Originally posted by Razorsharp
You must have missed it. Here goes again. Whites are the only group that the Supreme Court has sanctioned institutionalized discrimination against.
Hmm, maybe you can help me out here. IANAL, but I seem to recall that the Supreme Court had (from a historical perspective) upheld cases that instititutionalized discrimination against non-whites.
Remember the Dred Scott case? Or what about the case that was overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education (I can’t remember the name)? You know, the “seperate but equal” decision that pretty much gave free reign to Jim Crow laws throughout the country (and in particular in the South)?
I would very much like to know the specific cases that the Supreme Court has upheld which sanctions institutionalized discrimination against whites.
The case you’re thinking of is Plessy v. Ferguson, which introduced the “separate but equal” doctrine.
eponymous, Razorsharp will probably respond by mentioning cases that have upheld Affirmative Action, at least in principle. And I guess he’s got a point if you consider the decisions in a vacuum instead of looking at the historical context in which they were made. That is, if you can ignore the fact that minorities in America have often been deprived of their rights, it’s clear that Affirmative Action is some sort of evil anti-White plot.
“Entirely false”??? Man, I gotta hand it to ya, you’ve really got some chutzpah, to post such nonsense with a straight-face. Being that “profiling is acceptable based on history”, is that why eighty-year-old grandmothers are receiving the same scrutiny as thirty-something Arab males when boarding airliners?
You are interjecting a “red herring” into the discussion.
Except for his most obvious identifying trait, his race. Nooooo… they were all looking for a white man. See, the only time it is acceptable to profile by race, is if the suspect is believed to be white. It’s documented; liberalism poses a danger to society.
I agree with that statement, but, it’s a non-sequitor in that it does nothing to refute the fact that the only group deemed acceptable to racially profile, are whites.
Perhaps not part of the “official” profile, but I recall a supposition of “ex-military with a high degree of marksmanship”, and from this, the conjecture of a “militia type”. Now, when the media mentions “militia type”, are not the majority of “telescreen watchers” brainwashed to form the mental image of what fits the media’s presentation of “militia-type”?
Yeah, I do. Magic Johnson is black, Larry Byrd is white. Disagree? Which lends me another opportunity to exploit the double-standard of liberalism.
Basketball Hall of Famer, Isaiah Thomas, of the Detroit Pistons, once remarked, “If Boston Celtics forward Larry Byrd, another Hall of Famer, were black, he would be considered just an average basketball player.”
Isaiah Thomas, an American of African decent, in his commentary on Larry Byrd, publicly insinuated that even the best white athletes have just the average ability of black athletes.
Why was it that no one demanded that Isaiah Thomas be fined and undergo psychological counseling, or re-education, a la John Rocker?
Please forgive the rhetorical question.
The answer is that the scourge known as “Political Correctness” that currently infects America, once known as the land of “freedom of speech”, is nothing less than institutionalized “thought control” designed specifically to be applied to conservative Americans, who still embrace the traditional American values of individualism, freedom and liberty. Its purpose is to silence their protests of the socialization and globalization of the last genuinely free country that remains in the world today.
The Court didn’t have to define white, all they had to do was allow discrimination in the reaching of “certain objectives”. In other words, Universities are allowed to discriminate on the objective criteria of race, although you continually deny the existance of race.
No, what I was doing, in mentioning the Carr brothers, was demonstrating how the public is brainwashed in their perception of who the “haters” are. See, had the Carr brothers been white and their victims black, the media, as recent history would indicate, would have given the rapes and murders much more publicity and would have painted the criminals as " racist haters" in their furtherence of instilling a sense of collective guilt among whites.
Yeah, as though liberals don’t paint conservatives with the same broad stroke. They love to dish it out, but listen to them squeal when they get a dose of their own medicine.
There is no point of giving a personal definition of “white”, other than helping you to construct a strawman. So, let me serve it back to you. Are you saying that there are not different groups that are defined according to the divisions of race? Of course, the lines between the races are blurred due to miscegenation, but that does not refute the existance of the different races.
I realize that you two probably think of yourselves as clever, but I find your “question” to be both disengenuous and simple.
As for your list, Anglo-Saxon, Nordic and Germanic would be most indicative of those considered “white”. As for the rest of the “nationalities or ethnicities” in the list, to claim that any were of a particular race, would open one up to “exceptions to the rule”. Liberals often have to rely on exceptions to the rule for “proof”.
As one could logically say that China was a Asian country, a liberal would point to a single community of Europeons in China, to “prove” the contrary, and would expect to be taken seriously.
You’re right, once upon a time, discrimination was openly practiced in America, but in the context of this thread, institutionalized discrimination is supposed to be a thing of the past and even a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that, no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,”. But, equal treatment didn’t work out like it was envisioned, so now, society is supposed to accept “reverse discrimination” in the form of the pleasant sounding name of “affirmative action” in the quest of faux “equality”.
BTW: I believe that the recent Supreme Court case that decreed that discrimination on the basis of race was acceptable, was Grutter v. Bollinger. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan law school’s policy of considering race in deciding which students to accept. In “considering race”, the U of M was giving preference to “minorities”.
Well, I’ll tell you, it most certainly is looked upon as evil by those who have never practiced discrimination against anyone, but their government is permitting overt discrimination against them in an effort to right a wrong., In these instances, “Affirmative Action” is tantamount to “two wrongs DO make a right”.
Only if you’ll forgive the subsequent analysis that shows the parallel to be nonsense. Thomas and Bird have a well-established rivalry going back a number of years (the latest chapter being Bird firing Thomas from a coaching position at the Indiana Pacers). Whether Thomas’s original remark was facetious or malicious, his personal relationship with Bird makes me disinclined to view Thomas’s remark as political.
Compare this to John Rocker’s statement from the infamous Sports illustrated interview:
There seems a pretty obvious difference between Thomas taking a shot at Bird, and Rocker taking a shot at immigrants. Rocker’s hate-filled rhetoric reminds me of, well, you.
Well, aren’t you the poor widdle victim? As for the ridiculous nonsense that the U.S. is the “last genuinely free country” (that just makes me want to chuckle and wave a Canadian flag), I’ll have to point out that for most of its history (and arguably even now), the U.S. wasn’t genuinely free for large segments of its own population.
What’s the matter? The coloured people getting too uppity for your tastes? Maybe they should just accept their proper place in society and shut up.
You haven’t proven that American whites (whoever they are) are being oppressed in any way. You might be demonstrating that certain society-granted advantages are being whittled away, though. In the meantime, you seem free enough to express your opinion, so how have your protests been silenced?
Well, there you go again, trotting out your stereotype. I don’t think anyone here is ‘squealing’. Do you? Sure you can go out and find squealers easily enough, but you can find individuals saying all kinds of things these days. It proves nothing, except possibly that free speech is alive and well.
Yes, I am saying that there are not different groups that are defined according to the divisions of race. The are rough and somewhat arbitrary categories that many people can be put into, but the defining lines between such categories are nonexistent. “Miscegenation” is a pointlessly circular argument: you claim there are races with definable differences; then try to explain away borderline cases by claiming racial mixing, which assumes the claim (races exist) before you’ve proven it.
From what I’ve observed, so-called “racial” characteristics are quite trivial and superficial. With a harsh filtering process, you can make them significant, though, as in professional sports. I could imagine a correlation between so-called “black” features and certain slight advantages in muscle strength or speed. Trim away 99.999% of the population, and you get an NBA where most of the players have dark skin. Trying to use that or a similarly biased sample to prove a political point to apply to all citizens, though, is a mistake. It’s an easy mistake, mind you, and when your argument consists of nothing but rhetoric, it might be all you have.
Actually, you seem to be on the verge of making a claim that “white” somehow exists as a definable race. If that had any scientific merit, exceptions wouldn’t exist. You would be able to define some set of characteristics such that if a person had all of them (or none of them), that person would definitely be ‘white’.
Trouble is, of course, that even among the Anglo-Saxon, Nordic and Germanic groups, there are individuals who vary from the average, some to an extreme. How much variance is allowed before one stops being ‘white’, despite having white ancestors going back generations?
I don’t see why “Liberals” enter into it. Just having respect for logic, statistics and the scientific method would be enough to challenge any definition you could give.
Well, China is an Asian country in the sense that it is located in Asia. There have been longstanding cultural barriers to immigration, so arguably China is as “pure” as most countries get. Another way to describe them might be “inbred”, though this description somehow lacks appeal. Go figure.
Now, there are communities of people descended from Europeans in the sense you seem to mean, as small (possibly inbred) enclaves. The Portuguese colony of Macau is the most famous, I guess, having been founded on the periphery of China in the 1600s and waxed and waned ever since. By now, Portuguese genetic markers have no doubt slipped into the surrounding population.
Now, if you wanted to define “Asian country” as “a country populated only members of an Asian race”, well, then you have a problem. I doubt you could come up with a firm definition of an Asian race and more than you could define a white race.
In fact, I get the impression you’re trying to point out that “liberals” make ignorant statements, but your approach seems to involve making ignorant statements of your own.
I hate to burst your bubble, but nothing works out like it was envisioned. Santa Claus isn’t real, either.
As far as I can tell, the only approach to really eliminating racism is let young people interact and learn that all the generalizations and stereotypes their parents spoke of were crap. Then the older generation dies off, and the very notion of engaging in open racism becomes foreign and old-fashioned.
Personally, though I think affirmative action should be dumped, simply because I prefer a purely merit-based approach.
Compared to, say, closing the borders to immigration entirely? Yeah, that wrong will really set things right.
You have some valid points in being suspicious of affirmative action, or similar programs that seek to give advantages based on arbitrary characteristics, but they’re mixed in with such racist bullshit and preposterous misconceptions that the resistance you’ve encountered here surprises me not at all.
That leaves out the Irish, Scots, Welsh, the French, Spaniards, Italians, Czechs, Slovaks, Russians, Ukranians, Poles, Greeks, Macedonians, Italians, Portugese, Albanians, Hungarians, Serbians, and Bulgarians as white then. Crap, I have to go tell my German mom that my Scots-Irish and Cherokee dad isn’t white!
As I posted earlier, my ancestors are for all over the damn world. So what race does that make me? Have I no race? Am I some sort of pitiful mongrel, bereft of all sense of self, culture, and pride? If race is so clearly delineated and obvious, why is it that different people look at me and think I’m Hispanic, or Native American, or Jewish, or white, or any number of things? If people such as me exist, how is race at all a useful definition?
I’m not sure whether this statement is another of your lies or simply the confusion of someone who cannot deal with reality. I have never stated that race does not exist; I have simply noted (and provided evidence to the point) that it is a social construct that has been defined differently on several occasions because it lacks an objective, independent reality. Certainly, once someone chooses to construct a definition for it (as you have fled from doing), it can be used in a real sense. People are often denied housing and jobs based on another person’s perception of “race.” There is the reality; it is a fuzzy concept that allows people who enjoy hating to focus their hatred on and to express their hatred toward differing groups at different times.
We have exactly two incidents of terrorism in the U.S. in which Middle-Eastern men were involved. We also have a number of incidents of terrorism in which “white” guys were involved. There is no established history that indicates that any person from the Middle East is more likely to be a terrorist in the U.S… Richard Reid (the shoe bomber), Jose Padilla, (the street thug that Ashcroft pretends is a terrorist), and John Walker Lind (the “American Taliban”) don’t have a drop of Middle East blood among the three of them. (Not to mention our most successful home-grown terrorist, Tim McVeigh.)
Regarding Muhammad:
You really like to ignore the obvious, don’t you? If 99% of serial killers are white males and you want to profile serial killers, you need to include the “white” part. This means that your profile will probably miss 1% of the potential serial killers. The fact that this profile failed to guess Muhammad’s appearance might lead one to conclude that profiling does not work or that profiling is imperfect, but there is no logical reason to claim that we should include blacks in a profile of an activity that is predominantly a white activity. You are just whining, now.
I realize that you get a warm sense of persecution and hatred when you spout this stuff, but failing the presentation of evidence, you are simply making it up. Not one of the three survivors of the Carr attacks mentioned any anti-white rhetoric. One of the brothers had a white girlfriend. They were simply scum who happened to have hit on the majority population when selecting their victims. No “hate crime” motive is legitimately ascribed to them. The murderers of Mr. Boyd selected him to be a victim because he was black.
Ahh! The old mythical “Aryan” folk (with the odd exclusion of the Celts among all the other peoples who have been called “white” from the 18th to the early 20th century). Why am I not surprised?
I’m not sure whether this statement is another of your lies or simply the confusion of someone who cannot deal with reality. I have never stated that race does not exist; I have simply noted (and provided evidence to the point) that it is a social construct that has been defined differently on several occasions because it lacks an objective, independent reality. Certainly, once someone chooses to construct a definition for it (as you have fled from doing), it can be used in a real sense. People are often denied housing and jobs based on another person’s perception of “race.” There is the reality; it is a fuzzy concept that allows people who enjoy hating to focus their hatred on and to express their hatred toward differing groups at different times.
We have exactly two incidents of terrorism in the U.S. in which Middle-Eastern men were involved. We also have a number of incidents of terrorism in which “white” guys were involved. There is no established history that indicates that any person from the Middle East is more likely to be a terrorist in the U.S… Richard Reid (the shoe bomber), Jose Padilla, (the street thug that Ashcroft pretends is a terrorist), and John Walker Lind (the “American Taliban”) don’t have a drop of Middle East blood among the three of them. (Not to mention our most successful home-grown terrorist, Tim McVeigh.)
Regarding Muhammad:
You really like to ignore the obvious, don’t you? If 99% of serial killers are white males and you want to profile serial killers, you need to include the “white” part. This means that your profile will probably miss 1% of the potential serial killers. The fact that this profile failed to guess Muhammad’s appearance might lead one to conclude that profiling does not work or that profiling is imperfect, but there is no logical reason to claim that we should include blacks in a profile of an activity that is predominantly a white activity. You are just whining, now.
I realize that you get a warm sense of persecution and hatred when you spout this stuff, but failing the presentation of evidence, you are simply making it up. Not one of the three survivors of the Carr attacks mentioned any anti-white rhetoric. One of the brothers had a white girlfriend. They were simply scum who happened to have hit on the majority population when selecting their victims. No “hate crime” motive is legitimately ascribed to them. The murderers of Mr. Boyd selected him to be a victim because he was black.
Ahh! The old mythical “Aryan” folk (with the odd exclusion of the Celts among all the other peoples who have been called “white” from the 18th to the early 20th century). Why am I not surprised?
What you have to ignore, in support of the party-line, is that there is not supposed to be any profiling by race.
Again, you are parroting the party-line in insisting that “robbery” was the motive. The victims were sexually abused for over two hours before being taken to an ATM machine for the “robbery”.
Despite your aggrieved cries, it is not “profiling byu race.”
Washington sniper profile: 50 - 100 data points describing personality, probable work record, types of displays of anger, probable age, probable sex, etc., including the single data point that the person is probably white. (And every data point except the color was true.)
Immigration profile: Sex and possible Missle East origin. (Except that we exclude “allies” such as Saudi Arabia which was the home to the majority of the hijackers on 9/11.)
DWB profile: black driver in (or remotely near) “white” neigborhood.
Again, you are parroting your party line. The Carr’s were guilty of multiple robberies and assaults against a number of people over the course of time. (They were also the victims of physical and sexual abuse, themselves, which does nothing to mitigate their actions, but may explain some of their motivation.) Given that none of their victims have reported “racial” language or anything resembling racial motive, you are simply siezing on the difference in races between the perpetrators and the victims to claim a motive with no evidence. The prosecutor did not ask for lenience because they were poor, abused black kids–he sought trhe death penalty. (And your columnist , Mr. Armstrong, is guilty of the same thing. The prosecutor sought the death penalty for the Carrs based on the horrific nature of their actions. There was no need to invoke “hate crime” language because there is no evidence of racial motivation.) In the case of Mr. Byrd, we have the testimony of the perpetrators that they did it for racial motives.
Well, if " there are not different groups that are defined according to the divisions of race", how does the government arrive at conclusions as these?
Is that what this is about? Your wounded self-esteem? Unfortunately, irrational arguments, overheated rhetoric, and spurious claims aren’t going to do much to boost your self-esteem. One of thing that can boost your self-esteem is real world achievement. Declaring your self a victim of imaginary conspiracies works directly against your capacity to achieve anything. You give yourself a convenient excuse for failure.
Well, apparently there was language that did resemble a racial motive, and notice that The Witchita Eagle, like you, in defense of the liberal party-line, attempts to mitigate the reference by noting that it was “the night’s only apparent reference to race.”
In instances of inter-racial crime, why to liberal’s go into contortions to deny the possibility of a hate crime being perpetrated by a minority, but search for every possibility of a racial motive in crimes perpetrated by whites?
That’s IT? You have one perp in a multiple hour ordeal make one one-line comment wondering about his sexuality and that makes it a racially motivated hate crime? C’mon. Reach a little further, will you?
This is just more of your unsupported hand-waving. From your unidentified “liberals” to your “search for every possibility” you are just making up stuff that you need to believe. Having bought into the invented Aryan race, you now seem to need to buy into lots of inventions.
Pretty sad, really.
(And, yes, I realize that there are a few people on the other side of the fence who make statements as looney as yours are. There are some “liberals” who look for racism when it not there; there are some people who exalt other “races” over the “white race” (with no better ability to actually define what they are talking about). However, your whole thesis has to do with creating imaginary “liberals” out of straw and making wild claims about what “they” do, pretending that race has some independent reality (even though you cannot even define or describe it except in terms that might make de Gobineau or H. S. Chamberlain–but no serious scientist–happy), and looking for things to get mad about, even when you have to twist the facts in order to make them your cause célèbre.)
Becuase race exists as a social construct without any scientific validity. “Race” only has significance because we (well, most of us) say it does. Similarly, a corporation is a legal construct. That doesn’t make it scientifically valid.
It’s fairly easy to categorize people most of the time, but in order to have a “group” and make definitive claims about this group, you need a well-defined membership. You can claim white culture is being destroyed by Hollywood, but if you can’t define “white culture” (or even “white”) then how do you prove your case?
What about NPR? That is liberal talk radio, and very popular talk radio at that. And, in favor of NPR over conservative talk radio, conservative radio hosts (Limbaugh, most notably) revert CONSTANTLY to the very “intellectual” practice of name-calling and demonizing; nothing says intellect more than calling others “stupid”.
I do agree with you that watching television provides little intellectual stimulus, thus explaining Fox News and Bill O’Reilly (and, to be fair, every show on CNN).
