Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama: Racist?

Timex (11710) writes | more than 4 years ago

User Journal 44

Before you flip out on my title, consider this: Many Liberals[1] consider anyone against Obama and his policies "racist" by default. Why? Simply because that's the way they think. They classify other people according to to the way they think, whether they publicize their train of thought or not.Before you flip out on my title, consider this: Many Liberals[1] consider anyone against Obama and his policies "racist" by default. Why? Simply because that's the way they think. They classify other people according to to the way they think, whether they publicize their train of thought or not.

Consider, too, that Obama recently called on "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again."

Why assume that all "African-Americans"[2] and Latinos[3] were on Obama's side in 2008? Because that's the way he thinks. Statistically, one could make the case that the number of people that fit into the "African-American" and "Latino" labels he refers to that stood against him would be relatively insignificant, and therefore not worth counting, but I'm sure they would beg to differ. Every person's opinion matters, whether they are statistically worthy or not.

Is Obama actually a racist? I don't know. I don't think I have enough information to make that call accurately. If we were to go with the Liberal definition (which the Liberals themselves surely wouldn't), the answer would be a resounding "YES!" (See, the Liberals tend to be completely blind to their hypocrisy. They are like Congress, applying rules they make to others, without applying the same rules to themselves.)

The sad thing is that there are racists on both sides, to the Left and the Right. The Left focus in on the right-wing racists and (wrongly) accuse all "right wingers" as being of the same ilk, all the while ignoring the fact that the Left has similar issues that need to be dealt with[4].

--
[1] I'm referring here to American Liberals, not to be confused with the Canadian or European variety.

[2] We'll ignore the fact that "African-Americans" don't really exist, as such, any more than "Asian-Americans" or "European-Americans" do. Yes, there are people whose ancestors originated from the African continent, but we generally aren't sure exactly which country they originated from.

[3] LasCulturas.com has an interesting perspective on the term, its usage, its history, and its acceptability.

[4] I'm thinking specifically of the Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton, both of whom sided with an alleged rape victim, a case in which charges were dropped and the case dismissed. Interestingly enough, both Jackson and Sharpton have yet to apologize for comments they made "on Magnum's behalf" against the accused.

cancel ×

44 comments

"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992488)

Sociologists have been running a poll for a very long time, back far enough that the majority of people responded to "Why do black people have less money?" answered with: "because black people are stupid/inferior."

While it is true that this answer has received less answers every year, it's also true that an alternate answer "because they're lazy/unmotivated" has pressed to the fore, and if you add up both of them, you end up with not a single person becoming non-racist, but rather they all just traded one set of racist bias for another.

The way that this causes a problem is that people push for revoking ideas that are used to equalize racial-disproportionate disadvantages, such as food-stamps and welfare, etc.

It's not that I think all right-wing people are racist, but when all their ideas result in racist goals being achieved, then it's difficult to put it any other way.

When right-wingers push for "we speak English here, so LEARN IT!" they're biasing themselves against Mexicans. They don't complain much about the Chinese who come here and contribute to our technological progress, or the Europeans who come here, perhaps speaking little English. No, they only seem to complain about SPANISH. They also fail to realize that Puerto Ricans are fully US citizens, but do not naturally learn English, but not even that, about a quarter of the state of New Mexico speak Spanish (and some speak it exclusively) even though their parents and their grandparents were/are born-in-the-USA citizens.

We complain about Mexicans displaying Mexican flags during their marches, and at their homes, or work, but we don't complain about the Irish doing the same, or the Italians. (Note: we USED to be pissed at the Irish and Italians for exactly the same stuff as we're upset at the Mexicans for, until they have now become as American as Guinness and Pizza.)

Obama is speaking to the Latinos, the African-Americans and the Women who in majority voted for him, and other Democrats. If he were to speak to us all as Americans, with: "America, we cannot let these goals fall by the wayside, we still have a lot to accomplish, and we need YOUR votes to push this through." Would you claim that he were mistakenly talking to all of America as if his opponents didn't count?

There is a deep and fundamental difference between rhetoric, and action... and right-wingers may not be racist in rhetoric, but many of their ideas disproportionately disadvantage minorities (whether it be race, sex, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity/expression) in action.

So, don't go pulling out rhetoric and misconstruing it to be racist... what is racist is destroying the opportunities that we're attempting to give to those minorities that are fundamentally not equal because of where they were born in life.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993672)

"When right-wingers push for "we speak English here, so LEARN IT!" they're biasing themselves against Mexicans. They don't complain much about the Chinese who come here and contribute to our technological progress, or the Europeans who come here, perhaps speaking little English. No, they only seem to complain about SPANISH. They also fail to realize that Puerto Ricans are fully US citizens, but do not naturally learn English, but not even that, about a quarter of the state of New Mexico speak Spanish (and some speak it exclusively) even though their parents and their grandparents were/are born-in-the-USA citizens."

Actually- in high tech, it's usually a complaint about either Chinese or some thick accent from the Indian Subcontinent. But what it really comes down to is who you personally are in direct competition with.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31994472)

Actually- in high tech, it's usually a complaint about either Chinese or some thick accent from the Indian Subcontinent. But what it really comes down to is who you personally are in direct competition with.

What I think the big thing is, because this pattern has followed for Italians and Irish, and Polish, and Jews...

It's a situation of Americans hate the newest immigrants, and this has caused "quotas" to be placed on how many immigrants from one nation can come through at a time.

These quota, and "racism" stick around with people talking about how the newest group of immigrants will never be able to integrate, but then they do.

Eventually, their culture becomes part of American culture, and people stop being racist about them, and the quotas are lifted.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 4 years ago | (#32001082)

But WHY do "Americans hate the newest immigrants"?

Usually it's directly *because* of competition on the job site. The newest immigrants are always seen as taking jobs away from those who need jobs to survive (never mind the fact that the immigrants, too, need the jobs to survive). And thus, who you're biased against, is going to depend largely upon who you're in competition with- blue collar workers will hate the Mexicans, where high tech workers will hate the Chinese and Indians- just because of what jobs they are taking.

Has almost nothing to do with culture, other than as a way to separate people out, and everything to do with us-vs-them competition.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003706)

But WHY do "Americans hate the newest immigrants"?

Usually it's directly *because* of competition on the job site. The newest immigrants are always seen as taking jobs away from those who need jobs to survive (never mind the fact that the immigrants, too, need the jobs to survive). And thus, who you're biased against, is going to depend largely upon who you're in competition with- blue collar workers will hate the Mexicans, where high tech workers will hate the Chinese and Indians- just because of what jobs they are taking.

Has almost nothing to do with culture, other than as a way to separate people out, and everything to do with us-vs-them competition.

Quite agreed. But this doesn't make them JUSTIFIED, and in fact, is directly unjustified by the principles of the free market, or free economy, or capitalism.

The whole point of all these "-isms" and in particular the anti-immigrant versions thereof is the same "us-vs-them" notion that causes racism.

While you hold that the cultural targeting is only the means to effect the end, I hold that both are equally racist. Even yet! If the end were not intentionally racist, the means directly are.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003866)

Quite agreed. But this doesn't make them JUSTIFIED, and in fact, is directly unjustified by the principles of the free market, or free economy, or capitalism.

First, that you agree means you don't think it is racist. So you're contradicting yourself.

Second, no, it is not in any way unjustified by capitalism or free market principles. Those principles you speak of are about how the economy works, and how it works best, and not about how people feel. There's nothing uncapitalist about hating Goobacks for taking our jobs. It's uncapitalist to then put that hate into protectionist government policies.

The whole point of all these "-isms" and in particular the anti-immigrant versions thereof is the same "us-vs-them" notion that causes racism.

No. They are related, but not the same. This one is -- as you agreed -- almost entirely about economic competition. Racism, on the other hand, is about much more, including -- and sometimes mostly -- culture. Of course, we can tie culture to economics, as I did in my last comment, when I pointed out that immigrants formerly felt a strong need to adopt American culture for economic benefit. But that doesn't make it the same. It's not.

While you hold that the cultural targeting is only the means to effect the end, I hold that both are equally racist.

You can hold anything you like, but you're wrong.

If the end were not intentionally racist, the means directly are.

No, they are not.

You keep forgetting the fact that you have not actually demonstrated that the means are racist. You keep asserting this falsehood without even attempting to back it up.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003908)

First, that you agree means you don't think it is racist.

NO LISTEN TO MY FUCKING WORDS!!!!

It's fucking RACIST, because IT'S US-VS-THEM!

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32004336)

NO LISTEN TO MY FUCKING WORDS!!!!

It's fucking RACIST, because IT'S US-VS-THEM!

Incorrect. Your "fucking words" were that you "agreed" with the claim that it was not about race, but about economics.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003952)

There's nothing uncapitalist about hating Goobacks for taking our jobs. It's uncapitalist to then put that hate into protectionist government policies.

OMG, explicit racism... why the fuck would I want to argue with you?

Do your right-wingers a favor and SHUT THE FUCK UP. You're the reason left-wingers convinced that right-wingers are racist.

Awesome job by the way, of insidiously justifying your explicit racism in implicit racism and proving my point.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32004320)

OMG, explicit racism

Where?

Do you have any idea what I actually said? There was nothing in there that was remotely racist, let alone explicit. Perhaps you think the word "Goobacks [wikipedia.org] " is racist? It's not. Educate yourself. I was referring to an episode of South Park that relates to this issue; the word was completely made-up and refers to no actual group of people.

Or maybe you know about Goobacks, but you were just thinking my statement that hating [any group] for taking jobs is not uncapitalist. But that's an obvious fact; nothing racist about it. Hating people is bad, and I'll be the first to say it (long before you, since I hate very few people, but you have an obvious and palpable hatred of "right-wingers"). I didn't say hating people was good or right, only that feelings, whatever they are, are not uncapitalist. This is a truism.

Do your right-wingers a favor and SHUT THE FUCK UP.

I'd be doing YOU a favor if I shut up: not only would I stop pointing out how anti-intellectual you are, but I'd lower your blood pressure.

You're the reason left-wingers convinced that right-wingers are racist.

Because ... they are stupid and think they know a hell of a lot more than they do? I read a quote from Reagan, from his 1964 Goldwater speech, today, that fits you: "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#32017530)

Quite agreed. But this doesn't make them JUSTIFIED, and in fact, is directly unjustified by the principles of the free market, or free economy, or capitalism.
 
Funny, I thought the principle of the free market was "crush your competition at any cost".
 
  While you hold that the cultural targeting is only the means to effect the end, I hold that both are equally racist. Even yet! If the end were not intentionally racist, the means directly are.
 
Even when the cultural targeting is a part of the culture?

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

Timex (11710) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031952)

...But this doesn't make them JUSTIFIED, and in fact, is directly unjustified by the principles of the free market, or free economy, or capitalism.

But it DOES explain why, for example, the "tech people" are so set against H1-B visas being granted to people so they can come to the US and "take" jobs that are already scarce. H1-Bs are supposed to be granted when employers cannot find enough workers from the "local" pool of potential employees. What really happens is that larger companies have seen it more economical to set unrealistic requirements for the positions they have to fill, not "find" any workers to satisfy their need, and then foster cheap immigrant workers under H1-Bs to do the work. It has been happening for most of the 15+ years I've been in the IT industry, probably for longer than that.

The whole point of all these "-isms" and in particular the anti-immigrant versions thereof is the same "us-vs-them" notion that causes racism.

The problem is that the root cause of the immigrant-as-labor problem and the root cause of the "racism" problem are two different things. In the first, there's competition in the work force brought about by employers who are trying to cut costs. They argue that if they didn't do such things, they would have to close their doors, "then where would you be?" In the second, the problem is based solely on the fact that the "victim" is different from the "racist", usually in matters of skin color or shape of eyes.

The first problem is worthy of arguing over, because it is a largely artificial construct: Make H1-B visas harder to obtain, and the option becomes less of a viable alternative, then employers will be forced to adjust.

The second problem has no justification whatsoever.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

Timex (11710) | more than 4 years ago | (#31998506)

Sociologists have been running a poll for a very long time, back far enough that the majority of people responded to "Why do black people have less money?" answered with: "because black people are stupid/inferior."

While it is true that this answer has received less answers every year, it's also true that an alternate answer "because they're lazy/unmotivated" has pressed to the fore, and if you add up both of them, you end up with not a single person becoming non-racist, but rather they all just traded one set of racist bias for another.

This is why I don't trust polls. The question itself demonstrates an assumed bias, and the two answers you used as examples (though I'm sure there are others) also make certain assumptions.

A better mindset would be based on the fact that regardless of the color of one's skin, regardless of the shape of one's eyes, the person is still human, and should be treated accordingly.

The way that this causes a problem is that people push for revoking ideas that are used to equalize racial-disproportionate disadvantages, such as food-stamps and welfare, etc.

The real problem is that the so-called "racial equality" rules are simply reverse discrimination at their core. They are written by law-makers that generally still feel guilty over what their predecessors have done, not thinking that they themselves can begin to "fix" problem(s) by treating people equally, regardless of any differences (skin color, political affiliation, etc).

It's not that I think all right-wing people are racist, but when all their ideas result in racist goals being achieved, then it's difficult to put it any other way.

That doesn't make it correct, any more than painting anyone that isn't a "right wing radical" as a "left wing socialist nut job". Making rules that favor any skin color over another is just plain wrong, whether it favors people with white skin, black skin, or somewhere in between. Racial quotas, though possibly well-intentioned, are still a Bad Idea(tm).

Obama is speaking to the Latinos, the African-Americans and the Women who in majority voted for him, and other Democrats. If he were to speak to us all as Americans, with: "America, we cannot let these goals fall by the wayside, we still have a lot to accomplish, and we need YOUR votes to push this through." Would you claim that he were mistakenly talking to all of America as if his opponents didn't count?

If he addressed all Americans that way, I would actually feel better about it, because he would be attempting to demonstrate inclusiveness. Instead, he (like most politicians, regardless of ideology) propagates the divisiveness that put him into office.

When right-wingers push for "we speak English here, so LEARN IT!" they're biasing themselves against Mexicans. They don't complain much about the Chinese who come here and contribute to our technological progress, or the Europeans who come here, perhaps speaking little English. No, they only seem to complain about SPANISH.

You've got it all wrong. Spanish (and the Mexicans, by association) is reviled because there are only two countries that border this nation: Canada and Mexico. (Well, there's Russia to the west of Alaska, but we'll ignore that for now, since there's a sizable water barrier there.)

We don't have a lot of problems with Canadians sneaking across the border to the United States. Even if we did, most of them speak English anyway, like the majority of Americans. Some speak French (les quebecois), but when they come here, they usually choose to come as tourists.

Mexico, on the other hand, has been on record as actually encouraging people to sneak into the United States. Many Mexicans still refuse to accept the fact that the south-western states are no longer part of Mexico, and that they have been part of the United States of America, as a territory or a state, for the better part of 150 years.

Spanish, as a language, is fine. There is nothing wrong with it, as such. The trick is that when one goes to any country, one expects to learn some portion of the local language in order to do things, even for short stays. Going to Germany? Learn German. France? French. You get the idea.

When the immigrants came here from Europe a hundred years ago, they had no problem with learning English, because they recognized it as the language of their adopted homeland. Compare this with the mindset of immigrants today, who (for whatever reason they choose to use) refuse to learn English, depending on state-provided translators for government or health-related business, or they (understandably) live in regions where they can communicate with others in the language they know. Not once do they seem to realize that the United States of America is a country to itself, with a language and a culture of its own. The USA is not Europe, nor is it Mexico, China, Cambodia, Korea, or any other nation you care to think of. Here, citizens are Americans, and here, we speak Engilish.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003618)

This is why I don't trust polls. The question itself demonstrates an assumed bias, and the two answers you used as examples (though I'm sure there are others) also make certain assumptions.

A better mindset would be based on the fact that regardless of the color of one's skin, regardless of the shape of one's eyes, the person is still human, and should be treated accordingly.

It is a statistical fact that blacks make more average money than whites.

The "non-racist" answer to the question on the poll is: "Because they are disadvantaged", or "they lack the same opportunities".

One cannot simply plop equal treatment on the floor and call everything good. Whites have had two hundred years of "equal footing" to start with, while Blacks have been dug an enormous hole for them before being given "equal footing".

A good example for women in a field that we here on slashdot can associate with, is that the entire programming field is unpalatable to women in general. The politics, the process, etc, of commercial software production often make demands upon women that most of them are simply unwilling to accept. (Like unreasonable work-life demands for one.)

"right wing radical"

I have never claimed any right-winger to be a radical... they're reactionaries. "Radical" implies left-wing by denotation. But I'm a pedantic bitch like that. (please ignore this, I'm just being a bitch, this requires no response.)

Racial quotas, though possibly well-intentioned, are still a Bad Idea(tm).

And left-wingers are not seeking racial quotas, and in fact, the Supreme Court has held that racial quotas are illegal.

However, cutting funding for foodstamps disproportionately affects blacks. Reducing school funding disproportionately affects blacks. ("wait, what?" Yeah, it does. Whites tend to have more extra-curricular opportunities to learn.) The healthcare system prior to the healthcare reform (and in some ways, even still until there is a public option) is disproportionately bad for blacks. ("wait, what?" Blacks statistically have a higher percentage of people without healthcare, because they are typically employed in jobs that do not provide healthcare.)

The reason why we started the public school system, was to ensure that the poor and disadvantaged have an education as well as the non-poor, and the advantaged. When blacks are disproportionately poor and disadvantaged, they will be disproportionately benefiting from it... would you suggest that pushing for adequate school funding is reverse-discrimination?

Here, citizens are Americans, and here, we speak Engilish.

Puerto Ricans are naturally-born American citizens (as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment). They speak Spanish.

There are a large number of New Mexicans, who are naturally-born American citizens (as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment). Yet, they speak Spanish. At even higher percentages than any other state. Over half the population is Hispanic even!

People are pressing these ideas as if all of "America" is just like their own backyard. WRONG. the USA is a very large place composed of many different states, and we speak a lot of different languages.

As an interesting question: how many languages do you happen to speak? If you speak no more than one, I doubt you actually understand how hard it is for the average human being to learn a second language as an adult.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32004244)

It is a statistical fact that blacks make more average money than whites.

I think you mean "less," no?

The "non-racist" answer to the question on the poll is: "Because they are disadvantaged", or "they lack the same opportunities".

False. Indeed, I consider it racist to say that the problem is entirely external to themselves. Bill Cosby certainly has much to say about how the African American community needs to take more responsibility for itself; is he a racist? Perhaps you think so.

One cannot simply plop equal treatment on the floor and call everything good. Whites have had two hundred years of "equal footing" to start with, while Blacks have been dug an enormous hole for them before being given "equal footing".

First, it is not racist to say, "well, tough luck, you're now on your own." It might be unfair, but it's not inherently racist.

Second, at what point are you done? When a particular measurement is reached? For example, no one sane thinks blacks are discriminated against in the NFL, in coaching or in playing, yet Jesse Jackson is still out there crying racism every other year to try to strongarm the league into getting more coaching jobs for black men, just because of some measurement of how many people of what race have what jobs.

And income is similar. Guess what? Most super-rich people in this country are white, and will be for awhile. You cannot change this except through theft.

A good example for women in a field that we here on slashdot can associate with, is that the entire programming field is unpalatable to women in general. The politics, the process, etc, of commercial software production often make demands upon women that most of them are simply unwilling to accept. (Like unreasonable work-life demands for one.)

I could not possibly care less. You have the decision; what should your decision have to do with me?

I have never claimed any right-winger to be a radical... they're reactionaries. "Radical" implies left-wing by denotation. But I'm a pedantic bitch like that.

You're also wrong in your pedantry. Radical does not, and never has, denoted "left-wing." That's a contextual connotation, not a denotation. Radical simply means fundamental change, and while it's true to a small but significant extent that conservatives see inherent value in the status quo much more than liberals do, the "right-wing" has often been radical. Take the "right-wing" abolitionist Christians in the 1800s. The same group and their mostly right-wing allies also pushed for suffrage and other women's rights, and for prohibition.

Many people today improperly call them "left-wing" just because they wanted change, but that's not how the right and left work. Our terms "liberal" and "conservative" cloud the fact that there's fundamental principles underneath each of those views, and it's not simply a matter of relationship to the status quo. Conservatives push for small government, individual liberties as opposed to government control, low taxes, personal property rights, and so on. These were all a feature of the abolitionist movement (although obviously the part of individual liberties was ignored by many who went on to the prohibitionist movement).

Bottom line is that radical is not right- or left-wing. Abolishing abortion, getting rid of or privatizing Social Security, getting rid of Medicare, these are all radical (favoring fundamental change), right-wing, ideas.

And left-wingers are not seeking racial quotas, and in fact, the Supreme Court has held that racial quotas are illegal.

Nonsense. The University of Michigan points system was just a quota by another name, and liberals decried the Supreme Court decision that struck it down as such, several years ago.

However, cutting funding for foodstamps disproportionately affects blacks. Reducing school funding disproportionately affects blacks.

Setting school funding aside for the moment -- it is a unique and separate issue -- if it's true, so what? Would it be OK to cut food stamps if it affected whites equally (and in some states, it probably does)? I cannot even consider your point to be remotely valid until you can answer that, and related, questions.

As to schools, the overwhelming majority of school funding is state-based, and it's mostly doled out based on need. Many inner city schools get far more money than suburban schools. Washington DC gets more than any other district, per student, and has some of the worst results.

My point -- and why it's a separate issue -- is that the amount of school funding is essentially unrelated to educational quality. You will not find a valid study that shows a serious relationship between school funding and student success. There's many things we need to do to improve public schools, but "more money" simply isn't one of them. There's more than enough money in schools now. We just need to learn -- as schools, as parents, and as students -- how to get the kids to learn.

The healthcare system prior to the healthcare reform (and in some ways, even still until there is a public option) is disproportionately bad for blacks.

So? Again, would you be OK with cutting public funds for healthcare if it affected whites proportionately?

Further, the answer -- since you point out rightly that this is related to jobs -- is to improve their economic situation, not to give them handouts. We can come up with scores of ways that blacks get less than whites, on average, and rather than spend money here, there, and everywhere else, we just need to focus on the opportunity part, which starts with education (which has nothing to do with needing more money).

would you suggest that pushing for adequate school funding is reverse-discrimination?

That question makes no sense, unless "adequate school funding" (which, I remind you, already exists) would result in causing harm to some students to help other students.

Here, citizens are Americans, and here, we speak Engilish.

Puerto Ricans are naturally-born American citizens (as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment). They speak Spanish.

True, and no one denied this. (What I will deny -- being a pedant myself -- is that it is proper to use a hyphen after an adverb.) However, English is one of the two official languages of Puerto Rico, although Spanish is much more common there. But again, no one denied this. A tiny exception to the rule, on an island very far away from the continental U.S., does not disprove the general claim.

There are a large number of New Mexicans, who are naturally-born American citizens (as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment). Yet, they speak Spanish.

And almost all of them speak English, which makes your point a non sequitur.

People are pressing these ideas as if all of "America" is just like their own backyard.

No one is doing that, in fact.

As an interesting question: how many languages do you happen to speak? If you speak no more than one, I doubt you actually understand how hard it is for the average human being to learn a second language as an adult.

I doubt that I care very much. I know if I were going to live in another country, I'd work on it. Which is one of many reasons why I dislike travelling: it's too much work to muddle through without speaking the language. I want vacations to be relaxing.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009628)

The "non-racist" answer to the question on the poll is: "Because they are disadvantaged", or "they lack the same opportunities".

No, it is because on average people tend to only make small economic steps beyond their parents, no matter what their race is.

Poor whites are poor whites because their parents were poor whites. Poor blacks are poor blacks because their parents were poor blacks.

Obviously there are historical events that caused a large number blacks in America to start from essentially the bottom of the ladder. That doesn't mean that continued oppression by other more successful people is to blame.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

Timex (11710) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032296)

It is a statistical fact that blacks make more average money than whites.

The "non-racist" answer to the question on the poll is: "Because they are disadvantaged", or "they lack the same opportunities".

No. The "non-racist" answer is not an option in this case, because the question itself causes one to consider the race as a problem. It is a loaded question, and the available answers are no better.

One cannot simply plop equal treatment on the floor and call everything good. Whites have had two hundred years of "equal footing" to start with, while Blacks have been dug an enormous hole for them before being given "equal footing".

That is the fault of people, not necessarily the government. People, whether the laws require equality or not, will still treat people poorly if the other person is different. It happens with handicapped people, it happens with people that (whether they actually are or not) are perceived as homosexual, it happens with people that have a different skin color than the local "norm". Sadly, it cannot be avoided, but that does not make it "right".

A good example for women in a field that we here on slashdot can associate with, is that the entire programming field is unpalatable to women in general. The politics, the process, etc, of commercial software production often make demands upon women that most of them are simply unwilling to accept. (Like unreasonable work-life demands for one.)

There's more there than you're letting in on. I know myself, that one woman I used to work with got fed up trying to get techs to come address issues because they treated her as though she were completely incapable of diagnosing the problem herself-- never mind that she knew more about the problem and how to solve it than the tech she had to call. (It was company policy that some repairs had be handled by certain departments, or it was deemed "unauthorized" and punishable by dismissal.) She often would ask one of the "guys" to make the call for her. We'd tell them exactly what she would have told them, and POOF! they were there. Magic, of the ignorant sort.

People are pressing these ideas as if all of "America" is just like their own backyard. WRONG. the USA is a very large place composed of many different states, and we speak a lot of different languages.

...all with a common language: English.

As an interesting question: how many languages do you happen to speak? If you speak no more than one, I doubt you actually understand how hard it is for the average human being to learn a second language as an adult.

English: primary, 100% fluency.
American Sign Language: roughly 60% fluency.
French: 30% oral, 50% written, depending on subject matter.
I know a few words and phrases, and can count to 100 or more in three others.

I'm well aware of how difficult it is to teach adults another language. I think that most of that is because the method used in most classrooms is completely wrong for teaching fluent use of another language. At the risk of sounding like an advert, Rosetta Stone [rosettastone.com] probably has the best method, if you have the time to put into it.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32000272)

The way that this causes a problem is that people push for revoking ideas that are used to equalize racial-disproportionate disadvantages, such as food-stamps and welfare, etc.

You're committing the question-begging fallacy. In fact, there's no evidence that such policies DO "equalize racial-disproportionate disadvantages." In fact, we've seen our greatest advances against racism before those policies were fully implemented federally, and after we cut back on federal welfare in the 90s ... which tells me that these policies, rather than equalizing a damned thing, increased resentment from the people being taken from.

You only "equalize racial-disproportionate disadvantages" by providing opportunity, not by giving handouts.

It's not that I think all right-wing people are racist, but when all their ideas result in racist goals being achieved, then it's difficult to put it any other way.

You are, literally and fully, incapable of demonstrating that decreasing food stamps and welfare result in racist goals being achieved. You're just talking out your ass.

"When right-wingers push for "we speak English here, so LEARN IT!" they're biasing themselves against Mexicans.

False.

They don't complain much about the Chinese who come here and contribute to our technological progress

As Marxist Hacker said, people actually DO complain about Chinese and others when they become an impediment to functioning, through not speaking English well, or through having thick accents. Plus, very few Chinese people come here illegally.

It's almost all about practicality, and not about racism. Yes, a few people here and there have racist motivations, but overwhelmingly, the people who are against "Mexican illegal immigrants" are so because of purely practical reasons. Have you ever spent much time in Southern California? Arizona? I have, and it is undeniable that there are massive societal and economic problems caused by massive Mexican illegal immigration.

To imply it is racist to be more motivated against a massive practical problem (illegal Mexican immigration) than a much smaller problem (legal Chinese immigration) is idiotic.

or the Europeans who come here, perhaps speaking little English

Again: they do not cause significant problems, so they are not complained about. And almost no Europeans come here illegally. It's quite simple to understand.

Individually, people tend to give Chinese and Mexicans and everyone else a pass if we know they are doing their best. But as a group, when you have large numbers of people harming the functioning of society in such a way, then they will necessarily be looked down upon for this.

That's how it works, and it's a good thing, too: such peer pressure is what encourages many immigrants to learn English and improve their accents. People talk about our grand history of assimilation, but, traditionally, this assimilation was caused by adult immigrants who realized that they and their children needed to have good English skills in order to fully participate and succeed in the American economy.

They also fail to realize that Puerto Ricans are fully US citizens

False.

about a quarter of the state of New Mexico speak Spanish (and some speak it exclusively) even though their parents and their grandparents were/are born-in-the-USA citizens.

Very few people who were born in this country do not speak English. No one cares if you speak Spanish: it's being unable to speak English that is the problem.

We complain about Mexicans displaying Mexican flags during their marches, and at their homes, or work, but we don't complain about the Irish doing the same, or the Italians.

Mexicans in their marches -- often explicitly put the Mexican flag in a position of prominence over the American flag, even to the extent of calling for a theft of part of America, to give it to Mexico; more common is the idea in these marches that unfettered illegal immigration by Mexicans should be allowed to continue, which is a virtual takeover by Mexicans of large parts of our country.

Italians and Irish do not do this. I lived in Southern California for many years, and I understand the sentiment on both sides of the immigration issue down there; I also lived in Boston for many years, and I also have a good handle of Irish/Italian issues.

Now granted, many -- probably most -- Mexicans just use their flag as a symbol of pride as the Irish and Italians do. But there's enough Mexicans who use it to encourage anti-American policies that it becomes a negative symbol for many people. It's similar to the confederate flag: MOST people do not fly it with seditious or racist intent, but enough do that it is a negative symbol.

Would you claim that he were mistakenly talking to all of America as if his opponents didn't count?

That's what the left said when Sarah Palin was talking to "real Americans."

right-wingers may not be racist in rhetoric

True.

but many of their ideas disproportionately disadvantage minorities ... in action

False.

what is racist is destroying the opportunities that we're attempting to give to those minorities that are fundamentally not equal because of where they were born in life.

In fact, no such thing happens. Handouts are not opportunity, and worse, handouts at the expense of the opportunity of others violate fundamental civil liberties, when sanctioned or enforced by government.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003660)

It's almost all about practicality, and not about racism.

Your Honor, this test required for voting has nothing to do with racism. It is there to ensure that voters are capable of reading and sufficiently understanding the issues which they are to be voting on.

Have people forgot how often Jim Crow laws attempted to use nominal apologetic arguments to justify themselves?

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003756)

Your Honor, this test required for voting ...

... has nothing to do with this discussion. It's not "right-wing," it's not a modern policy, and it bears no resemblance of any kind to the policies we are ACTUALLY discussing.

Have people forgot how often Jim Crow laws attempted to use nominal apologetic arguments to justify themselves?

Have you forgotten that in this century, we aren't swayed by such race-baiting, and that we require actual logical arguments that something ACTUALLY IS RACIST or HAS RACIST EFFECTS?

You're form of argument is insipid. You're drawing a comparison to racist policies even though no sound comparison actually exists, as if raising the mere spectre of a completely unrelated racist policy will prove your point that these policies are racist.

We are not fooled.

I can provide reasoned arguments how poll taxes are racist. You cannot provide reasoned arguments for how the welfare reform act in the 90s was racist. So you resort to this illogical crap.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003882)

Your Honor, this test required for voting ...

... has nothing to do with this discussion. It's not "right-wing," it's not a modern policy, and it bears no resemblance of any kind to the policies we are ACTUALLY discussing.

The English-only policies at workplaces have been held by the Supreme Court to be illegally discriminatory.

Have people forgot how often Jim Crow laws attempted to use nominal apologetic arguments to justify themselves?

Have you forgotten that in this century, we aren't swayed by such race-baiting, and that we require actual logical arguments that something ACTUALLY IS RACIST or HAS RACIST EFFECTS?

You're form of argument is insipid. You're drawing a comparison to racist policies even though no sound comparison actually exists, as if raising the mere spectre of a completely unrelated racist policy will prove your point that these policies are racist.

We are not fooled.

I can provide reasoned arguments how poll taxes are racist. You cannot provide reasoned arguments for how the welfare reform act in the 90s was racist. So you resort to this illogical crap.

Fuck you, I'm done arguing...

As per my original argument, racist don't see how their effects are racist anymore...

You're proving my point.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32004040)

I pray to you, don't involve yourself with this guy. He's just a troll who's job it is to draw hits. In that he's very successful. The only attention he is worthy of is that of ridicule and contempt. Taking him seriously brings nothing but pain and makes you look like a fool because you are arguing with an idiot. Leave him to his echo chamber, unless you have a witty retort :-) Believe me, you're way above him, and everybody knows it.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32004368)

Yawn. No one believes you, troll.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32005288)

'salright.. Doesn't really matter

BTW Are you speaking for yourself? Or do you represent everybody?

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32004372)

The English-only policies at workplaces have been held by the Supreme Court to be illegally discriminatory.

Which also has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Hey, I can play this game too! Stalin was a communist and was on the left, therefore, you're a Nazi!!!!!

(Yes, that makes no sense. That's my point: you are making no sense.)

Fuck you, I'm done arguing...

I didn't realize you'd started. You see, I've been the one arguing: bringing up points, backing them up, and so on. You're simply throwing out claims, many of them incorrect, without backing up a single thing. You're not arguing, you're just contradicting.

As per my original argument, racist don't see how their effects are racist anymore...

You're proving my point.

As per my original point, you have utterly failed to demonstrate any racist effects.

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003824)

And almost no Europeans come here illegally. It's quite simple to understand.

Why do people think that "they don't come here illegally almost at all" is somehow a defense to the sort of assumptions that go on that result in the statements "it's ok to target Hispanics for looking at illegal immigration, because they do it more often than others."

Illegal immigration is illegal immigration, is illegal immigration whether they are from Germany, France, Russia, Australia, Canada, or Mexico.

It is the wrong assumption to assume that a sufficient enough majority of Hispanics are illegal in order to justify targeting them as illegal immigrants.

The vast majority of crimes in the USA are done by Christians. Should we depict them as criminals?

Re:"Racism" is very insidious anymore (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32004494)

Why do people think that "they don't come here illegally almost at all" is somehow a defense to the sort of assumptions that go on that result in the statements "it's ok to target Hispanics for looking at illegal immigration, because they do it more often than others."

I didn't defend anything, I explained. There is a difference, you know. And it's simple and obvious: we have tens of millions of Mexicans and others from south of our border who entered this country illegally, or entered the country legally under false pretenses and stayed here. This -- obviously -- causes massive problems for our society. (I do not deny there's benefits too, and I am not saying on balance there's more or less good than harm, I am just noting the fact that there's obvious problems that come with these illegal acts.)

It is perfectly natural, expected, and even unavoidable that people will therefore react against immigrants from south of the border, because -- whether legal or illegal -- they are part of a massive group that is causing massive problems.

This is logically undeniable.

Yes, of course, we cannot rationally assume someone from Mexico is here illegally, while someone from Germany is here legally. But as a whole, we know for a fact that the problem is much, much, greater among Mexicans, and the probability much, much, higher. This doesn't "justify" anything, it's just a fact that you seem to deny.

It is the wrong assumption to assume that a sufficient enough majority of Hispanics are illegal in order to justify targeting them as illegal immigrants.

No one did that, that I saw. Are you referring the new Arizona law? It does not do that, either.

The vast majority of crimes in the USA are done by Christians. Should we depict them as criminals?

If there was something related to their Christianity and the crimes they were committing, perhaps. It's undeniable that the federal government has, for example, carefully scrutinized the "Christian patriot" movement much more in the last couple decades, especially since the Murrah building tragedy. I see very few people complaining about this. As a Christian, and a patriot, and a gun owner, this does not bother me in the slightest bit.

There's no justification for them to look at ALL Christians, but similarly, there's no justification to look at ALL Hispanics. The new Arizona law uses the fairly high (though nebulous) standard of "reasonable suspicion," and we know already from past court decisions that "you're Hispanic" is not reasonable. Nor is "you can't speak English." Nor is the combination. It will require some act fairly unique to -- or inherently inducing suspicion of -- people who are here illegally, such as, for example, being paid under the table, or running away when ICE shows up.

moof (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31995466)

Think of the Duke University lacrosse team players case. The faculty (i.e Liberals) and news media (i.e. Liberals) had them convicted on day one. It's because Liberals are racist -- they feel that white males of Western world descent are evil and have oppressed peoples of color and would naturally continue to do so if unchecked, and unpunished.

I am a racist (1)

Jimmy_Slimmy (1499943) | more than 4 years ago | (#31998688)

and like George Wallace, I am trying, at least from time to time, to be a better man before I die.

I am also a liar, a cheater, a thief, a glutton, and I have known lust in my heart.

I ask myself the rhetorical question, "Is Timex a racist?", because you seem to think Obama is a racist, and if you are one too, you might want to offer a disclaimer.

By the way, I think that is likely true, under your scrutiny, for a majority of Americans, and Kenyans, to be slurred as being racist. For some Americans, it is not a slur, but something they are perversely proud of- like a KKK member, or like an embittered ex Black Panther.

(Above are my comments. Below are my questions.)

What is your post about? You, or President Obama?

Ciao!

Jimmy

Re:I am a racist (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999820)

I am not a racist.

I applaud you for recognizing that you are and trying to be better.

Sucks for you that you carry this burden of being a racist, though. I certainly do not have such a burden, nor do most people I know.

Re:I am a racist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32001894)

I am not a racist.

"I am not a crook"

Thanks, man. You made my day.

BTW he wasn't talking to you. But thanks for your input. Now go away.

Re:I am a racist (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32002846)

Thanks for that completely nonresponsive response! Bravo!

Re:I am a racist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32003146)

You are most welcome! I'm glad you liked it. Now, GO AWAY! Go pick the dingleberries out of your butt. You might find them quite tasty.

Re:I am a racist (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32003558)

Yawn.

If you would come up with a single fact, for anything you say, it would be a notable event. Until then, you continue to be simply boring.

Re:I am a racist (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32004398)

DAMN! you still here? You just don't listen, do you?

You post racist comments. That is a fact. I don't know if that's part of your job, or if you actually are one. But your comments certainly are. Now please.. you're upsetting people.. I beg you.. go back to the kids table, you're being a pest. That's also a fact.

Re:I am a racist (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32004584)

You post racist comments. That is a fact.

Yawn. Where?

I won't hold my breath, because you've never demonstrated a single assertion you've made to me.

Re:I am a racist (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32004738)

Oh damn! Was that ME??? Oh well, I'll talk to you after I've had my morning beer..

Re:I am a racist (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006318)

Now then... you were saying?

Bravo! Bravo! (applause...) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32045336)

Here's a little something I would like to relate
If the fish bite, you got a good bait
I'm a going fishing
Yes I'm going fishing
I'm a going fishing too.

Re:I am a racist (1)

Jimmy_Slimmy (1499943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045164)

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I appreciate applause.

Ciao,

Jimmy

Re:I am a racist (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007626)

I am a racist

Liar... no wait...

False... that's not it..

Oh yeah, Speed kills [roblog.nl] !...

Re:I am a racist (1)

Jimmy_Slimmy (1499943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044900)

;-)

Re:I am a racist (1)

Timex (11710) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032492)

I ask myself the rhetorical question, "Is Timex a racist?", because you seem to think Obama is a racist, and if you are one too, you might want to offer a disclaimer.

You might do better by re-reading my JE. about half-way through, I point out that *I* don't have enough information to make the call, but if he were held to the Liberal standard, he would be.

Am I a racist? I like to think I'm not, because I try to give everyone the "benefit of the doubt" until they prove themselves otherwise. There is, after all, only one "race" that should be at play here: The Human Race.

What is your post about? You, or President Obama?

Neither, actually. It's an observation on the hypocrisy of the Liberal Left. Obama is just a tool.

No Racist IMO (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#31999808)

I do not think he puts one race above or below others, and that, to me, is racism. Maybe he does do that, but I don't know that he does. I know he favors SOME preferential treatment, but that means he has some racist policies, not that he is himself a racist. Depends on how exactly he thinks/feels about those policies etc.

But.

Remember the complete insanity when Sarah Palin supposedly implied that by saying she was speaking to "real Americans" that other people were NOT "real Americans"? Shouldn't that also apply to Obama talking about "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women" that he was talking too?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...