Can you give an example of a “white interest?”
Rolling back affirmative action for minorities.
Which is why it’s stupid to compare “white” groups to minority ethnic groups.
Are the difficulties faced by these white kids based on their race? If not, why restrict your efforts by race?
How is that a white interest, and why is it necessary to serve that interest?
I don’t think anyone would give a shit, actually. Knock yourself out. It’s kind of a retarded idea, but no one’s going to stop you.
Well that’s one towel thrown in.
What does that mean? What am I surrendering?
When is someone’s difficulty in school ever based on race?
Why restrict efforts based on race? Yes. Good question.
Google “helping minorities school”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=helping+minorities+school&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
A lot of these say “low-income” minorities. why not just low-income people?
This is a serious question?
This isn’t a cite, it’s a Google search result. Can you show a specific organization which excludes help based on race?
Name-calling usually means that.
You don’t need me to tell you that whether my proposal is retarded or not is irrelevant. The point has to do with what our society considers allowed for some groups and not allowed for others. And just who is allowed to do what is based on race… the “not-allowed” group being whites.
The fact that discussing this situation, even just illuminating it, usually provokes some hostility, is also one of things which I find puzzling.
Because AA for minorities does not help whites. It can be argues that it hurts whites. (You might not agree that it hurts whites, but that would be an opinion, not a fact.)
It isn’t necessary. Why should it have to be? That wasn’t in the post I was responding to.
It’s hard to think of there being a unified “white culture” when you’re in an older Great Lakes, Rust Belt or Northeastern city (in the United States, pedants!), where the descendants of immigrants who came to the country 80 to 150 years ago still very strongly identify themselves with whatever “old country” their great great grandparents came from. The cultures, values and mores of those hyphenated-American groups in older industrial cities are all quite distinct from each other; the only common element may be traditional Catholicism and regional cultural quirks. There’s a huge world of difference between a stereotypical “white” person, say, a textbook Prairie Home Companion-style Lutheran from St. Cloud, Minnesota, and an Italian-American from Rochester or Erie. There’s a huge difference between an Italian-American from Buffalo and a Polish-American from Buffalo; they’re both probably very observant Catholics who are Bills fans, but even their accents will be different.
I can’t tell if you mean “of course it is never based on race, so why ask?” or “of course it is sometimes based on race, so why ask?”
I was suggesting that race has nothing to do with whether one is struggling in school. The authors of the The Bell Curve might disagree with me though.
What position do you think I was surrendering? What position do you believe I “threw in the towel” on?
What other issue is there? There isn’t any legal issue, only an argument about what people will respect and not respect.
You are “allowed” to do anything what you want. Your premise that anything is not allowed is complete bullshit.
What hostility have you seen?
Well, then it’s only your opinion that AA runs counter to white interest, so it isn’t much of an example.
If it isn’t necessary, and it’s just a gratuitous attempt to promote “white” interests above non-white, then the OP’s question answers itself as to why groups centered around self-proclaimed “white interests” are perceived as racist – it’s because they are racist. It’s not a question of perception. They are self-identified as racist.
Well, race has historically had a lot to do with whether an individual is able to access higher education (and whether they can even get a decent bases education), but all things being equal, race has nothing to do with one’s inherent ability to succeed academically, which is why your proposal to help stupid white kids in school would be retarded.
Every political stance is an opinion.
False dichotomy. Just because something isn’t “necessary” doesn’t make it “gratuitous”.
Yes it does. That’s the meaning of the word, “gratuitous.”
Can you name an example of a group concerned about “white interests” which you would say is not racist?
Your moral compass may be spinning out of control but please don’t drag the rest of us into this Christian fantasy that only followers of Jesus can be moral. End of hijack.
If the population of the USofA was 60% white and 40% black and black folks decided to organize black only clubs and professional societies - that would be racist and I think whites would be justified in organizing similar groups. It would be hard to compete otherwise. But that isn’t how it is. The US is something like 75% “white” and maybe 10-12% of each of the other groups you list. A white-only organization is saying “everybody can join except these few” by its very nature. If I were in China I might join an ex-pat club of Americans, just to be able to have some folks similar to myself to hang out with. That wouldn’t mean that I hate Chinese people, it just means I want to hang out with people like myself sometimes. Maybe a little racist, but then we all are.
Forming professional groups around racial lines is racists at its core; how can it not be? If a group of black people agree to only do business with each other then they are basically denying whites their business. But … and this is a big but IMO … This is sometimes necessary in a racist society. If whites favor other whites, even a little, then that leaves minority groups at a huge disadvantage simply because of the numbers.
If you want to form a whites-only club you can do it, but you won’t get me to join. I want to join something that doesn’t let just anybody in.