIMINATION. Now say it with me class.

I am not in support of affirmative action, but you are simply fooling yourself if you really think that a large portion of interviews, don't take into account a persons supposed race. Discrimination is a facet of human existence, and I can say that without assuming all people actively discriminate.

I take much of the current minority rights movement, to be in a very agitated state. I can't have solid conversations discussing race in most situations, because people are so divided along, quite frankly, lines of ignorance.

Not saying discriminatory hiring practices don't exist but not every interviewer is a racist asshat and might reject somebody due to, oh I don't know, NOT being qualified enough (or even over qualified).

My mom, when she managed the local Taco Bell, didn't discriminate based on race though she did discriminate against HS drop outs. Her reasoning is that if that person couldn't be bothered to finish HS then she couldn't be bothered to train them. Many an app ended up in the trash can (most of the HS dropouts in my city were potheads so would have just came to work baked off their ass anyway).

I can honestly say I'm not racist. If I have the choice between a white HS drop out or a black person who graduated HS with a 4.0 I'm taking the black person. I'm sure some employers are racist but there are most likely as many that hire on merit and credentials.

Fateweaver wrote:Need I say more on how the reverse racism is worst than actual racism (or just as bad). If I was an employer I can't refuse to hire based on skin color but I AM forced to hire minorities if I haven't hired "enough" of them. How is one legal and the other not? Oh that's right, it technically IS illegal to hire minorities over whites. It's called DISCRIMINATION. Now say it with me class.

Where are there employers that are forced to hire more minorities? Federal law does allow for some "disparate impact" type suits, where it can be assumed that there is discrimination if there is a severe trend against a minority, but those are actually really hard to win.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Need I say more on how the reverse racism is worst than actual racism (or just as bad). If I was an employer I can't refuse to hire based on skin color but I AM forced to hire minorities if I haven't hired "enough" of them. How is one legal and the other not? Oh that's right, it technically IS illegal to hire minorities over whites. It's called DISCRIMINATION. Now say it with me class.

I am not in support of affirmative action, but you are simply fooling yourself if you really think that a large portion of interviews, don't take into account a persons supposed race. Discrimination is a facet of human existence, and I can say that without assuming all people actively discriminate.

I take much of the current minority rights movement, to be in a very agitated state. I can't have solid conversations discussing race in most situations, because people are so divided along, quite frankly, lines of ignorance.

that's a very wise post.

I find a lot of current activism to be pretty sketchy, but I also don't have a lot of sympathy for the reverse racism argument either.

I also think far too many people confuse what's done out of public relations, and what is legally mandated.

Racism exists because human beings are flawed with intolerance.
they are intolerant of different things, its just racism are so bad due to slavery.
What about intolerance towards other genders? against other stereotypes? how about other countries?
Why is it any more ok? Its not? then why we allow to let it slide?

There are people that plays the race card that ruins it for the ones that are actually been discriminated against. Like crying wolf.
Negros arnt the only one that suffered, how about the chinese in 1880s?

Slavery isnt accepted anymore by our society , we need to move on. What other's grandfather have done in the past
should have nothing to do with us now. What we need to address is the intolerance itself ,
because it exists with so many facades.

Fateweaver wrote:Not saying discriminatory hiring practices don't exist but not every interviewer is a racist asshat and might reject somebody due to, oh I don't know, NOT being qualified enough (or even over qualified).

My mom, when she managed the local Taco Bell, didn't discriminate based on race though she did discriminate against HS drop outs. Her reasoning is that if that person couldn't be bothered to finish HS then she couldn't be bothered to train them. Many an app ended up in the trash can (most of the HS dropouts in my city were potheads so would have just came to work baked off their ass anyway).

I can honestly say I'm not racist. If I have the choice between a white HS drop out or a black person who graduated HS with a 4.0 I'm taking the black person. I'm sure some employers are racist but there are most likely as many that hire on merit and credentials.

On that note, consider affirmative action a direct counter to such practices, as indefensible they may be. This is a real world situation, and I can definitely see the NAACP promoting affirmative action, along with many other movements (including the OPs example), reacting to pressure for reasons beyond my comprehension.

It is a large organization, and pinning things to it like a paper donkey, proves very little. Specifically, it doesn't prove them to be racist, as you are not racist (nor your family) in any hiring practices. You can call affirmative action racist, but I can just as easily call society stacked against minorities, in a very real way.

The NAACP wants solutions that address their goals; they may not be going about it in the right way. It certainly appears that they are getting sidetracked onto nonsense.

Also keep in mind that affirmative action is not mandated by law in any private context.

I'm very uncomfortable with it, but in practice what it does is simply change the essentially arbitrary process by which candidates are chosen. Nobody unqualified gets through because of AA, they wouldn't get that far, or shouldn't. Instead, what it means is that instead of taking the "best" candidates, you take some of the best and some that are "good enough" to balance things out.

It's unfair to those better candidates that lose out, but we know that in practice the best people seldom get the jobs. It's about connections, knowing people, and often superficial similarities.

I think we can all agree though that what happened in the OP's original post was asshattery to the extreme.

IMO the NAACP are the mirror opposite of the KKK. One is so vocal about it's hate against minorities that nobody takes them seriously; the other is so vocal in it's playing the race card that not many people take them seriously anymore.

Not comparing NAACP to the KKK but that is why they are such perfect polar opposites. Both extreme in what they do and both are led by an asshat.

I think that's the worst part of this, and you raise a pretty good point: stuff like this makes it harder to advocate for genuine equality.

Exactly. Complaining more and more about stuff starts to make your complaints sound less genuine and more like complaining just for the sake of complaining.