At least Pat Buchanan is an Equal Opportunity Bigot. According to this Huffington Post, he’s still a Holocaust denier.
Were they all blind? What was to keep them from seeing the worthiness of other races and of women and appointing them to positions?
magellan, what you described is not a Melting Pot. You don’t have to shed your culture when you enter America; you contribute it to the “soup” that’s in the pot and it changes the flavor of our country a little. Yes, the immigrants and especially their offspring, change some too. We all change each other! That’s what a Melting Pot is.
That’s pretty much the definition of racism. You can substitute different races, but that’s it.
The Board tolerates racism against blacks and whites and against many ethnicities – but not so much against nationalities. It tolerates religious harrassment and sexism. But I think most of it is in the name of Freedom of Speech – even if we don’t have freedom of words – and even if First Amendment Rights don’t apply to a private board.
At least in this thread people are speaking up against racism. Unfortunately, the appropriate language is forbidden.
President Obama hoped for more discussions on race and racism; maybe that’s why we see more here.
God, you vastly overestimate my investment into Pat’s ravings. Racist Trolls like him are to be laughed at, not researched! I leave the philosophic musing of racists to the other racists…
Obviously, no one should discriminate against someone simply because they belong to some group by birth, whether that group is distinguished by its skin color, or by something else.
However, it is interesting that the hate against the Irish in 19th-C America at least does show that discrimination in the US has not always been primarily focused on the physical trait of skin color. That could be good or bad, but in any case it’s interesting. Perhaps this kind of more malleable attitude toward what traits one should focus one’s discrimination toward is actually helping the US move beyond racism, to some degree, in the early 21st century.
I say this because there ARE cultures where skin color really IS everything. Sadly, many Indian (South Asian) subcultures apparently practice this. Anecdotal example: Mrs. Map is of South Indian descent, and when she was born, all her grandmother wanted to know was how dark-skinned or light-skinned she was. She didn’t even really care if the mother and baby were healthy.
This is something I’ve experienced first hand. I’m a fair-skinned African American, as a result of the soup of my lineage, and dated an Indian girl years ago. For the most part her family, especially her brother, rejected me, the closest to acceptance being when one of her aunts said “at least he’s light.” It would never have worked out for us, but it was interesting to be given somewhat of a pass because of my skin color, even if only begrudgingly.
Believe me, there could be an entire thread alone on Indians and discrimination based on skin color.
There was even science-y propaganda in the mid 19c. about the supposed primitive genes of Irishpeople - specifically that many of them had flat-bridged noses, like…here it comes, wait for it…apes.
IDK about any substantial prejudice on the part of all-but-deracinated Scots-Irish towards Irish-Irish, at least qua Irish-Irish. But that’s not saying much, since the I-I could be discriminated against as recent immigrants and catlickers, too.
[snipped, of course]
I have to disagree here. While I understand it is frustrating to feel like one is being censored, it remains that there are no magical words that will help in the fight against racism. None of the “forbidden words” would convince the racist that he is wrong; in fact, since s/he sees himself as being insulted, it rather emboldens the racists’ beliefs as well as their rhetoric.
I agree one hundred percent. But Magellen saying that doesn’t make him racist. If he condoned or in any way hinted that was acceptable it would be racist.
Darn it didnt get my followup in before the edit window closed.
I understand the worry that someone else posted about people twisting those facts to create some sort of manifest destiny for whites, or claiming that the reason we got to that position was due to some innate White superiority. I have heard variations on those types of arguments before. Or arguments that point to the complete fuck up that is most of Africa as proof of Black inferiority.
Kind of off topic but is there a book out there that explains why white people became so powerful. It seems to me that various other cultures had the resources and ability to become dominant. For example why did India with it’s massive amount of people and resources end up a colony of the British instead of the opposite?
I haven’t read that book mainly because I have heard little but derision for its scholarship.
However as per the answer regarding the tons of people, well the answer in India’s case is that:
India was not a united entity until the British united it.
Other Empires that were ascendant at other times in history held sway over India.
The Population disparities that we see are relatively recent developments, some areas had population explosions while others did not.
Europe had a similar population density but it doesn’t now because it’s people migrated all over the world. The population of the European disapora is easily comparable to that of the population of India.
No he didn’t. He said that he could bring something different to the court. No one thinks that’s a bad thing. It’s a good thing. Her statement pointed to her individual wisdom leading, more often than not, to better judgements than those of her white male counterparts.
If she had said what Thomas did, with the appropriate changes in language, no one would have a problem with it. I know I wouldn’t.
Also, that grasping at straws article conflates two different issue: the comment she made that has been quoted in this thread, and something Obama said about “empathy”. Kind of slick, kind of tricky, all in an attempt to paint those who think Sotomayor’s statement is inappropriate as hypocrites. This is Plan B for the left, after the Racist label is shown to not be sticking, pull out the Hypocrite label. Not as effective, no, but anything to try to shut the other side up. Even if it means showing that they don’t understand analogies. Kind of an intellectual seppuku. Anything for the cause.
As you are ignoring, Sotomayor already explained properly what she meant to say and even some republicans are admitting these accusations of reverse racism did not stuck.
You are missing my point. She may or may not be a racist. I’m happy to take in to consideration both her explanation for what she said and her record over the years to come to a more informed assessment. But that one statement is flagrantly and undeniably racist. Period.
Nah, as it has been pointed time and time again, it is still just a matter of opinion, and the context minimizes whatever racism or reverse racism that you are trying to assign to her…
It has been in the end a failure.
On the other hand, as I have said before, I’m glad the Republicans were at it as even less Hispanics will vote for them thanks to this silly effort.
You are right, of course. The temporary self-satisfaction isn’t worth shoring up their beliefs.
The racist label sticks tight for all to see. Two blacks on the Court in its history. Have there been only two qualified blacks in the history of our country?
What I think I’m hearing you say in so many words is that there have been more white men on the SCOTUS because white men were the ones in power. Weren’t white men the ones in power because of racism and sexism?
We understand sound analogies.
Consider please that actions speak louder than words and that the mostly white males in power obviously have thought for the last 230+ years that white men are wiser about 97.5% of the time when it is time to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court.
I found it iteresting when I first found out about it as a kid. I was really surprised. I was brought up to value both Irish and Scottish heritages. That was when I was still unaware of the discrimination against my own gender. It seemed very “natural” at that time. That also isn’t about skin color.
Yup, and also many law schools, along with business and medical schools, didn’t even begin officially admitting women until we were well into the 20th century.
