Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 12:19:05 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Adam Getchell wrote:

[a bunch of stuff about institutional racosm]

Waaaa. Cry me a river. I don't mean to sound condescending, but
your points are in no way unique or informative. You do not have a
monopoly on being harassed, nor is the fact that cultural tension exists a
surprise to anyone. It happens everywhere, and the US is not exception
(and it's better than some places that pop to mind). Does that make it
right? No. But saying it exists is like saying, "yup, the sky's blue."

> Ahem. The hypocrisy in the U.S. is that the dominant culture pretends to be
> accepting, pretends to be open minded, and pretends not to hold down
> minorities. If they would just come out and say, "Blacks/Latinos/Mexicans
> whatever, we don't like you, go away!" at least there's more honesty there.
> Stay on your side, I'll stay on mine. I don't have to *like* everyone I
> meet. Don't like me? I'm cool with that. Stay out of my business.

I don't pretend to like anybody. Whether or not I happen to like
you depends pretty much exclusively on your personality. Until you have
shown yourself to be a decent human being, you're an unknown quantity
regardless of what color you happen to be. As such, I will treat you with
as much politeness as I would treat anybody I didn't know.
If you show yourself to be cool, you and I will have no problems.
If you show yourself to be an asshole, the color of your skin will be the
least of your worries.
Unfortunately, I am but a single individual. Am I unique in my
views? No. Am I in a minority for (gods forbid) actually believing in
acceptace and tolerance? Probably. The world is full of assholes of all
colors. Unfortunately, since there are more white folks here in the US,
that means that there are more white assholes. Since majority politics
tend to be the way of things in a more or less democratic society, this
gives those white assholes more political clout than anybody else's
assholes.
Welcome to the wonderful world of asshole demographics.
But this is where you and I are in perfect agreement (though for
different reasons). Institutions are made up of individuals. It is
surprising how much a single individual's bias or bigotry can influence
an institution's policies. Even more surprising is how much "bigotry" is
actually driven by well-meaning people who are just plain ignorant.
Saying, "let's make up a test so that we can rank students on their merits
rather than social or familial status and thus equalize opportunity"
sounds like a great idea. Until you realize that the person suggesting
the test never really thought about how someone who wasn't a
native-speaker would score. It never crossed their mind, because this is
America, and our native language is English, right? Everybody speaks
English, right? Even foreigners learn English, right? Wrong, but you see
the problem.
But does this mean that if you're a minority that "the system" is
"out to get you?" Is it just another example of "The Man" keeping you
down? No. It's not. It's that any law, policy, or social custom is
based on a certain set of assumptions. When those assumptions are no
longer valid, the system discriminates not because it wants to but because
it wasn't designed not to.

> Live in the inner city, my friend, see the violence, the liquor stores
> every few blocks, look at how the police treat minorities.

Big news here, but minorities aren't the only people harassed by
the police. I am an educated white male with a Masters' Degree in
Naval Engineering. I have long hair. I wear a goatee (my wife likes it,
what can I say). I like trenchcoats. If I had a dime for every time a
cop asked me to open my coat when I walked into a convenience store or
donut shop, I would be a rich man, my friend.
I drive a sports car (a black '96 Cobra). I consistently do about
10 mph over the speed limit (just like everybody else in the greater
metropolitan Detroit area). Why the hell do I have 11 points on my
license (1 shy of getting it revoked)? Because cops take one look at me,
one look at my car, and think "drug dealer." Yes, I have had the police
search my car. They are inclined to cut me zero slack when I get pulled
over. I don't get pulled over any more frequently than anyone else, but I
get tickets more frequently. Thems the breaks. I deal, try to drive
slower so as to attract less attention to myself, and hope for the best.
I live in a liberal town of freaks and weirdos and I still get
harassed. You are not alone, and to imply that others do not understand
or sympathize with your plight is both ignorant and insulting. To say,
"yes, but that's different" is to espouse the same racism that you feel
every day.

> Does *your* neighborhood have a liquor store every block, complete with
> alcoholics hanging out front all hours of the night to set an example for
> your kids?

No, but then again my last apartment complex was busted for
containing temporary crack-houses. There was a gang-related double
homicide the week after I moved out. Yellow Cab would not pick people up
from those addresses. You know it's bad when even the cabbies won't come
to your neighborhood, especially when you're only 4 blocks away from their
garage.
And I live in a predominantly white university town. Inner cities
don't have a monopoly on crime, violence, and bad living conditions. I
know a few "white-trash" trailer parks that I could take you to that would
be extremely reminiscent of your worst ghetto experiences.

> Shootings at Columbine? A massacre by white teenagers? All over the news.
> Now, when there's a gang war on Mission and 24th, or a black female getting
> shot by police officers in Riverside, why, is the media coverage more
> sparse. No one cares what happened to the young single Latina's little
> girl. No pictures on milk cartons for her little nina.

The reason that media attention is so severe on things like this
is because they are shocking. You can only hear about so many gang
shootings before it loses its shock value. The media getis its ratings
and makes its money by shocking people. Sad but true. Otherwise, it's
just the "same old thing."
Further, clear evidence shows that inner city kids, who
supposedly have all this violence in their lives and have such easy access
to guns, don't snap the way kids in the 'burbs do. If you look at all the
cases of large-scale child violence (Columbine, Jonesboro, etc) you will
find that by far the vast majority of them happen in suburban or rural
areas where the class body is predominantly white. Inner-city kids may
kill each other in ones and twos because of gang rivalries, but they don't
try to annihilate their entire school with guns or bombs for no apparent
reason.
Maybe inner-city kids are actually ahead of the game here. Maybe
being exposed to violence every day shows them that it's an ugly thing
that's not to be emulated. Maybe they'll be less prone to sociopathy
because of it.

> Cruise around Mission and 24th in San Francisco late at night, grow up in
> an inner city school where everyone packs and pushers hang around on street
> corners...

At my school, the drug dealers hung out at 7-11 and sold dope out
the back of the Little Caesar's Pizza joint. Make no mistake - there is a
lot of disposable income among teens in the suburbs. This disposable
income brings drugs, because bored suburbanite kids are just as likely to
partake as anybody else. With drugs come gangs. With gangs come
violence. You want to talk racial tension? Did some asshole erect a
burning cross at your prom as the result of a race/gang-related fight the
week before? I had a friend get seven stitches on the inside of his nose
from that fight (blindsided with an aluminum baseball bat), and they
hospitalized his girlfriend. I was amazed that nobody got killed,
because more than one person present was packing. And I lived in the
'burbs.

> Then come and talk to me about cultural bias.

Like I said, you're not alone. Assuming that just because I'm
white that my life was this rosy glow of opportunity and delight is just
as racist as my assuming that eveyone who lives in your neighborhood is a
lazy, welfare-drawing crackhead.

Marc
Message no. 2
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 15:47:18 EDT
In a message dated 5/14/99 12:21:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
renouf@********.com writes:

<< Like I said, you're not alone. Assuming that just because I'm
white that my life was this rosy glow of opportunity and delight is just
as racist as my assuming that eveyone who lives in your neighborhood is a
lazy, welfare-drawing crackhead.

Marc
>>

Agreed.

Add in to that the fact that many of the government's programs for the
disabled and such, are biased TOWARDS minorities.

I am disabled -- it's a psychological disability, anxiety based, and that's
all you need to know. :-)

I am also "cursed," inasfar as getting the benefits I _need_ to survive, by
being not only young, and male, and _physically_ healthy ... but by also
being WHITE.

Yes, within the mazes of government bureaucracy, being young, white, and male
IS a drawback, in certain areas.

I and a friend applied for government subsidised housing on the same day, at
the same hour, in the same office.

She and I were roughly of an age with each other. Her disability and mine
were roughly equal, in that her condition was slightly worse, but it had not
yet been _recognised_ by the government as a "legal disability" whereas mine
had. She was paying some 90% of her income as rent alone (thank god for her
boyfriend having the money to help her with FOOD).

She got an apartment a full year before I heard _anything_ back.

I was HOMELESS. Cardboard box, sleep-in-doorways homeless.

All she had on me was, she was a SHE.

I know, that's not on par with shootings, and so on. I've dealt with that (a
DEA raid across the street from me, where one agent used his pistol to shoot
the lock off the door, for one example).

But it IS still a point in the case of "being white isn't a free ticket to
the gravy train." It isn't. Nor should it be.

Take it from someone who wishes he COULD: if you want a better life, MAKE IT
FOR YOURSELF. Noone will hand it to you, and few (if any) will congratulate
you when you get it.

But complaining about how bad you have it, _isn't_ a viable first step to
improving your lot. Especially when those complaints come in the form of "I
have it so much worse than you can even imagine."

After all, we're GAMERS, we can imagine quite well, I should expect. :-)

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 3
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 10:32:10 -0700
> Waaaa. Cry me a river. I don't mean to sound condescending, but
>your points are in no way unique or informative. You do not have a

Your words give the lie to that statement.

>monopoly on being harassed, nor is the fact that cultural tension exists a
>surprise to anyone. It happens everywhere, and the US is not exception
>(and it's better than some places that pop to mind). Does that make it
>right? No. But saying it exists is like saying, "yup, the sky's blue."

This ignorance and insensitivity is no more and no less than I expected. It
is also a perfect example on how perpetrating the status quo is part of the
problem.

"'Conservatism' in America's politics means 'let's keep the niggers in
their place.' And 'liberalism' means 'Let's keep the knee-grows in their
place -- but tell them we'll treat them a little better; let's fool them
more, with more promises.' With these choices, I felt that the American
black man only needed to choose which one to be eaten by, the 'liberal' fox
or the 'conservative' wolf -- because both of them would eat him ... In a
wolf's den, I'd always know exactly where I stood; I'd watch the dangerous
wolf closer than I would the smooth, sly fox. The wolf's very growling
would keep me alert and fighting him to survive, whereas I might be lulled
and fooled by the tricky fox." -- Malcolm X

The sky is blue because of the laws of nature. People like you want to
pretend that racism and "cultural tension" is also a law of nature; it
ain't. You think that it is something that should be gotten used to. It
isn't.

"Any conception of African Americans that fails to see them as engaged in
exercising their human agency -- sometimes successfully, sometimes not --
cannot hope to grasp what they are all about. -- Adelbert H. Jenkins (1955)"

> I don't pretend to like anybody. Whether or not I happen to like
>you depends pretty much exclusively on your personality. Until you have
>shown yourself to be a decent human being, you're an unknown quantity
>regardless of what color you happen to be. As such, I will treat you with
>as much politeness as I would treat anybody I didn't know.

Does it really depend upon only personality? Are you really color blind? If
you think most people are color blind, you're sticking your head into the
sand. And if your statements are an example of politeness, I think we must
agree to differ on the meaning of it.

> If you show yourself to be cool, you and I will have no problems.
>If you show yourself to be an asshole, the color of your skin will be the
>least of your worries.

Prejudice. That means, you form judgements based upon stereotypes.
Pretending that it doesn't exist is the worst sort of perpetration of it.
The way to fight prejudice is to actively confront it and deal with it. No
one is free of prejudice. If you say you are I will call you a liar to your
face. I have biases myself. I hope, though, that I can recognize when I
have them, and change them accordingly. And because I've been discriminated
against, I would hope not to perpetrate that hypocrisy upon others. I'm
aware of it, brother. I don't pretend it doesn't exist, or that it's not
bad.

> Unfortunately, I am but a single individual. Am I unique in my
>views? No. Am I in a minority for (gods forbid) actually believing in
>acceptace and tolerance? Probably. The world is full of assholes of all

Believing in an ideal is one thing; being "down" with it and doing
something about it is another. Like I'm saying, you appear to be
perpetrating the myth that it ain't a problem, that it's not something that
should be dealt with. Well, _for you_, you're right. The system is pretty
good to you, whatever you might think.

>colors. Unfortunately, since there are more white folks here in the US,
>that means that there are more white assholes. Since majority politics
>tend to be the way of things in a more or less democratic society, this
>gives those white assholes more political clout than anybody else's
>assholes.

This is another myth. The "so-called majority", whites, do not hold power
because of democracy, but because they have used their power to oppress
minorities. If you think that Latinos are the minority population in
California, you'd better go back and study statistics and demographics
again. And yet, somehow, Latinos don't have political representation or
voice in California. Let me break it down for you:

"California is the most populous state in the union, and its largest
county, Los Angeles, is the most populous and culturally diverse in the
nation ...

... This chapter will explore a formidable structural explanation, largely
through examiniation of recent voting rights lawsuits against the county,
as to why the county's largest minority group -- Latinos -- are neither
formally represented in nor incorporated into the political system of the
county's primary decision-making body ... the Los Angeles County Board,
through both its past and current members, has effectively interfered with
the political incorporation of Latinos in Los Angeles County largely
through its reapportioning of supervisorial districts ...

... The Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the
ACLU of southern California, in August 1988, and the Department of Justice,
in September 1988, file voting rights lawsuits against the county of Los
Angeles ... the suits alleged that the board's secretive 1981
reapportioning ... purposely fractured Latino voting strength ... (U.S. v.
County of Los Angeles, 88-05143 Kn)" [1]

Based upon this, your statements about "more white folks", "the color of
your skin will be the least of your worries" are plain wrong. The last
statement may apply to you, but it doesn't apply to those in power. Does
anyone try to gerrymander your representation away to nothing?

>an institution's policies. Even more surprising is how much "bigotry" is
>actually driven by well-meaning people who are just plain ignorant.

Well-meaning? No. Ignorant? Sometimes. I assure you, most prejudice is
quite active. See above.

> But does this mean that if you're a minority that "the system" is
>"out to get you?" Is it just another example of "The Man" keeping
you
>down? No. It's not. It's that any law, policy, or social custom is
>based on a certain set of assumptions. When those assumptions are no
>longer valid, the system discriminates not because it wants to but because
>it wasn't designed not to.

Wrong. Let's go back and look at history again. The diaspora of the African
Americans robbed them of their land, their language, their culture, their
heritage, their families (slave families were broken up) as well as their
freedom.

The Spanish and later the U.S. enslaved, murdered, raped, and stole from
the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

People of color on the American continent have been targetted for genocide
and slavery. The socio-cultural-psycological effects of this linger for
generations, along with the culture of being oppressed and the methods of
the oppressors. I challenge you to assert that whites in America have the
same oppressive historical factors influencing their culture.

Let's look at models of identity development and culture change for those
in the "minority".

"European: Two or more cultures cannot coexist in harmony, so there is
conflict and confusion for the bicutural/multicultural person (identity
crisis); models of acculturation are influenced by conflict-replacement and
assimilationist notions. Instruments used to assess acculturation are
unidirectional (assimilationist in orientation) and unidimensional (focus
extensively on language use, and food and music preferences, ignoring other
important variables); they ignore multicultural realities and assume that
increments of involvement in mainstream American culture are accompanied by
decrements of involvement in original culture (Rogler et al. 1991)." [2]

> Big news here, but minorities aren't the only people harassed by
>the police. I am an educated white male with a Masters' Degree in
>Naval Engineering. I have long hair. I wear a goatee (my wife likes it,
>what can I say). I like trenchcoats. If I had a dime for every time a
>cop asked me to open my coat when I walked into a convenience store or
>donut shop, I would be a rich man, my friend.

The harrassment you get is nothing compared to what minorities endure. If I
were to take up your attitude, I would say: "Waaaa. Cry me a river; it's
not worth mentioning."

Do the cops pull you over and beat the crap out of you, like they do to
migrant farm workers in Riverside?
Do the cops shoot at you 42 times (hitting you 19), like they did you the
minority transient in New York City?
Do the cops violate your person, like they do to Latinas who don't know
their rights because no one told them they had any?

I have seen this for myself. What is your (and I use the term loosely)
"experience"?

It's directly in the system. Police compile statistics to make profiles of
"fruitful arrests". In other words, if you happen to the boundaries of said
profile, they will stop you because "experience" has shown they can make
more arrests that way. Guess what the profile looks like? This is a big
debate in California right now. "Is it a crime to be driving while Black?"
(Sacramento News and Review, May 19th, 1999) If you want to dispute this I
can bring up a police officer who can call you a liar. You can also read
the reference.

>over. I don't get pulled over any more frequently than anyone else, but I
>get tickets more frequently. Thems the breaks. I deal, try to drive
>slower so as to attract less attention to myself, and hope for the best.

Well, fortunately for you, you aren't a poor minority driving a beat up
car, you speak educated English well, and you know your rights.

> I live in a liberal town of freaks and weirdos and I still get
>harassed. You are not alone, and to imply that others do not understand
>or sympathize with your plight is both ignorant and insulting. To say,
>"yes, but that's different" is to espouse the same racism that you feel
>every day.

I got news for you: your statements do nothing to dissuade me from thinking
that you, at least, do not understand or sympathize with how things really
are. And, you better take an ethnic studies class or read the literature;
because I cannot be racist. Racism is defined in terms of the majority
discriminating by race; by definition, a minority cannot be racist (they
would be prejudiced).

> And I live in a predominantly white university town. Inner cities
>don't have a monopoly on crime, violence, and bad living conditions. I
>know a few "white-trash" trailer parks that I could take you to that would
>be extremely reminiscent of your worst ghetto experiences.

You miss the point. Racism is about socioeconomic status and discrimination
by color of skin. These "white-trash" trailer parks don't compare to the
ghettoes because while they have socioeconomic factors and crime, they do
not contend with racism against them.

> The reason that media attention is so severe on things like this
>is because they are shocking. You can only hear about so many gang
>shootings before it loses its shock value. The media getis its ratings
>and makes its money by shocking people. Sad but true. Otherwise, it's
>just the "same old thing."

If your theory is true, then answer me this: why is the media vastly
underrepresented by minorites? Give me one example of a major media
conglomerate owned and operated by minorites. Explain to me why California
has only 1 Spanish language TV station.

> Further, clear evidence shows that inner city kids, who
>supposedly have all this violence in their lives and have such easy access
>to guns, don't snap the way kids in the 'burbs do. If you look at all the

You can adapt to anything. Everyone's packing, first of all. Second of all,
everyone's seen death and violence up close and intimate. They don't pull
out guns unless they have to. The most dangerous people to be around are
not the gang bangers, but the gang wannabes. They'll start drama and pull a
gun just to "prove" themselves.

>cases of large-scale child violence (Columbine, Jonesboro, etc) you will
>find that by far the vast majority of them happen in suburban or rural
>areas where the class body is predominantly white. Inner-city kids may
>kill each other in ones and twos because of gang rivalries, but they don't
>try to annihilate their entire school with guns or bombs for no apparent
>reason.

It's because they can. In an inner city school, if they'd pulled an assault
rifle in the library, they'd have a firefight with the rest of the school.
It wouldn't be a massacre. Inner city kids are aware of their environment;
when stuff goes down, they're ready for it. The ones that aren't were
already killed.

> Maybe inner-city kids are actually ahead of the game here. Maybe
>being exposed to violence every day shows them that it's an ugly thing
>that's not to be emulated. Maybe they'll be less prone to sociopathy
>because of it.

Well, if you can count being from a broken home, not having a stable
family,living with violence, having a lack of positive role models that
they can relate to, having their culture, language, and self-esteem
constantly devalued, having their violence directed inwards to themselves,
denied the same opportunities that would go to a white kid, being targetted
for drugs/alcohol consumption, being actively oppressed by authority
figures, being circumvented as much as possible in the real government of
the U.S., and being catagorized and led away from paths that would better
their situation (and often having to sell out just to take that chance), I
suppose that's ahead of the game. I don't think so. However, those that
manage to make it in spite of all these difficulties are strong.

I've had plenty of friends have long-term psychological problems because
their parents got divorced. And I've had plenty of friends who would give
that barely a thought, because that's the least of their worries. Care to
make a guess on the respective backgrounds of each?

>violence. You want to talk racial tension? Did some asshole erect a
>burning cross at your prom as the result of a race/gang-related fight the
>week before? I had a friend get seven stitches on the inside of his nose
>from that fight (blindsided with an aluminum baseball bat), and they
>hospitalized his girlfriend. I was amazed that nobody got killed,
>because more than one person present was packing. And I lived in the
>'burbs.

Do you think that would have happened in the ghetto? They would have killed
his ass. Do you think the Ku Klux Klan will ever go to Watts or the Mission
to proclaim their hatred of minorities? I know plenty of brothers would
love to see that.

No, you're missing the point. Ain't no Ku Klux Klanster going to start
something in the ghetto unless he has a death wish. It's safe to do it in
the 'burbs, because the white folk are in the majority there. But no people
of color should come move out there, we have zoning laws and we don't want
your kind, go back to the ghetto where you belong.

> Like I said, you're not alone. Assuming that just because I'm
>white that my life was this rosy glow of opportunity and delight is just
>as racist as my assuming that eveyone who lives in your neighborhood is a
>lazy, welfare-drawing crackhead.

One, I'm not racist, and cannot be by definition. Two, I did not assume
anything about *you*; I was talking about minorities. Three, you're in the
so-called majority; the system works for you more easily than me. You're
also ignorant of what it means to be truly oppressed; which is not your
fault. But I've given you places to look that you might see, brother.
You're an intelligent person; try to see things from the viewpoint of
people of color. Think about having your family, culture, language, and
land stripped from you, and the heritage of slavery and socioeconomic
discrimination. Try not to perpetrate the systemic racism this society has.

You can't pretend ignorance anymore.

>Marc

[1] James Regalado, "Conflicts Over Redistricting in Los Angeles Couty: Who
Wins? Who Loses?", _Racial and Ethnic Politics in California_, 1991, The
Regents of the University of California, pp. 373-375

[2] Manuel Ramirez III, _Multicultural/Multiracial Psychology: Mestizo
Perspectives in Personality and Mental Health_, 1998, Jason Aronsen Inc.,
p. 21


--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 4
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 15:07:02 -0700
> Waaaa. Cry me a river. I don't mean to sound condescending, but
>your points are in no way unique or informative. You do not have a

Your words give the lie to that statement.

>monopoly on being harassed, nor is the fact that cultural tension exists a
>surprise to anyone. It happens everywhere, and the US is not exception
>(and it's better than some places that pop to mind). Does that make it
>right? No. But saying it exists is like saying, "yup, the sky's blue."

This ignorance and insensitivity is no more and no less than I expected. It
is also a perfect example on how perpetrating the status quo is part of the
problem.

"'Conservatism' in America's politics means 'let's keep the niggers in
their place.' And 'liberalism' means 'Let's keep the knee-grows in their
place -- but tell them we'll treat them a little better; let's fool them
more, with more promises.' With these choices, I felt that the American
black man only needed to choose which one to be eaten by, the 'liberal' fox
or the 'conservative' wolf -- because both of them would eat him ... In a
wolf's den, I'd always know exactly where I stood; I'd watch the dangerous
wolf closer than I would the smooth, sly fox. The wolf's very growling
would keep me alert and fighting him to survive, whereas I might be lulled
and fooled by the tricky fox." -- Malcolm X

The sky is blue because of the laws of nature. People like you want to
pretend that racism and "cultural tension" is also a law of nature; it
ain't. You think that it is something that should be gotten used to. It
isn't.

"Any conception of African Americans that fails to see them as engaged in
exercising their human agency -- sometimes successfully, sometimes not --
cannot hope to grasp what they are all about. -- Adelbert H. Jenkins (1955)"

> I don't pretend to like anybody. Whether or not I happen to like
>you depends pretty much exclusively on your personality. Until you have
>shown yourself to be a decent human being, you're an unknown quantity
>regardless of what color you happen to be. As such, I will treat you with
>as much politeness as I would treat anybody I didn't know.

Does it really depend upon only personality? Are you really color blind? If
you think most people are color blind, you're sticking your head into the
sand. And if your statements are an example of politeness, I think we must
agree to differ on the meaning of it.

> If you show yourself to be cool, you and I will have no problems.
>If you show yourself to be an asshole, the color of your skin will be the
>least of your worries.

Prejudice. That means, you form judgements based upon stereotypes.
Pretending that it doesn't exist is the worst sort of perpetration of it.
The way to fight prejudice is to actively confront it and deal with it. No
one is free of prejudice. If you say you are I will call you a liar to your
face. I have biases myself. I hope, though, that I can recognize when I
have them, and change them accordingly. And because I've been discriminated
against, I would hope not to perpetrate that hypocrisy upon others. I'm
aware of it, brother. I don't pretend it doesn't exist, or that it's not
bad.

> Unfortunately, I am but a single individual. Am I unique in my
>views? No. Am I in a minority for (gods forbid) actually believing in
>acceptace and tolerance? Probably. The world is full of assholes of all

Believing in an ideal is one thing; being "down" with it and doing
something about it is another. Like I'm saying, you appear to be
perpetrating the myth that it ain't a problem, that it's not something that
should be dealt with. Well, _for you_, you're right. The system is pretty
good to you, whatever you might think.

>colors. Unfortunately, since there are more white folks here in the US,
>that means that there are more white assholes. Since majority politics
>tend to be the way of things in a more or less democratic society, this
>gives those white assholes more political clout than anybody else's
>assholes.

This is another myth. The "so-called majority", whites, do not hold power
because of democracy, but because they have used their power to oppress
minorities. If you think that Latinos are the minority population in
California, you'd better go back and study statistics and demographics
again. And yet, somehow, Latinos don't have political representation or
voice in California. Let me break it down for you:

"California is the most populous state in the union, and its largest
county, Los Angeles, is the most populous and culturally diverse in the
nation ...

... This chapter will explore a formidable structural explanation, largely
through examiniation of recent voting rights lawsuits against the county,
as to why the county's largest minority group -- Latinos -- are neither
formally represented in nor incorporated into the political system of the
county's primary decision-making body ... the Los Angeles County Board,
through both its past and current members, has effectively interfered with
the political incorporation of Latinos in Los Angeles County largely
through its reapportioning of supervisorial districts ...

... The Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the
ACLU of southern California, in August 1988, and the Department of Justice,
in September 1988, file voting rights lawsuits against the county of Los
Angeles ... the suits alleged that the board's secretive 1981
reapportioning ... purposely fractured Latino voting strength ... (U.S. v.
County of Los Angeles, 88-05143 Kn)" [1]

Based upon this, your statements about "more white folks", "the color of
your skin will be the least of your worries" are plain wrong. The last
statement may apply to you, but it doesn't apply to those in power. Does
anyone try to gerrymander your representation away to nothing?

>an institution's policies. Even more surprising is how much "bigotry" is
>actually driven by well-meaning people who are just plain ignorant.

Well-meaning? No. Ignorant? Sometimes. I assure you, most prejudice is
quite active. See above.

> But does this mean that if you're a minority that "the system" is
>"out to get you?" Is it just another example of "The Man" keeping
you
>down? No. It's not. It's that any law, policy, or social custom is
>based on a certain set of assumptions. When those assumptions are no
>longer valid, the system discriminates not because it wants to but because
>it wasn't designed not to.

Wrong. Let's go back and look at history again. The diaspora of the African
Americans robbed them of their land, their language, their culture, their
heritage, their families (slave families were broken up) as well as their
freedom.

The Spanish and later the U.S. enslaved, murdered, raped, and stole from
the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

People of color on the American continent have been targetted for genocide
and slavery. The socio-cultural-psycological effects of this linger for
generations, along with the culture of being oppressed and the methods of
the oppressors. I challenge you to assert that whites in America have the
same oppressive historical factors influencing their culture.

Let's look at models of identity development and culture change for those
in the "minority".

"European: Two or more cultures cannot coexist in harmony, so there is
conflict and confusion for the bicutural/multicultural person (identity
crisis); models of acculturation are influenced by conflict-replacement and
assimilationist notions. Instruments used to assess acculturation are
unidirectional (assimilationist in orientation) and unidimensional (focus
extensively on language use, and food and music preferences, ignoring other
important variables); they ignore multicultural realities and assume that
increments of involvement in mainstream American culture are accompanied by
decrements of involvement in original culture (Rogler et al. 1991)." [2]

> Big news here, but minorities aren't the only people harassed by
>the police. I am an educated white male with a Masters' Degree in
>Naval Engineering. I have long hair. I wear a goatee (my wife likes it,
>what can I say). I like trenchcoats. If I had a dime for every time a
>cop asked me to open my coat when I walked into a convenience store or
>donut shop, I would be a rich man, my friend.

The harrassment you get is nothing compared to what minorities endure. If I
were to take up your attitude, I would say: "Waaaa. Cry me a river; it's
not worth mentioning."

Do the cops pull you over and beat the crap out of you, like they do to
migrant farm workers in Riverside?
Do the cops shoot at you 42 times (hitting you 19), like they did you the
minority transient in New York City?
Do the cops violate your person, like they do to Latinas who don't know
their rights because no one told them they had any?

I have seen this for myself. What is your (and I use the term loosely)
"experience"?

It's directly in the system. Police compile statistics to make profiles of
"fruitful arrests". In other words, if you happen to the boundaries of said
profile, they will stop you because "experience" has shown they can make
more arrests that way. Guess what the profile looks like? This is a big
debate in California right now. "Is it a crime to be driving while Black?"
(Sacramento News and Review, May 19th, 1999) If you want to dispute this I
can bring up a police officer who can call you a liar. You can also read
the reference.

>over. I don't get pulled over any more frequently than anyone else, but I
>get tickets more frequently. Thems the breaks. I deal, try to drive
>slower so as to attract less attention to myself, and hope for the best.

Well, fortunately for you, you aren't a poor minority driving a beat up
car, you speak educated English well, and you know your rights.

> I live in a liberal town of freaks and weirdos and I still get
>harassed. You are not alone, and to imply that others do not understand
>or sympathize with your plight is both ignorant and insulting. To say,
>"yes, but that's different" is to espouse the same racism that you feel
>every day.

I got news for you: your statements do nothing to dissuade me from thinking
that you, at least, do not understand or sympathize with how things really
are. And, you better take an ethnic studies class or read the literature;
because I cannot be racist. Racism is defined in terms of the majority
discriminating by race; by definition, a minority cannot be racist (they
would be prejudiced).

> And I live in a predominantly white university town. Inner cities
>don't have a monopoly on crime, violence, and bad living conditions. I
>know a few "white-trash" trailer parks that I could take you to that would
>be extremely reminiscent of your worst ghetto experiences.

You miss the point. Racism is about socioeconomic status and discrimination
by color of skin. These "white-trash" trailer parks don't compare to the
ghettoes because while they have socioeconomic factors and crime, they do
not contend with racism against them.

> The reason that media attention is so severe on things like this
>is because they are shocking. You can only hear about so many gang
>shootings before it loses its shock value. The media getis its ratings
>and makes its money by shocking people. Sad but true. Otherwise, it's
>just the "same old thing."

If your theory is true, then answer me this: why is the media vastly
underrepresented by minorites? Give me one example of a major media
conglomerate owned and operated by minorites. Explain to me why California
has only 1 Spanish language TV station.

> Further, clear evidence shows that inner city kids, who
>supposedly have all this violence in their lives and have such easy access
>to guns, don't snap the way kids in the 'burbs do. If you look at all the

You can adapt to anything. Everyone's packing, first of all. Second of all,
everyone's seen death and violence up close and intimate. They don't pull
out guns unless they have to. The most dangerous people to be around are
not the gang bangers, but the gang wannabes. They'll start drama and pull a
gun just to "prove" themselves.

>cases of large-scale child violence (Columbine, Jonesboro, etc) you will
>find that by far the vast majority of them happen in suburban or rural
>areas where the class body is predominantly white. Inner-city kids may
>kill each other in ones and twos because of gang rivalries, but they don't
>try to annihilate their entire school with guns or bombs for no apparent
>reason.

It's because they can. In an inner city school, if they'd pulled an assault
rifle in the library, they'd have a firefight with the rest of the school.
It wouldn't be a massacre. Inner city kids are aware of their environment;
when stuff goes down, they're ready for it. The ones that aren't were
already killed.

> Maybe inner-city kids are actually ahead of the game here. Maybe
>being exposed to violence every day shows them that it's an ugly thing
>that's not to be emulated. Maybe they'll be less prone to sociopathy
>because of it.

Well, if you can count being from a broken home, not having a stable
family,living with violence, having a lack of positive role models that
they can relate to, having their culture, language, and self-esteem
constantly devalued, having their violence directed inwards to themselves,
denied the same opportunities that would go to a white kid, being targetted
for drugs/alcohol consumption, being actively oppressed by authority
figures, being circumvented as much as possible in the real government of
the U.S., and being catagorized and led away from paths that would better
their situation (and often having to sell out just to take that chance), I
suppose that's ahead of the game. I don't think so. However, those that
manage to make it in spite of all these difficulties are strong.

I've had plenty of friends have long-term psychological problems because
their parents got divorced. And I've had plenty of friends who would give
that barely a thought, because that's the least of their worries. Care to
make a guess on the respective backgrounds of each?

>violence. You want to talk racial tension? Did some asshole erect a
>burning cross at your prom as the result of a race/gang-related fight the
>week before? I had a friend get seven stitches on the inside of his nose
>from that fight (blindsided with an aluminum baseball bat), and they
>hospitalized his girlfriend. I was amazed that nobody got killed,
>because more than one person present was packing. And I lived in the
>'burbs.

Do you think that would have happened in the ghetto? They would have killed
his ass. Do you think the Ku Klux Klan will ever go to Watts or the Mission
to proclaim their hatred of minorities? I know plenty of brothers would
love to see that.

No, you're missing the point. Ain't no Ku Klux Klanster going to start
something in the ghetto unless he has a death wish. It's safe to do it in
the 'burbs, because the white folk are in the majority there. But no people
of color should come move out there, we have zoning laws and we don't want
your kind, go back to the ghetto where you belong.

> Like I said, you're not alone. Assuming that just because I'm
>white that my life was this rosy glow of opportunity and delight is just
>as racist as my assuming that eveyone who lives in your neighborhood is a
>lazy, welfare-drawing crackhead.

One, I'm not racist, and cannot be by definition. Two, I did not assume
anything about *you*; I was talking about minorities. Three, you're in the
so-called majority; the system works for you more easily than me. You're
also ignorant of what it means to be truly oppressed; which is not your
fault. But I've given you places to look that you might see, brother.
You're an intelligent person; try to see things from the viewpoint of
people of color. Think about having your family, culture, language, and
land stripped from you, and the heritage of slavery and socioeconomic
discrimination. Try not to perpetrate the systemic racism this society has.

You can't pretend ignorance anymore.

>Marc

[1] James Regalado, "Conflicts Over Redistricting in Los Angeles Couty: Who
Wins? Who Loses?", _Racial and Ethnic Politics in California_, 1991, The
Regents of the University of California, pp. 373-375

[2] Manuel Ramirez III, _Multicultural/Multiracial Psychology: Mestizo
Perspectives in Personality and Mental Health_, 1998, Jason Aronsen Inc.,
p. 21
--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 5
From: Mark Fender markf@******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:14:25 -0500
[snip a very long post from acgetchell@*******.edu]

Damn. That's the second message today with footnotes. I'm so proud of you
all.

STAR WARS STAR WARS STAR WARS STAR WARS
Message no. 6
From: Josh grimlakin@****.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:48:18 -0500
Adam Getchell wrote:

<SNIP CITY>

> One, I'm not racist, and cannot be by definition. Two, I did not assume
> anything about *you*; I was talking about minorities. Three, you're in the
> so-called majority; the system works for you more easily than me. You're
> also ignorant of what it means to be truly oppressed; which is not your
> fault. But I've given you places to look that you might see, brother.
> You're an intelligent person; try to see things from the viewpoint of
> people of color. Think about having your family, culture, language, and
> land stripped from you, and the heritage of slavery and socioeconomic
> discrimination. Try not to perpetrate the systemic racism this society has.

Sure you can be a racist. You are capeable of discriminateing aginst someone
based on race. No please put down the dictionary to prove me wrong with quotes
upon quotes. Because you quote does not make you correct.

I am in the majority group I suppose. Life is I guess easier for me. I
personally try not to discriminate. I think I do at times but it is a process
of learning not to. Not that it is a habit but I catch myself. I think
everyone does demonstrate racisim or discrimination in one way or another.
Like the phrase.. Typica white man.. or typica slob or whatever.. that is a
discrimination or a racisim if you would.

>
>
> You can't pretend ignorance anymore.

Who was pretending? :)

> --Adam

Josh
Message no. 7
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 19:16:29 EDT
First off, a slight warning: I tend to get very "into" a debate sometimes,
and may seem to be attacking folks. That's not hte case; I just get too
involved in the heat of a debate now and then. Read on, with that in mind,
please. :-)


In a message dated 5/18/99 6:07:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
acgetchell@*******.edu writes:


> The sky is blue because of the laws of nature. People like you want to
> pretend that racism and "cultural tension" is also a law of nature; it
> ain't. You think that it is something that should be gotten used to. It
> isn't.

Who ever said that? Not me, and I agree (partially mind) that sometimes,
talk of racial prejudice occupies FAR too much time for far too many people.

Yes, there are still problems. Sometimes significant ones.

But whining about them won't fix them. Get up and DO something to fix them.

> > If you show yourself to be cool, you and I will have no problems.
> >If you show yourself to be an asshole, the color of your skin will be the
> >least of your worries.
>
> Prejudice. That means, you form judgements based upon stereotypes.
> Pretending that it doesn't exist is the worst sort of perpetration of it.
> The way to fight prejudice is to actively confront it and deal with it. No
> one is free of prejudice. If you say you are I will call you a liar to your
> face.

Call me a liar then. Want my address so we can MEET face to face?

_Your_ statement is prejudiced: you are using a sterortype ("all people are
prejudiced") to judge INDIVIDUALS, without any corroborating evidence to
support your judgement of a given individual.

Do I hold certain _expectations_ regarding groupd? Youbetcha. Do I expect
EVERY member of a group to even be MORE LIKELY to adhere to that expectation?

NO sir.

For example: "The government is a bunch of lying, cheating, heartless
bastards." I think that's true enough. But never ever EVER will I _presume_
beforehand that any ONE person in the government is such. I take them on a
case by case basis.

And hopefully you can see the difference between a generalisation of a
NONjudgemental nature, and true Prejudice.

> Believing in an ideal is one thing; being "down" with it and doing
> something about it is another. Like I'm saying, you appear to be
> perpetrating the myth that it ain't a problem, that it's not something that
> should be dealt with. Well, _for you_, you're right. The system is pretty
> good to you, whatever you might think.

Do you know that for a fact? Have you investigated every aspect of this
person's life to the nth detail?

There is a counter-prejudicial effect in place too: in Boston (capital of my
home state), there was, recently, a court case by a WHITE girl, who had been
discriminated against in favor of MINORITES. Because of >drum roll< QUOTA'S.

Boston Latin School, IIRC (might have been another of the important High
Schools in Boston, not sure exactly). They have a test to get in, and only
the top 25%, or some such, are admitted.

But it's not the top 25% of ALL testing students.

It's 25% BY RACE. The top 25% of the white students, and then the top 25% of
the >insert minority group here< students, and so on.

That's not right. It should be the highest scoring youths ... but that girl
scored well above a large number of minority students, who WERE admitted, but
she was not.

Because she was WHITE.

Tell me THAT isn't racism. OH but wait, later on, you DO try to say that.

I'll deal with THAT hypocrisy when I get there.

> This is another myth. The "so-called majority", whites, do not hold power
> because of democracy, but because they have used their power to oppress
> minorities. If you think that Latinos are the minority population in
> California, you'd better go back and study statistics and demographics
> again. And yet, somehow, Latinos don't have political representation or
> voice in California. Let me break it down for you:

Those whites hold power because (hands over an official Clue (TM, copyright):
THEY HAVE THE _MONEY_ TO PAY FOR THEIR CAMPAIGN, by and largely. That's
Plutocratic, not racist.

YES, racism may contribute to that difference of wealth, but, guess what:
some of us WHITE folks are poor too.

You want Latino politicians in office? Latinos are in the majority in
California? VOTE THEM INTO OFFICE.

Given enough _involvement_ in the community, enough political _activity_ by
the community ... there is NOTHING in the US stopping a Latino man woman or
CHILD (within the requirements of the office ;-) from running for and GAINING
a political office.

The Republican Party, shortly after Desert Storm, asked Colin Powell to run
for PRESIDENT. Yep, Powell --- a black man.

You know what? So long as his position and mine were not irreconcilably
different, I would have voted for him: I trust military men to do what they
say, and he seemed a man of honor.

And I wouldn't have cared if he was white, black, or POLKA DOTTED.


>
> Based upon this, your statements about "more white folks", "the color
of
> your skin will be the least of your worries" are plain wrong. The last
> statement may apply to you, but it doesn't apply to those in power. Does
> anyone try to gerrymander your representation away to nothing?

I suspect _you_ would, given the power to do so. Your militant stripes are
showing.

>
> >an institution's policies. Even more surprising is how much "bigotry"
is
> >actually driven by well-meaning people who are just plain ignorant.
>
> Well-meaning? No. Ignorant? Sometimes. I assure you, most prejudice is
> quite active. See above.

He said "how much" not "all." I suggest reading statements LITERALLY,
not
_trying_ to see what you _want_ to. "how much" can mean a wide range of
things. The proper response wouldhave been "What do you mean 'how much' ...
could you specifiy a ballpark figure of what portion you mean?"

Try again.

> People of color on the American continent have been targetted for genocide
> and slavery. The socio-cultural-psycological effects of this linger for
> generations,

If you LET it.

Sounds trite, but, we are talking about things (actual slavery, for example)
which, some of them, _ended_ over TWO -ÎNTURIES=- ago!

For how many MORE centuries will you beat this very very DEAD horse?

OK, the people of pre-20th century Africa were enslaved (as often by people
in their OWN nations/continent/etc), and very VERY badly treated by their
European / American owners.

It's over. Deal with it. Move on.

More recently, yes, Americans of african extraction have been subjected to
continued oppression. And things have IMPROVED in the last, say,
half-century.

GOOD.

But, to say that ALL white people, and their "system," seek to KEEP DEM
NIGGA'S DOWN is as racist, as prejudiced, and as much a LIE, as the actions
of those _individuals_ who do indeed seek such things.

I am white. I do not want to "keep down" any portion of the American people.
Black, white, red, green, small grey and recently debarked from a flying
saucer ... whatever.

> along with the culture of being oppressed and the methods of
> the oppressors.

OK, opression, as a set of methods, is not something one culture has, and
another does not. It's a series of decisions.



> I challenge you to assert that whites in America have the
> same oppressive historical factors influencing their culture.
>

Depends on the specific ethnicity of WHITE you refer to. We come from
different places too.

Religious intolerance (read: ideological prejudice) is what STARTED the white
presence in the Americas, in a sense. The Puritans and Plymouth Rock, here
in New England, for example.

Not slavery, no. But guess what: NO one, single people has a monopoly on
suffering the effects of an oppressor.

England was invaded by foreigners, conquered, and had ALL her laws in a
FOREIGN LANGUAGE for quite some time. The invader's leader?

William the Conqueror, who won the war with his voctory at the Battle of
Hastings, in about 1066. William the _FRENCH_ Conqueror, I might add.



>
> I have seen this for myself. What is your (and I use the term loosely)
> "experience"?
>
> It's directly in the system.

No. It's a bunch of bigots and assholes who happen to CHOOSE police work.
Maybe more Latinos (and other minorities) should seek out employment as
Police Officers? Then you won't have this one bunch of "good-old-boys"
sitting on all teh power of the Badge. It will be SHARED, and incidents like
this one will (a) lessen in frequency, and (b) increase in consequences.

>
> Well, fortunately for you, you aren't a poor minority driving a beat up
> car, you speak educated English well, and you know your rights.

Presumptions, those. I did not notice him (her?) mentioning what race, if
any, they are. Nor does it follow that someone who TYPES well, also speaks
well. Ever hear of an ACCENT?

And knowing your rights is not something that is _exclusive_ to being White.
People new to this country, yes. Anyone born here, and/or schooled here,
should have a clue that they can RESEARCH what rights, if any, they have.


>
> I got news for you: your statements do nothing to dissuade me from thinking
> that you, at least, do not understand or sympathize with how things really
> are. And, you better take an ethnic studies class or read the literature;
> because I cannot be racist. Racism is defined in terms of the majority
> discriminating by race; by definition, a minority cannot be racist (they
> would be prejudiced).

WRONG.

Racism is prejudice based on race. Period.

According to the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary (keyword: mw for those of
us on AOL, or you can go to http://www.m-w.com on the web), the definition of
"racism" is as follows:

[ rac*ism (noun)
[
[ First appeared 1936
[
[ 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
capacities and
[ that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular
race
[
[ 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
[
[ -- rac*ist (noun or adjective)

So where, in there, does it predicate the act of racism upon being a member
of the majority group? Nowhere.

Example time. Take ten black folks, and ninety white folks. The blacks hate
the whites, for being white. The whites hate hte blacks, for being black.

ALL ONE HUNDRED of them are racist. Period.

But, by definition, of those ten black folks invite 900 of their equally
white-hating, black friends ... what happens? Those 90, racist whites STOP
being racist, because they are outnumbered? And the blacks, suddenly in the
majority, ARE racist?

But ... noone's attitudes CHANGED.

Ergo: racism is racism is racism. Period. ONE definition for everyone. ONE
name for the SAME attitude, regardless of WHO you are ... skin color, ethnic
background, socioeconomic background ... whatever. If you are racist, you
are RACIST.

> You miss the point. Racism is about socioeconomic status and discrimination
> by color of skin. These "white-trash" trailer parks don't compare to the
> ghettoes because while they have socioeconomic factors and crime, they do
> not contend with racism against them.

Being white trash, they have everything BUT the color of their skin. No it's
not racism ... and the other guy never claimed it WAS. He said conditions
there weren't much better than any inner-city ghetto.

Barring the racial problems, he's dead RIGHT.

>
> If your theory is true, then answer me this: why is the media vastly
> underrepresented by minorites? Give me one example of a major media
> conglomerate owned and operated by minorites. Explain to me why California
> has only 1 Spanish language TV station.

Because the spanish community PERMITS that to continue? There ARE affluent
latinos in this country. Why don't they invest in a second, third, fourth
Spanish Channel?

And as for major conglomerates: so? If something is not owned by a minority,
it MUST inherently support continued prejudicial oppression?

Go see a shrink. That's indicative of classic paranoia.


>


>
> Well, if you can count being from a broken home, not having a stable
> family,living with violence, having a lack of positive role models that
> they can relate to, having their culture, language, and self-esteem
> constantly devalued, having their violence directed inwards to themselves,
> denied the same opportunities that would go to a white kid, being targetted
> for drugs/alcohol consumption, being actively oppressed by authority
> figures, being circumvented as much as possible in the real government of
> the U.S., and being catagorized and led away from paths that would better
> their situation (and often having to sell out just to take that chance), I
> suppose that's ahead of the game. I don't think so. However, those that
> manage to make it in spite of all these difficulties are strong.

I come from that broken home and that unstable family, I have lived with
violence, I have seen few if any positive role models in my life that I could
relate to, I have had to direct my violence, hatred, and every OTHER negative
emotion inwards (staff at a treatment facility, to me: "it doesn't matter how
you feel, what matters is you must behave properly" -- nie thing to say to a
13 year old, eh). People like YOU, right now, are attacking my culture, (in
some cases) my language, and yes, my self-esteem. While the denied
opportunities in my school were not _racially_ motivated, there were some,
regardless, that were closed to me for no _good_ reason. I have been
suspected of drug and alcohol abuse. I have been actively suppressed by
authority figures in my youth (who ISN'T). I have been circumvented in
government (by my failure to CHOOSE to vote, just like MOST people in this
country). I have been, and AM, categorised in such a way as to close certain
options to me, which would make for a MUCH better standard of living for me.
And make me happier than I am today.

And I am white, and grew up in the suburbs.

So your point was?

>
> I've had plenty of friends have long-term psychological problems because
> their parents got divorced. And I've had plenty of friends who would give
> that barely a thought, because that's the least of their worries. Care to
> make a guess on the respective backgrounds of each?

Based on race? No. THAT would be prejudicial.


> Do you think that would have happened in the ghetto? They would have killed
> his ass. Do you think the Ku Klux Klan will ever go to Watts or the Mission
> to proclaim their hatred of minorities? I know plenty of brothers would
> love to see that.

So? Does that lessen the fact there was VIOLENCE in his life? No.

>
> No, you're missing the point. Ain't no Ku Klux Klanster going to start
> something in the ghetto unless he has a death wish. It's safe to do it in
> the 'burbs, because the white folk are in the majority there. But no people
> of color should come move out there, we have zoning laws and we don't want
> your kind, go back to the ghetto where you belong.

Those zoning laws are illegal ... and where _I_ live, there are no such
things.

And I am white, and live in the suburbs. (OK, across the RIVER from them, but
the point is valid :-)

>
> > Like I said, you're not alone. Assuming that just because I'm
> >white that my life was this rosy glow of opportunity and delight is just
> >as racist as my assuming that eveyone who lives in your neighborhood is a
> >lazy, welfare-drawing crackhead.
>
> One, I'm not racist, and cannot be by definition.

This has been refuted already. I refer you once more to a DICTIONARY.

> Two, I did not assume
> anything about *you*;

Yes you have. You have assumed he did NOT suffer violence in his life. Or
discrimination of any kind.

> I was talking about minorities. Three, you're in the
> so-called majority; the system works for you more easily than me.

There -- that's ANOTHER assumption. :-)

> You're
> also ignorant of what it means to be truly oppressed;

Yet another.

> which is not your
> fault. But I've given you places to look that you might see, brother.
> You're an intelligent person; try to see things from the viewpoint of
> people of color. Think about having your family, culture, language, and
> land stripped from you, and the heritage of slavery and socioeconomic
> discrimination. Try not to perpetrate the systemic racism this society has.
>
> You can't pretend ignorance anymore.
>

Nor, sir or madame, can _you_. :-)

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 8
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:29:51 -0700
>Sure you can be a racist. You are capeable of discriminateing aginst someone
>based on race. No please put down the dictionary to prove me wrong with
>quotes
>upon quotes. Because you quote does not make you correct.

Because I quote researchers and experts in the field of ethnic political
science, or ethnic psychology, or quantum mechanics, that does not make me
correct? Can you, perhaps, provide proof that I'm wrong?

The way it usually works, is to do some research or postulate a theory or
do an experiment that provides a counterexample, then I'll believe you. In
every field, experts share a common language and common standards of
research.

As I said, the definition of racism that I'm using can be encountered in
even a cursory examination of Ethnic Studies.

I suppose that your unsubstantiated opinion is more correct. Well, more
power to you.

>> You can't pretend ignorance anymore.
>
>Who was pretending? :)

Well, this is the reason I'm trying to explain it all ... because you might
not be aware of it otherwise.

>Josh

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 9
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:43:12 CST
Okay first off, everybody calm down! We're all friends here right? :)

>This ignorance and insensitivity is no more and no less than I expected. It
>is also a perfect example on how perpetrating the status quo is part of the
>problem.

True, but flaming folks in e-mail won't make things better. Remember,
most prejudice is the result of years and years of faulty thinking. This
will take time to change. It can't happen overnight!

>The sky is blue because of the laws of nature. People like you want to
>pretend that racism and "cultural tension" is also a law of nature; it
>ain't. You think that it is something that should be gotten used to. It
>isn't.

Actually, I think (hope) that he was saying that we should concentrate on
fixing the problem instead of just snarling over the fact that there is a
problem.
>
>"Any conception of African Americans that fails to see them as engaged in
>exercising their human agency -- sometimes successfully, sometimes not --
>cannot hope to grasp what they are all about. -- Adelbert H. Jenkins
>(1955)"
>
That goes for everybody!

>
>Does it really depend upon only personality? Are you really color blind? If
>you think most people are color blind, you're sticking your head into the
>sand. And if your statements are an example of politeness, I think we must
>agree to differ on the meaning of it.

Actually, I think he was talking about himself. And in the end, he can
only govern his own behavior and attitudes. It's great that he is free of
prejudice. It's not so great that you are slamming him 'cause his view is
the minority.

>
>Prejudice. That means, you form judgements based upon stereotypes.
>Pretending that it doesn't exist is the worst sort of perpetration of it.
>The way to fight prejudice is to actively confront it and deal with it. No
>one is free of prejudice. If you say you are I will call you a liar to your
>face. I have biases myself. I hope, though, that I can recognize when I
>have them, and change them accordingly. And because I've been discriminated
>against, I would hope not to perpetrate that hypocrisy upon others. I'm
>aware of it, brother. I don't pretend it doesn't exist, or that it's not
>bad.

I dunno, I can say that I myself am almost completely free of prejudice.
Not entirely, but I am working on it. And isn't that the important thing?

>
>Believing in an ideal is one thing; being "down" with it and doing
>something about it is another. Like I'm saying, you appear to be
>perpetrating the myth that it ain't a problem, that it's not something that
>should be dealt with. Well, _for you_, you're right. The system is pretty
>good to you, whatever you might think.

I dunno again. In Canada, we have laws which enforce multiculturalism.
I think that they are good and cool. I enjoy other cultures. That being
said, the recent (and ongoing) Quebec problem kinda shows that legislation
doesn't work so well. You have to convice folks that their attitudes need
to be changed. You can't do that by telling them that they have it better
and berating them for it!

>
>This is another myth. The "so-called majority", whites, do not hold etc.

Out of the minorities, do all of them vote to change things? I'm not
argueing, just a question. The democratic process seems to depend on every
group making their voices heard.

>
>Well-meaning? No. Ignorant? Sometimes. I assure you, most prejudice is
>quite active. See above.
>

It's hard to credit prejudice with good intentions, but it does happen,
I've seen it. it really does depend on ignorance.

>
>Wrong. Let's go back and look at history again. The diaspora of the >etc

You seem to be an intelligent and well-read man. So I ask you, do you
truly believe that there is a conclave of powerful white men who spend their
time looking for ways to screw over minorities. I'm sorry, that's what it
sounds like.

>
>The harrassment you get is nothing compared to what minorities endure. If I
>were to take up your attitude, I would say: "Waaaa. Cry me a river; it's
>not worth mentioning."

Actually, harrassment is harrassment is harrassment, no matter who you
are. I also get 'cause I'm young, I wear a goatee (i like it what can I say
:)) and I wear a lot of black (i just like the colour). And actually, I
beleive that he is telling you to take up his attitude. He seems to be OK
with his situation.

>
>Do the cops pull you over and beat the crap out of you, like they do to
>migrant farm workers in Riverside?
>Do the cops shoot at you 42 times (hitting you 19), like they did you the
>minority transient in New York City?
>Do the cops violate your person, like they do to Latinas who don't know
>their rights because no one told them they had any?
>
>I have seen this for myself. What is your (and I use the term loosely)
>"experience"?

Sigh! Those ARE regrettable and terrible incidents, but are they all
that happen? Aren't there also cops who respect minorities and treat them
equally? I'll bet you 10:1 that there are. Unfortunately the bad ones get
the press.

>Well, fortunately for you, you aren't a poor minority driving a beat up
>car, you speak educated English well, and you know your rights.
>
Then the answer is obvious, educate everyone as to their rights! It can
be done!

> > I live in a liberal town of freaks and weirdos and I still get
> >harassed. You are not alone, and to imply that others do not understand
> >or sympathize with your plight is both ignorant and insulting. To say,
> >"yes, but that's different" is to espouse the same racism that you feel
> >every day.

The man does have a point. I am reminded of something that was said in a
Criminology class I am taking. The gist of it was that ALL oppressed people
should stand together to make their points known. To elevate one cause
above another is to dilute the effect. I am reminded of an old martial arts
principle; to achieve to maximum effect, one must focus all of his or her
energy into the smallest area possible.

>
>I got news for you: your statements do nothing to dissuade me from thinking
>that you, at least, do not understand or sympathize with how things really
>are. And, you better take an ethnic studies class or read the literature;
>because I cannot be racist. Racism is defined in terms of the majority
>discriminating by race; by definition, a minority cannot be racist (they
>would be prejudiced).
>

Actually, racism (in my brother's textbooks anyway) is described as being
prejudiced on the basis of race, NO MATTER YOUR OWN RACE. If you say that
minorities cannot be racist, I'll call you a liar.

>You miss the point. Racism is about socioeconomic status and discrimination
>by color of skin. These "white-trash" trailer parks don't compare to the
>ghettoes because while they have socioeconomic factors and crime, they do
>not contend with racism against them.

Classism is more prevanlent than racism thogh (as one person said in an
earlier post).

>If your theory is true, then answer me this: why is the media vastly
>underrepresented by minorites? Give me one example of a major media
>conglomerate owned and operated by minorites. Explain to me why California
>has only 1 Spanish language TV station.
>

I can't answer that, I'm Canadian eh? :)

>
>Well, if you can count being from a broken home, not having a stable
>family,living with violence, having a lack of positive role models that
>they can relate to, having their culture, language, and self-esteem
>constantly devalued, having their violence directed inwards to themselves,
>denied the same opportunities that would go to a white kid, being targetted
>for drugs/alcohol consumption, being actively oppressed by authority
>figures, being circumvented as much as possible in the real government of
>the U.S., and being catagorized and led away from paths that would better
>their situation (and often having to sell out just to take that chance), I
>suppose that's ahead of the game. I don't think so. However, those that
>manage to make it in spite of all these difficulties are strong.
>
>I've had plenty of friends have long-term psychological problems because
>their parents got divorced. And I've had plenty of friends who would give
>that barely a thought, because that's the least of their worries. Care to
>make a guess on the respective backgrounds of each?
>

Actually, I think he ment only in terms of snapping and repeating
Columbine.

>
>Do you think that would have happened in the ghetto? They would have killed
>his ass. Do you think the Ku Klux Klan will ever go to Watts or the Mission
>to proclaim their hatred of minorities? I know plenty of brothers would
>love to see that.
>

True, the Klan are many things, but I doubt if suicidal is one of them.

>
>You can't pretend ignorance anymore.
>

No one can, but don't just assume that the system automatically works far
all white folk, cause it probably doesn't. Again I'm canadian, so things
are different up here.


Geoff Haacke
"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 10
From: Josh grimlakin@****.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 19:06:15 -0500
Adam Getchell wrote:

> >Sure you can be a racist. You are capeable of discriminateing aginst someone
> >based on race. No please put down the dictionary to prove me wrong with
> >quotes
> >upon quotes. Because you quote does not make you correct.
>
> Because I quote researchers and experts in the field of ethnic political
> science, or ethnic psychology, or quantum mechanics, that does not make me
> correct? Can you, perhaps, provide proof that I'm wrong?
>
> The way it usually works, is to do some research or postulate a theory or
> do an experiment that provides a counterexample, then I'll believe you. In
> every field, experts share a common language and common standards of
> research.
>
> As I said, the definition of racism that I'm using can be encountered in
> even a cursory examination of Ethnic Studies.
>
> I suppose that your unsubstantiated opinion is more correct. Well, more
> power to you.

I will wait and see your response to the person with the time and the patience to
actually QUOTE something easily accessable to us all. I thought defenitions of
words as common as raceism <as sad as that is to be a common word> would be easily
understood by someone in love with the quote as you are. I work in a field with
responsibilities enuff not to give me the free time to quote all day long.

>
>
> >> You can't pretend ignorance anymore.
> >
> >Who was pretending? :)
>
> Well, this is the reason I'm trying to explain it all ... because you might
> not be aware of it otherwise.

Are you aware of your own ignorance?Do you feel yourself superior.
Some groups designed to support any race have put a bad taste into my mouth.
Lets teach children that black men once flew and had wings untill white man
opressed them.
What is that going to breed?
What about the lawyer that lost his job because he used a word that could have
racial connotations. He managed to counter sue and win. And the AACP supported
him <actually one group that I can understand because they are intelligent and
can convey a message on any level.> and he won that suite by the way. Oh and he
was a white man.
White slavery has existed for mellenia. <well recorded history.> Especially when
america was being settled by the europeans. They were called indentured servants.

Their are counts of the differenet being used and opressed across the board. It
happend. It is lessoning. The world is learning to live by the word equality.
Accomplishments have happend. For anyone they have been hard fought. The world
is slowly becomeing a level playing field. things ARE getting better. It will
take time. I would love to see that in my life time but I don't count on it.

> --Adam

Josh
Message no. 11
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 09:29:56 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Adam Getchell wrote:

> >> You can't pretend ignorance anymore.
> >
> >Who was pretending? :)
>
> Well, this is the reason I'm trying to explain it all ... because you might
> not be aware of it otherwise.

And this is the reason that I (for one) am letting this more or
less OT thread roll on unchecked. Adam brings up a lot of good points
that (unfortunately) a lot of people don't think about.
If you want to tie this into Shadowrun, think about what it really
means to be an ork living in a predominantly human society. Think about
all the stereotypes that might apply to orks, and how in most areas
they've been relegated to the rank of second (or lower) class citizens,
even in areas that are supposed to "accepting" of metas.
It's a roleplaying challenge if you've never personally
experienced discrimination. While it's not real life, it may at least
give you the chance to learn something, especially if your GM makes your
life hell in the appropriate manner.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.html.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.html.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@********.att.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 12
From: Demonnic Bloodbather demonnic@*********.net
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 02:03:31 +1200
Alright, I have a few things to say, and they may seem prejudiced, they may not.
Everyone has prejudices. If you want to skip the long boring post, there is a 2
or 3 sentence summation at the end.

1.) I didn't sign on to this mailing list for a lesson in socioeconomics and
racism.
2.) I really wish people would stop blaming me for things that happened well
before my family was even out of Ireland.

3.) Do whites experience racism? My great-grandfather moved to the USA during
the potatoe famine in Ireland. My family name is Monogue now, whereas family
names of my ancestors before him was Minogue. Care to guess why? Because my
great-grandfather changed his name so he wouldn't be lynched for being Irish.
You know who did the lynchings? Everyone not Irish. This includes the blacks and
hispanics and Native Americans of the time. Do I whine about it? Am I
emotionally scarred by it? No. The worst that's gonna happen to me is I'll
change my name back to Minogue. Which I am planning on doing.
4.) I've lived in the ghettoes. No, it's not a nice place. Yes, there is
violence. Yes, there are gangs. Yes, there do seem to be a majority of so-called
'minorities' in the ghettoes. Are there white people as well? Yes. At least in
the one I lived in. Do I sympathize with the plight of the black man, or the
hispanic? Depends, I don't think that when they are treated differently due to
race or culture, it is unfair. Have I done anything about it? Only what little I
could do, which is not alot, in that I have tried my best not to judge them on
it. Have I always been successful? I'd like to think so, but probably not. But
when anyone, black, white, hispanic, whatever, comes up to me wearing gang
colours and sporting a bulge in any of the numerous spots I've seen gang-bangers
carry firearms, I am not going to walk up to him and say 'Hi, how are you
today?' One, I see them as possible threats. Anyone carrying a gun is a possible
threat. Hell, I see everyone, period, as a possible threat.Two, minorities tend
to dislike me because I am white. This may not be racist by the strict
definition (I believe they have the term 'reverse-racism' for that) it is to me
still prejudice based on race. Do I like it it? No, and I don't think it feels
any better when it's used against me than it does to a black man or a hispanic
man when used against him. I've experienced racism, oh yes, because I've lived
in areas, as a white man, where the majority was NOT white. I've had a gun held
to my head 5 times because I was white, and happened to be in a black
neighborhood where whites are unwelcome. My parents were refused foodstamps when
they really and truly needed them, not because my dad wasn't working hard to try
and feed us, but because we were white. And the welfare officer said as much.
5.) Do I think racism is something that should be attended to? Yes. Do I think
it is likely to happen in my lifetime? Probably not, though I hope it does. Is
it a problem in the USA that opresses the minorities? Yes, but you must take
into account minorities based on ALL data. Poor white people are oppressed as
well as poor black people. Admittedly, the poor black people might very well
have a harder time getting out of the 'poverty level', but that doesn't mean
it's easy for the poor white people do it either.
6.) As far as the media goes, I hate to disappoint anyone out there with notions
about what the media is out there for, but it is to make money. Either by
entertaining the masses, or shocking them. It's purpose is NOT to disseminate
information, its purpose is NOT for informing the masses, except in the cases
where these two things ALSO make the media money.
7.) Both sides of this argument are never going to get anywhere, because they
are at dynamically opposed viewpoints. The white people dislike it when the
non-white people say "Whites are supremeist SOBs who opress non-whites" and
non-white people dislike it when the white's opress them.
8.) Language. The official language of the United States is English. That is the
language that the majority of the people there know, it is the language that the
majority of business is done in, and it is the language that will reach the most
people clearly and understandably. Does this mean I will be prejudiced against
someone who speaks only Spanish? Perhaps, but only because I can't understand a
fragging word he's saying. More than likely, I will simply tell him in
unaccented, crappy, mispronounced spanish that I don't speak his language.
Should I be forced to learn his language to speak with him? No. Should he be
forced to learn my language to speak to me? No. But since the majority of the US
is English-speaking, this makes English a good language to know in the US. He
will probably be forced to learn it if he wants to go outside of the area in the
country where spanish is the predominate language. If I wanted to live in an
area where spanish was the predominate language, I'd learn spanish, and continue
to mispronounce it in a bad or nonexistant accent in order to get my point
across. As far as IQ tests, if you can't speak english well, get a translator.
Or take an IQ test written/given in spanish. Or do poorly on the test. If you
truly want discrimination done away with, than you shouldn't ask for special
treatment, as that is asking for discrimination. Favorable discrimination, I'll
grant, but discrimination nonetheless.


To sum up, I've suffered from discrimination, and I've probably benefited from
it as well. Bias exists, on BOTH sides of the line. So don't give me a
holier-than-thou approach to socioeconomics because I'm white and you've been
discriminated against, it'll hold as much water as a sieve with 3 inch drain
holes.
Message no. 13
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:43:33 EDT
In a message dated 5/19/99 9:59:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
demonnic@*********.net writes:

> 8.) Language. The official language of the United States is English.

Um. No.

The United States does not have ANY "official language," beyond the language
of customary use, and the language chosen (by default, some 200+ years ago)
for recording our laws and governmental proceedings in.



> That is the language that the majority of the people there know, it is the
language
> that the majority of business is done in, and it is the language that will
reach the
> most people clearly and understandably. Does this mean I will be
prejudiced
> against someone who speaks only Spanish?
> Perhaps, but only because I can't understand a fragging word he's saying.
More
> than likely, I will simply tell him in unaccented, crappy, mispronounced
spanish
> that I don't speak his language.
> Should I be forced to learn his language to speak with him? No. Should he
be
> forced to learn my language to speak to me? No. But since the majority of
> the US is English-speaking, this makes English a good language to know
> in the US.

Actually, I am not sure this is correct. I think Spanish is the primary
language of around half of the population of the US; I'm not sure of the
exact numbers, though, but I'm fairly confident it'd be a close thing, in the
least.

English IS the language of our government, our laws, and our history,
however. So it IS still a good idea to be moderately competent with it.

> He will probably be forced to learn it if he wants to go outside of the
area in
> the country where spanish is the predominate language. If I wanted to live
in an
> area where spanish was the predominate language, I'd learn spanish,

Good advice, regardless of the language most often used in a place. For
_anyone_ going there.

> If you truly want discrimination done away with, than you shouldn't ask for
> special treatment, as that is asking for discrimination. Favorable
discrimination,
> I'll grant, but discrimination nonetheless.

Agreed. :-)

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 14
From: Iridios iridios@*********.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:59:31 -0400
GMPax@***.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/19/99 9:59:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> demonnic@*********.net writes:
>
> > 8.) Language. The official language of the United States is English.
>
> Um. No.
>
> The United States does not have ANY "official language," beyond the
language
> of customary use, and the language chosen (by default, some 200+ years ago)
> for recording our laws and governmental proceedings in.

Actually, English *is* the official language of the U.S. 200+ years
ago, Congress had a vote whether they should use English or German as
the language of official government business. English was chosen by a
narrow margin. (IIRC)

Just because they don't require citizens to speak English, doesn't
mean that it isn't the official language.


--
Iridios
"God does not roll dice"
-Albert Einstein
Message no. 15
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:58:45 EDT
In a message dated 5/19/99 10:56:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
iridios@*********.com writes:

> Actually, English *is* the official language of the U.S. 200+ years
> ago, Congress had a vote whether they should use English or German as
> the language of official government business. English was chosen by a
> narrow margin. (IIRC)
>
> Just because they don't require citizens to speak English, doesn't
> mean that it isn't the official language.

>blink<

:: assumes classic "Deer-In-Headlight" position of total poleaxedly-stunned
amazement ::

>blink ... blink<

Er, could you direct me to the source of your information? I'd dearly
-=LOVE=- to read that one ... truly!!!!

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 16
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 12:39:54 -0400 (EDT)
Others have already brought up a whole mess of good arguments and
counter-arguments on both sides of this issue, so I'll try not to be
redundant. But since Adam's reply was to my post, the least I can do is
refute his major points myself.

On Tue, 18 May 1999, Adam Getchell wrote:

> >You do not have a monopoly on being harassed, nor is the fact that
> >cultural tension exists a surprise to anyone. It happens everywhere,
> >and the US is not exception (and it's better than some places that pop
> >to mind). Does that make it right? No. But saying it exists is like
> >saying, "yup, the sky's blue."
>
> This ignorance and insensitivity is no more and no less than I expected. It
> is also a perfect example on how perpetrating the status quo is part of the
> problem.

It's not ignorance and insensitivity. It's acknowledging that a
problem exists but realizing that pointing the problem out (again) doesn't
fix the problem. Yes, there is racism in America. Newsflash! There's
racism everywhere in the world. Even in areas where everyone is of the
same "race" there is "ethnicism."
For example, it is of note that the majority of the African people
sold as slaves in colonies in the New World were in fact captured by other
Africans. Yes, black people sold black people into slavery. Why?
Because they were of a different tribe, because there was money in it, and
because it kept the people that they were selling off from competing for
the same resources.
Reconstructionist black historians would love for us to believe
that before the white man came to Africa everything was peace, love, and
harmony with nature. This totally ignores cultural and ethnic strife that
has roots in pre-history.
And it still goes on today. You think it's bad to be a minority
here? Try being a Hutu in a predominantly Tutsi neighborhood or vice
versa.
What is my point? My point is not that we should ignore racism,
but rather that we should accept that it exists (because the proof is
obvious to even the most casual of observers) and actually *do*
something about it.

> "'Conservatism' in America's politics means 'let's keep the niggers in
> their place.' And 'liberalism' means 'Let's keep the knee-grows in their
> place -- but tell them we'll treat them a little better; let's fool them
> more, with more promises.' With these choices, I felt that the American
> black man only needed to choose which one to be eaten by, the 'liberal' fox
> or the 'conservative' wolf -- because both of them would eat him ... In a
> wolf's den, I'd always know exactly where I stood; I'd watch the dangerous
> wolf closer than I would the smooth, sly fox. The wolf's very growling
> would keep me alert and fighting him to survive, whereas I might be lulled
> and fooled by the tricky fox." -- Malcolm X

This quote, while interesting, has nothing to do with the point at
hand. Please keep the discussion topical.

> The sky is blue because of the laws of nature. People like you want to
> pretend that racism and "cultural tension" is also a law of nature; it
> ain't.

Actually, it is. Tension and even violence between different
familial or "ethnic" groups is a well established part of the natural
world, especially in a situation where resources are scarce. At its most
fundamental, it's Darwinianism in action, not in the sense that any race
is "superior" but in the sense that were are predisposed to perpetuate our
genes. Biologically speaking, the people who look like you are more
genetically similar. As such, you are predisposed to "preotect your own,"
a phenomenon that manifests itself even when genetic similarities between
opposed groups are quite strong.
This is the biological imperative that will lead troops of chimps
(and especially babboons) to get violent with each other. Humans only
differ in two major ways; first, the population is interspersed. Gone are
the days when human tribal groups maintained a single territory. Now we
are mixed, with members of different "familial" groups scattered in and
amongst each other. Second, with the rise of the "national identity"
humans can be part of an "intellectual family" that has less to do with
biology (at least on the surface).
As humans, I'd like to believe that we can rise above a lot of
things. A someone who has studied biologically-driven group behavior, I'm
not sure how much of an animal man still is.

> You think that it is something that should be gotten used to. It
> isn't.

Did I say that? No. I don't think it should be "gotten used to"
but I think that to continue to carp on it's existence distracts people
from the important task of figuring out how to fix it. Further,
acknowledging that it is both a common occurrence and pandemic among
humans and other social animals will give us some basis for figuring out
if it *can* be fixed, and if so, how to go about it.

> Does it really depend upon only personality?

Yes.

> Are you really color blind?

As much as I can be. But then again, when you are exposed to
minorities at an early age (as I was) it's easier. For instance, can you
tell the difference between Vietnamese and Korean folks by their facial
features and skin tones? Or do they "all look the same" to you? I can
tell, simply because I was raised in an area that had an unusually high
number of Korean and Vietnamese folks. To me, they look quite different,
which allows me to get over just seeing them as "Asian" and lets me see
them as the individuals they are. Not everyone classifies people by race.
Some of us actually take the time to get to know people.
I look at people as individuals. Unless I have had bad
experiences with the majority of interactions I've had with a particular
ethnic group, I have no basis to suspect that they will be any different
from anybody else. There is no particular group that fits this bill, so
pretty much everybody is safe at this point.

> If you think most people are color blind, you're sticking your head
> into the sand.

No, I don't think most people are color-blind, but I never implied
that I did. In fact, later in my post (a part which you cut out) I
ackowledge that unfortunately my level of tolerance and acceptance is by
far in the minority (among *all* people, not just whites).

> No one is free of prejudice. If you say you are I will call you a liar
> to your face.

Did I say I was free of prejudice? No.
So here it is. I'm a racist. Do you know what ethnic group I've
had more problems with than any other? Dutch people. Okay, I admit it,
every time I see a "Van" or "Vander" in front of someone's last name,
I'm
pre-disposed to think, "Oh, God, not another hypocritical,
holier-than-thou Hollander."
I am a product of my environment. I grew up in Grand Rapids,
Michigan, which is a predominantly Dutch, predominantly Christian-Reformed
area. I am neither. I think that perhaps the Netherlands is as liberal
as it is because they kicked out all their conservative, narrow-minded,
religiously snooty population. Unfortunately, that population seems to
have settled lock, stock, and barrel in West Michigan. In that area they
have a saying. "If you ain't Dutch, you ain't much." There is very real
discrimination among non-Dutch, non-Christian-Reformed people in that
area, even if they are white. Growing up in that environment, I saw the
petty persecutions that the "majority" community perpetrated and it irked
me. It still bugs me.
Does this stop me from interacting with them? No. Does it keep
me from viewing them as individuals? No. Does it keep me from making
friends with those whose personalities are compatible with mine? No. Did
it keep me from marrying a woman who is a quarter Dutch? No. Did it make
me exclude people from my Shadowrun game based on their ethnicity? No.
If it did, Alex VanderKleut (aka Sommers on this list) would have been
shit out of luck. As it was, not only did I allow him into my game, we
became good friends, and even ended up rooming together.
The point is that if you deal with people on an individual basis,
you are less inclined to let your preconceived notions interfere with your
ability to interact with them. Yes, I have biases. The important part is
that I recognize that fact, and do everything I can to make sure that I'm
not acting them.

> I don't pretend it doesn't exist, or that it's not bad.

Nor do I, and to imply I do sells me short, my friend.

> The system is pretty good to you, whatever you might think.

So says you. Walk a mile, brother, walk a mile.

[snip section on gerrymandering]

You have a very valid point here. This is something that I don't
really see an easy solution to. The problem is that anyone wanting to get
and keep power will do this. Do you think it would be any different if
the Latino population held the political or economic power in the area?
Politicians are politicians. Unfortunately, so long as we have a
representative form of government, situations like this can happen, and
indeed are even likely.
I'm open to suggestion on how to change it.

> Well-meaning? No. Ignorant? Sometimes. I assure you, most prejudice is
> quite active. See above.

Actually, I think you'd be surprised. People do stupid stuff for
the best of reasons. How does that go, "The road to Hell is paved with
good intentions." Hell, look at American history before the Civil War.
The majority opinion held that slavery was actually beneficial to the
African people. It got them out of their heathen environment and into a
place where they could experience the joy of salvation in the Christian
faith. Further, it allowed the "technologically backward savages" the
opportunity to learn how the "enlightened and innovative" white man did
things. It gave them "honest work."
Yes, it's total bushwah. But the important part is that people
actually believed that. It's tough to argue with people when they think
they're doing you a favor. It may be a twisted form of rationalization,
but it's the most dangerous form because people tend to be unreceptive to
the thought that you might *not* want to be "saved." As such,
discrimination and oppression that are ostensibly "in your best interests"
happens, more often than I think you realize.
To imply otherwise paints the white world as this cohesive,
devious, organized conspiracy to keep minorities down. This is the
veriest of paranoia. Hell, white people don't even like each other, what
makes you think they'll agree on anything long enough to make a concerted
effort to oppress you by way of conspiracy?
Further, if it weren't for whites, you'd have no rights at all.
From the Abolitionist movement to the Civil Rights movement, minorities
would have gotten nowhere had there not been a devoted, vocal, motivated
number of "majority" people espousing their cause. If your perception of
"white" is to be believed, you'd have us believe that black slaves
emancipated themselves. This is not the case. Not all white people are
as shallow, evil, and oppressive as you make them out to be.

> > But does this mean that if you're a minority that "the system" is
> >"out to get you?" Is it just another example of "The Man"
keeping you
> >down? No. It's not. It's that any law, policy, or social custom is
> >based on a certain set of assumptions. When those assumptions are no
> >longer valid, the system discriminates not because it wants to but because
> >it wasn't designed not to.
>
> Wrong. Let's go back and look at history again. The diaspora of the African
> Americans robbed them of their land, their language, their culture, their
> heritage, their families (slave families were broken up) as well as their
> freedom.

This just proves my point. The system is discriminatory because
the assumptions that it is based on are flawed. Slavery in the Americas
was based on the assumption that a) people of African descent were somehow
inferior, b) that their natural environment was apart from "God," and c)
that a life of "honest work" in the New World was inifinitely better than
living the "life of the savage."
That these assumptions are unilaterally false just goes to show
how laws and customs that discriminate happen. People don't like to feel
like the oppressive bad guy. As such, if they have a rationale for
thinking that they are doing "the right thing" they will oppress with
gusto, all the while thinking that they're helping you out.
Does this make them monsters? No. Does it mean that they're
ignorant? Yes.

> People of color on the American continent have been targetted for genocide
> and slavery. The socio-cultural-psycological effects of this linger for
> generations, along with the culture of being oppressed and the methods of
> the oppressors. I challenge you to assert that whites in America have the
> same oppressive historical factors influencing their culture.

Here's where you're falling into the biggest stereotype about
white people - that we're all the same. Look at the oppression that
followed Italian and Irish immigrants in this country. Being that the
"majority" population was largely Anglo-Saxon Protestant, Catholics were
seen as enemies. It took decades for Irish and Italian Americans to
become more or less accepted into "mainstream" American culture. Even
then, there was suspicion, fear, and prejudice. There were those that
were vehemently against the election of President John F. Kennedy (an
Irish Catholic) because of the fear that it would be like "putting the
Pope in the White House." It's the veriest of tripe, but people still
thought that it was true.
Then there are Jews. To most other minorities, they're "white"
too. But being Jewish in America separates you from the majority even
though the color of your skin is light.
To label all people of vaguely European descent as "white"
ignores centuries of ethnic, religious, and political bad blood. Just
because people have the same skin color doesn't mean that they're "alike."
Similarly, to imply that people haven't been oppressed simply because
they're white and therefore part of the majority is as stereotypical as
assuming that all blacks are inferior.

> The harrassment you get is nothing compared to what minorities endure. If I
> were to take up your attitude, I would say: "Waaaa. Cry me a river; it's
> not worth mentioning."

Maybe true, but my point is only that *you are not alone*. The
discrimination you suffer differs only in type and degree.

> Do the cops violate your person, like they do to Latinas who don't know
> their rights because no one told them they had any?

I'm not going to speak for the cops. I think that the very nature
of being a police officer for any length of time more or less dehumanizes
you and turns you into a flagrant asshole, but that's just me.
But god forbid someone should tell the poor Latina that she has
rights. Her ignorance is not the fault of the police.

> It's directly in the system. Police compile statistics to make profiles of
> "fruitful arrests". In other words, if you happen to the boundaries of said
> profile, they will stop you because "experience" has shown they can make
> more arrests that way. Guess what the profile looks like?

And why does that profile look that way. Here's a newsflash for
you: white kids in suburbia don't kill each other for a fly pair of shoes.
Before you jump all over my shit for implying that minorities are
predisposed to criminal behavior, let me clarify that the largest
determining factor in predisposition to crime is economic status
(Report of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, pick any year). While
it is unfortunate that minorities occupy a disproportionately large
section of the lower economic classes, this also means that they will have
a disproportionately large share of crimes.
There's a twisted cause-and-effect duality going on. Minorities
don't get opportunities because people view them as dirty, poorly educated
criminals. They get no education and are forced to commit crimes because
they have no opportunities. Do you see the problem here?
If the ghettos were populated mainly by Asian people, you can bet
your bottom dollar that it wouldn't take long for the "fruitful arrest"
profile to change pretty drastically.
The social factors at work here are exceedingly complex, and
incorporate far more than race. To imply that police are predisposed to
harass someone based solely on the color of their skin ignores the fact
that socio-economic factors propel the grain of statistical truth behind
the the stereotype.
Does that make it right? No, but what do you propose to do about
it. Increasing the minority population in the police force would seem to
be a good idea, but studies have shown that even minority police officers
are more likely to "harass" people fitting the profile. Why? Because
after a while, they see that there's something to it. It is incredible
how jaded police officers in inner city areas become, regardless of what
color they are.

> I got news for you: your statements do nothing to dissuade me from thinking
> that you, at least, do not understand or sympathize with how things really
> are.

Trust me, I both understand and sympathize. Probably better than
you realize. The difference is that I look for the causes behind the
effects, and see that it's a much bigger issue than just the color of
skin.

> And, you better take an ethnic studies class or read the literature;
> because I cannot be racist. Racism is defined in terms of the majority
> discriminating by race; by definition, a minority cannot be racist (they
> would be prejudiced).

I *have* taken an ethnic studies class (they are required at the
University I attended, which I think is a good thing), and you are full of
shit. Racism is not defined solely in terms of the majority, and I
suggest you get yourself a dictionary. There have been at least three
dictionary definitions of racism given here on the list, so I won't repeat
them.
And let me tell you, I have heard minority individuals spout
hateful, ignorant, stereotypical invective that made me (the white
oppressor) sick. If that's not racist, please enlighten me.

> You miss the point. Racism is about socioeconomic status and discrimination
> by color of skin. These "white-trash" trailer parks don't compare to the
> ghettoes because while they have socioeconomic factors and crime, they do
> not contend with racism against them.

No, you miss the point. Race is not everything, and other people
experience discrimination that is just as bad (if not worse in some cases)
as yours based on things *other* than race. And in many cases, they
actually *do* have race as an issue (refer back to my comment on the fact
that "white" does not imply "same").

> > The reason that media attention is so severe on things like this
> >is because they are shocking. You can only hear about so many gang
> >shootings before it loses its shock value. The media getis its ratings
> >and makes its money by shocking people. Sad but true. Otherwise, it's
> >just the "same old thing."
>
> If your theory is true, then answer me this: why is the media vastly
> underrepresented by minorites? Give me one example of a major media
> conglomerate owned and operated by minorites. Explain to me why California
> has only 1 Spanish language TV station.

How does this invalidate my theory? You're off topic again. The
media exists to make money. If they felt they could make money by
operating more than one Spanish-language station, do you think they'd
hesitate for a heartbeat?
Similarly, did that Spanish-language station run more news
coverage on Columbine than it did on a gang-related shooting in Watts? I
would be willing to bet that it did, which just reinforces my point. News
coverage gets the best ratings when it's shocking, it's a point of fact.
The media makes money off advertising, and ratings make advertising more
lucrative. Hence, high ratings = more money. Hence, by the transitive
property of mathematics, more shocking = more money.

> Do you think that would have happened in the ghetto? They would have killed
> his ass. Do you think the Ku Klux Klan will ever go to Watts or the Mission
> to proclaim their hatred of minorities? I know plenty of brothers would
> love to see that.

Again, you're missing the point. The point is that there is as
much violence and racial tension in the 'burbs as there is in the inner
city. It just tends to stay a little bit lower beneath the surface.

> One, I'm not racist, and cannot be by definition.

Crap. See above.

> Two, I did not assume anything about *you*; I was talking about
> minorities.

Actually, you made reference to oppression by the majority. As a
member of that majority, you were in fact talking about me.

> Three, you're in the so-called majority; the system works for you more
> easily than me.

This one I might grant you, but it's only because I'm lucky (see
below).

> You're also ignorant of what it means to be truly oppressed; which is
> not your fault.

Here is where you are so full of shit it pains me. To imply that
I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth is as racist as the worst
Klansman. Oppression comes in a lot of different forms, and I *have* been
discriminated against because of the color of my skin, even though I'm
"white". I have been discriminated against because of other things as
well, including my religion (or rather my lack thereof).
Further, I have had my culture marginalized and destroyed, my
people hunted down and butchered, and my history written by the
"victorious majority."
You see, I am the great all-American mutt. Perhaps I should have
prefaced all of my statements by pointing out that I am black. And
Cherokee. And Irish. And Scottish. And German. And English, French,
and Basque. That my skin is more or less white and that I happen to have
a French surname might make my life easier, but maybe not.
But it doesn't *ever* mean that I am not aware of the plight of
minority groups, that I've never seen discrimination firsthand, that I
don't see racism for what it is, that I don't understand oppression, or
that I am an insensitive proponent of the "opressive status quo."

So keep your stereotypes to yourself.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.html.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.html.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@********.att.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 17
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:06:15 -0700
> True, but flaming folks in e-mail won't make things better. Remember,
>most prejudice is the result of years and years of faulty thinking. This
>will take time to change. It can't happen overnight!

But it must start somewhere. Something must challenge the beliefs and
biases present. For example (and I know this from personal experience), how
many kids today avoid wearing clothing lines because "only blacks wear
that". How many kids don't use lingo like "hella" and "fat" and
"tight"
because only blacks talk like that? If I were to substitute "gang" for
black in there, perhaps that would apply to more people. And yet, "gangs"
are often equated with Latinos and Blacks, no? Schools ban "gang clothing"
and "gang style", right? The reason is ostensibly to curb gang-related
violence.

Does anyone else see something wrong with that picture? Can you truly
justify these biases?

Count my words strong, dismiss me as over the top, or if you prefer, racist
the other direction. But I will continue to say what I have to say, because
I know others feel my pain and don't have the benefit of my education or
resources to express the frustrations they have inside. Some do; the author
of "How I got to be Mexican" for example. Those that manage to make it need
to give back to the community instead of sell out to the establishment.


>Actually, I think (hope) that he was saying that we should concentrate on
>fixing the problem instead of just snarling over the fact that there is a
>problem.

Okay, the first thing to do is address the ignorance that gives rise to the
issue. As far as I'm concerned, I welcome debate and I'll debate whomever,
because if you're debating then you're thinking. On the other hand,
knee-jerk reactionism that does not bother to at least address the topics I
mentioned is not worth my time and effort, because it is indicative of a
closed mind, and that is something I cannot change.

>>"Any conception of African Americans that fails to see them as engaged in
>>exercising their human agency -- sometimes successfully, sometimes not --
>>cannot hope to grasp what they are all about. -- Adelbert H. Jenkins
>>(1955)"
>>
> That goes for everybody!

If everyone tried to understand and appreciate everyone else, we would have
these problems. But that's a dream world; I live in the real world.

>>Does it really depend upon only personality? Are you really color blind? If
>>you think most people are color blind, you're sticking your head into the
>>sand. And if your statements are an example of politeness, I think we must
>>agree to differ on the meaning of it.
>
> Actually, I think he was talking about himself. And in the end, he can
>only govern his own behavior and attitudes. It's great that he is free of
>prejudice. It's not so great that you are slamming him 'cause his view is
>the minority.

Many of the well-read professional members on this list go on to have
families and raise children. What will they teach their children? You see,
the behavior and attitudes of this generation are passed along to the next.

As far as slamming, well, as you might note, some sarcasm was passed back
and forth in both directions. But I still have to think about what was
said, and what I believe and say, in turn.

> I dunno, I can say that I myself am almost completely free of prejudice.
>Not entirely, but I am working on it. And isn't that the important thing?

I know people that think they're free of prejudice, but won't wear Adidas
shoes because only blacks wear them. The pernicious thing about prejudice
is that it colors your thinking, in exactly the same way that a pair of
rose tinted glasses would allow you to see the world in mostly shades of
pink. If you're used to the perception, you don't notice it. If someone
else tells you everything's not pink, it's blue, it might cause you to
think and perhaps, even, take off your invisible filter through which
you've become accustomed to perceiving the world.

> I dunno again. In Canada, we have laws which enforce multiculturalism.
>I think that they are good and cool. I enjoy other cultures. That being
>said, the recent (and ongoing) Quebec problem kinda shows that legislation
>doesn't work so well. You have to convice folks that their attitudes need
>to be changed. You can't do that by telling them that they have it better
>and berating them for it!

We have laws in the U.S. that doesn't allow job discrimination. That's a
good thing. However, it does not prevent it from happening.

I don't see myself as berating someone else for having it better. I just
want them to recognize that it might be that we don't have the same
conception of the U.S. because the system treats them differently from me.
And that, perhaps, inequalities in the system shouldn't exist.

> Out of the minorities, do all of them vote to change things? I'm not
>argueing, just a question. The democratic process seems to depend on every
>group making their voices heard.

One, there is a sense of hopelessness and frustration from being lied to
and manipulated. Two, there have been barriers erected at the polls in the
past; language, location, economic level, you name it. Three, the powers
that be try to dilute their voting rights as much as possible; see U.S. vs.
L.A. Board of Supervisors. Four, they aren't represented equally. I have an
entire paper you can read about this called _The Emergence of Ethnic
Officeholders in California_ by Larry L. Berg and C.B. Holman at the
University of Southern California that details this in depth.

> You seem to be an intelligent and well-read man. So I ask you, do you
>truly believe that there is a conclave of powerful white men who spend their
>time looking for ways to screw over minorities. I'm sorry, that's what it
>sounds like.

Once again, I refer you to U.S. vs. L.A. County Board of Supervisors, and
the articles I have cited before.

> Actually, harrassment is harrassment is harrassment, no matter who you
>are. I also get 'cause I'm young, I wear a goatee (i like it what can I say
>:)) and I wear a lot of black (i just like the colour). And actually, I
>beleive that he is telling you to take up his attitude. He seems to be OK
>with his situation.

There are levels to harrassment. The level of "harrassment" a migrant farm
worker gets from the Riverside Police department (beatings and murder) is
more serious than the harrassment you get.

> Sigh! Those ARE regrettable and terrible incidents, but are they all
>that happen? Aren't there also cops who respect minorities and treat them
>equally? I'll bet you 10:1 that there are. Unfortunately the bad ones get
>the press.

Cops. There's a long rant there for you. I'll keep it short. One, they tend
to get hardened by their constant association with "criminals". Two, I do
believe that there are hard-working, decent, and honorable police officers.
I also think that their job beats them down. Three, sociological studies of
police officers (and I have to find the study) suggest that police officers
should not spend 5 days a week at their job; the stress and toll is too
high. It suggests a routine like firefighters, 3 days on, with the
remaining days working out in the community. Four, authority can always be
abused, and existing prejudices are empowered and reinforced. Five, this
isn't very short so I'll stop right there.

> Then the answer is obvious, educate everyone as to their rights! It can
>be done!

That's right! First, we must fix the inequalities in the educational
system, which naturally favors those that get good grades based in part on
their ability and inclination to study and presupposes an environment that
supports this.

> The man does have a point. I am reminded of something that was said in a
>Criminology class I am taking. The gist of it was that ALL oppressed people
>should stand together to make their points known. To elevate one cause
>above another is to dilute the effect. I am reminded of an old martial arts
>principle; to achieve to maximum effect, one must focus all of his or her
>energy into the smallest area possible.

To do that, you must tackle the issues one at a time. Voting.
Representation. Education. Intervention with the children. Barrios Unidos
works to intervene and support minority children, to break them out of the
cycle of violence and abuse that is in their environment, and to give them
the tools and instill the values that will allow them to succeed. The most
important battle to be won is the heart and minds of the next generation.
That's why I teach martial arts to these kids; they need it far more than
someone who can pay.

> Actually, racism (in my brother's textbooks anyway) is described as being
>prejudiced on the basis of race, NO MATTER YOUR OWN RACE. If you say that
>minorities cannot be racist, I'll call you a liar.

That's not what was given in my Ethnic Studies or attendance of lectures on
Ethnic Studies.

Still, people want to quibble this point and miss the overall picture,
which is, whatever you call it, it happens.

> Classism is more prevanlent than racism thogh (as one person said in an
>earlier post).

I don't buy this and I have numerous studies proving that the so-called
minorities being oppressed are also in the lower socioeconomic strata.

>>Well, if you can count being from a broken home, not having a stable
>>family,living with violence, having a lack of positive role models that
>>they can relate to, having their culture, language, and self-esteem
>>constantly devalued, having their violence directed inwards to themselves,
>>denied the same opportunities that would go to a white kid, being targetted
>>for drugs/alcohol consumption, being actively oppressed by authority
>>figures, being circumvented as much as possible in the real government of
>>the U.S., and being catagorized and led away from paths that would better
>>their situation (and often having to sell out just to take that chance), I
>>suppose that's ahead of the game. I don't think so. However, those that
>>manage to make it in spite of all these difficulties are strong.
>>
>>I've had plenty of friends have long-term psychological problems because
>>their parents got divorced. And I've had plenty of friends who would give
>>that barely a thought, because that's the least of their worries. Care to
>>make a guess on the respective backgrounds of each?
>>
>
> Actually, I think he ment only in terms of snapping and repeating
>Columbine.

That doesn't invalidate my points.

> No one can, but don't just assume that the system automatically works far
>all white folk, cause it probably doesn't. Again I'm canadian, so things
>are different up here.

I don't assume that the system works for *all* white folk, but it does work
for whites, in general, than it does for minorities.

>Geoff Haacke
--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 18
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 13:23:09 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Adam Getchell wrote:

> That's why I teach martial arts to these kids; they need it far more than
> someone who can pay.

Amen, brother. As a martial artist myself I can certainly attest
to that. Sometimes the people who might benefit the most from it are the
least likely to be in a position to learn it. Kudos to you for giving
them the opportunity.

Marc
Message no. 19
From: Shawn Plummer plummer@***.cc.geneseo.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 13:24:49 -0400
Adam wrote:
>>Well, fortunately for you, you aren't a poor minority driving a beat up
>>car, you speak educated English well, and you know your rights.
>>


Isn't that the purpose of all the citizenship stuff that
immigrants go through, so that they understand their rights in the new
country they wish to belong too? (an honest question)


--
Plum
shawn@*******.net

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which
differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people
are not even capable of forming such opinions."
- Albert Einstein (1875-1955)
Message no. 20
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 16:25:46 -0400
GMPax@***.com wrote:

> In a message dated 5/19/99 9:59:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> demonnic@*********.net writes:
>
> > 8.) Language. The official language of the United States is English.
>
> Um. No.
>
> The United States does not have ANY "official language," beyond the
language
> of customary use, and the language chosen (by default, some 200+ years ago)
> for recording our laws and governmental proceedings in.
>

That's why when cops in LA or anywhere there is even 1 person who doesn't
speak English arrest someone, they have to read that individual their Miranda
rights in Spanish, French, Italian, and English. Personally, I think English
SHOULD be the official language of the US. Course, I'm not Latino, so I could be
wrong. ;^)

--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+ M-
Message no. 21
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 17:47:46 -0700
I was WONDERING when someone would remember that little, obscure bit of history.

John Penta

Iridios wrote:

> Actually, English *is* the official language of the U.S. 200+ years
> ago, Congress had a vote whether they should use English or German as
> the language of official government business. English was chosen by a
> narrow margin. (IIRC)
>
> Just because they don't require citizens to speak English, doesn't
> mean that it isn't the official language.
Message no. 22
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 17:58:01 EDT
In a message dated 5/19/1999 9:49:07 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
GMPax@***.com writes:

> No. But since the majority of
> > the US is English-speaking, this makes English a good language to know
> > in the US.
>
> Actually, I am not sure this is correct. I think Spanish is the primary
> language of around half of the population of the US; I'm not sure of the
> exact numbers, though, but I'm fairly confident it'd be a close thing, in
> the
> least.
>
> English IS the language of our government, our laws, and our history,
> however. So it IS still a good idea to be moderately competent with it.

Just replying to this section. The primary language is still english, by
some 30% increase as compared to Spanish.

-K (just fyi)
Message no. 23
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 16:21:57 CST
Since this was in response to one of my letters (I think), I'll respond.

>
>But it must start somewhere. Something must challenge the beliefs and
>biases present. For example (and I know this from personal experience), how
>many kids today avoid wearing clothing lines because "only blacks wear
>that". How many kids don't use lingo like "hella" and "fat"
and "tight"
>because only blacks talk like that? If I were to substitute "gang" for
>black in there, perhaps that would apply to more people. And yet, "gangs"
>are often equated with Latinos and Blacks, no? Schools ban "gang clothing"
>and "gang style", right? The reason is ostensibly to curb gang-related
>violence.
>

Remember, I am from Canada, things are a little different up here.
Actually, I know a few people who use hella (they got it from South Park
tho). Actually, up in Canada, there biases are rather different. There is
very little discrimination vs African canadians (if that's the term),
Latinos, Asians, etc, compared to the conflicts between English and French
Canada and between First Nations people and non-First nations people.
So-called "gangsta fashions" are worn by a lot of the teenagers up here
these days (at least where I'm from). But that is more a representation of
trying to copy American culture I believe (like the grunge craze - of which
I was a participant)

>Does anyone else see something wrong with that picture? Can you truly
>justify these biases?
>

Of course there's something wrong with that picture, I'm not denying
that. However, it doesn't to any good to throw out flags on everything that
a person could find offensive and blind folks to the larger picture. (I
don't know if I stated that correctly, but I just got out of class and I'm a
little fried.)

>Count my words strong, dismiss me as over the top, or if you prefer, racist
>the other direction. But I will continue to say what I have to say, because
>I know others feel my pain and don't have the benefit of my education or
>resources to express the frustrations they have inside. Some do; the author
>of "How I got to be Mexican" for example. Those that manage to make it need
>to give back to the community instead of sell out to the establishment.
>

I would hope that you are proud of your beliefs and want to state them.
That's the 1st Ammendment in action (I think - remember, I'm Canadian).
However, also remember the old saw "You attract more flies with honey than
with sugar!"

It's good you're thinking of others in your situation, just don't forget
that others may share your situation without you realizing it! I had that
oint illustrated to me very pointedly once and i never forgot.
>
> >Actually, I think (hope) that he was saying that we should concentrate on
> >fixing the problem instead of just snarling over the fact that there is a
> >problem.
>
>Okay, the first thing to do is address the ignorance that gives rise to the
>issue. As far as I'm concerned, I welcome debate and I'll debate whomever,
>because if you're debating then you're thinking. On the other hand,
>knee-jerk reactionism that does not bother to at least address the topics I
>mentioned is not worth my time and effort, because it is indicative of a
>closed mind, and that is something I cannot change.
>

Knee-jerk reactions on either side don't help. I thought I had addressed
the topic using my own POV. Let me try again. I agree there is
discrimination. Anyone who says differently is an idiot (my criminlogoy
professors word not mine - but I liked 'em). However, a person should ask
"Where should the most effort be spent- identifying every single thing that
can be considered offensive, or working to cut off this behaviour at the
source, through education and, in some cases re-education? My vote is for
the latter!

> >>"Any conception of African Americans that fails to see them as engaged
>in
> >>exercising their human agency -- sometimes successfully, sometimes not
>--
> >>cannot hope to grasp what they are all about. -- Adelbert H. Jenkins
> >>(1955)"
> >>
> > That goes for everybody!
>
>If everyone tried to understand and appreciate everyone else, we would have
>these problems. But that's a dream world; I live in the real world.

I think you meant to say "If everyone tried to understand and appreciate
everyone else, we would not have these problems." But never mind.

What's wrong with trying to make the world like the one from my dreams
(albeit in a very small way)? I thought that was the idea behind removing
discrimination.

>
>Many of the well-read professional members on this list go on to have
>families and raise children. What will they teach their children? You see,
>the behavior and attitudes of this generation are passed along to the next.

I know that very well (my brother is a Sociology major and I read his
books). However, that fails to address my point. He was NOT racist.
Therefore he would teach his children not to be racist.

>
>As far as slamming, well, as you might note, some sarcasm was passed back
>and forth in both directions. But I still have to think about what was
>said, and what I believe and say, in turn.
>

Sorry! I'm a very sarcastic person (as my rommate can attest!) However,
sometimes sarcasm is not always understood!
thing?

>
>I know people that think they're free of prejudice, but won't wear Adidas
>shoes because only blacks wear them. The pernicious thing about prejudice
>is that it colors your thinking, in exactly the same way that a pair of
>rose tinted glasses would allow you to see the world in mostly shades of
>pink. If you're used to the perception, you don't notice it. If someone
>else tells you everything's not pink, it's blue, it might cause you to
>think and perhaps, even, take off your invisible filter through which
>you've become accustomed to perceiving the world.
>

I never said I didn't have prejudice. I said that I try really hard not
to let it interfere with my thinking. Sometimes I succeed and sometimes I
don't. I'm not perfect and never claimed to be! But I try! And I would
like to think that counts!

>
>We have laws in the U.S. that doesn't allow job discrimination. That's a
>good thing. However, it does not prevent it from happening.
>

True, but that's were the legislation comes in! Use it! :l

>I don't see myself as berating someone else for having it better. I just
>want them to recognize that it might be that we don't have the same
>conception of the U.S. because the system treats them differently from me.

I think that other people were trying to convince you that you didn't
stand alone, that they knew SOME of what you (and you fellows) were going
through. Empathy is the first step to understanding in my book! :)

>And that, perhaps, inequalities in the system shouldn't exist.

No, they shouldn't. Most folks agree to that (I hope :) )

>
>One, there is a sense of hopelessness and frustration from being lied to
>and manipulated. Two, there have been barriers erected at the polls in the
>past; language, location, economic level, you name it. Three, the powers
>that be try to dilute their voting rights as much as possible; see U.S. vs.
>L.A. Board of Supervisors. Four, they aren't represented equally. I have an
>entire paper you can read about this called _The Emergence of Ethnic
>Officeholders in California_ by Larry L. Berg and C.B. Holman at the
>University of Southern California that details this in depth.
>

Again, I don't know much about how the electoral process works down
South. I am interested in the paper tho' (expanding my horizons and such).
If you have an electronic copy, send me one, or else tell me how to get
ahold of a copy!

>
>Once again, I refer you to U.S. vs. L.A. County Board of Supervisors, and
>the articles I have cited before.
>

Ummmmm, how do I get them? I don't know where they are. See last
comment.

>
>There are levels to harrassment. The level of "harrassment" a migrant farm
>worker gets from the Riverside Police department (beatings and murder) is
>more serious than the harrassment you get.

Oh, undoubtedly! Like I said, I'm from Canada. the RCMP and municipal
(ie city) police are different than in the States. Also, as I said, the
social make-up and situation is very different, so it's not really a valid
comparison.

>
>Cops. There's a long rant there for you. I'll keep it short. One, they tend
>to get hardened by their constant association with "criminals". Two, I do
>believe that there are hard-working, decent, and honorable police officers.
>I also think that their job beats them down. Three, sociological studies of
>police officers (and I have to find the study) suggest that police officers
>should not spend 5 days a week at their job; the stress and toll is too
>high. It suggests a routine like firefighters, 3 days on, with the
>remaining days working out in the community. Four, authority can always be
>abused, and existing prejudices are empowered and reinforced. Five, this
>isn't very short so I'll stop right there.
>

I agree that the job does tend to wear a person down. It says so in one
of my textbooks. However from the cops I've met and spoke with the seem to
be normal folks trying to do what's best. Unfortunately, cops (even those
of a minority) do tend to believe in the stereotypes. Unfortunately, (at
least up here) these stereotypes are more influenced my socioeconomic
positions, which some minorities belong to. That's a sad, but true fact.

>
>That's right! First, we must fix the inequalities in the educational
>system, which naturally favors those that get good grades based in part on
>their ability and inclination to study and presupposes an environment that
>supports this.

First of all, all educational system support those with good grades
that's the point. That being said, there are programs (at least here) that
try to help those in poor environments. Also, if a child is not inclined to
study, then he won't study! You can't really expect people to accomodate
those who won't learn.

>To do that, you must tackle the issues one at a time. Voting.
>Representation. Education. Intervention with the children. Barrios Unidos
>works to intervene and support minority children, to break them out of the
>cycle of violence and abuse that is in their environment, and to give them
>the tools and instill the values that will allow them to succeed. The most
>important battle to be won is the heart and minds of the next generation.
>That's why I teach martial arts to these kids; they need it far more than
>someone who can pay.
>

Exactly! Community programs have had a proven effect! Keep it up!

>That's not what was given in my Ethnic Studies or attendance of lectures on
>Ethnic Studies.
>

It's what was taught in the classes I and my brother have taken.

>Still, people want to quibble this point and miss the overall picture,
>which is, whatever you call it, it happens.
>

Oh, of course it happens, just to everybody regardless of the colour of
their skin or their religion or creed!

>I don't buy this and I have numerous studies proving that the so-called
>minorities being oppressed are also in the lower socioeconomic strata.

Unfortunately they do tend to be! However, studies have shown (in
Canada, I would think that it could apply to the US) that those who are
socioeconomically disadvantaged commit more crime regardless of race. This
leads police to act more against people in these groups. Unfortunately, as
I said before, a lot of minorities are socioeconomically disadvantaged.

>
>That doesn't invalidate my points.
>
No, but you missed his point. :l

>
>I don't assume that the system works for *all* white folk, but it does work
>for whites, in general, than it does for minorities.
>

Actually, it works more for upper and middle class white people, I
believe, moreso than for all white folk (but that may be my own prejudices
colouring my judgement there!). Also, don't forget ethnic discrimination,
that's more important than most people realize.

>--Adam
>
>acgetchell@*******.edu
>"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
>


Geoff Haacke
"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 24
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 08:42:25 +1000
Shawn Plummer writes:
> Adam wrote:
> >>Well, fortunately for you, you aren't a poor minority driving a beat up
> >>car, you speak educated English well, and you know your rights.
> >>
>
>
> Isn't that the purpose of all the citizenship stuff that
> immigrants go through, so that they understand their rights in the new
> country they wish to belong too? (an honest question)

Umm... many of the minority groups Adam is talking about (well, okay, one)
is well known for not going through formal immigration channels.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 25
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 08:44:25 +1000
GMPax writes:
> > 8.) Language. The official language of the United States is English.
>
> Um. No.
>
> The United States does not have ANY "official language," beyond
> the language
> of customary use, and the language chosen (by default, some 200+
> years ago)
> for recording our laws and governmental proceedings in.

What do you think an official language is? It's the language of government.
Take Canada: official languages of French and English, so all government
proceedings are available in French and English.

Not all countries enforce their official languages, you know...

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 26
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 17:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
> > True, but flaming folks in e-mail won't make things better.
Remember, most prejudice is the result of years and years of faulty
thinking. This will take time to change. It can't happen overnight!
>
> But it must start somewhere.
<Adam G>

Adam, although it might not be my place (after all, I haven't been in
America for going on 18 years now, so I don't really know what it's
like over there), but I just have one thing to say.

Yes, prejudice and racism is bad. Yes, we should try to get rid of it.
On the other hand, getting angry about it rarely, if ever, helps. More
often than not, if you get angry because the other guy is being, in
your view or in reality, racist or prejudiced or one-eyed or whatever
and you let that bleed through into your responses, you're only going
to get his hackles up. There's nothing so stubborn on this planet as an
angry, defensive human.

I understand that for some people rational discussion just won't work,
but neither will getting into a slanging match or a fistfight or
whatever. Those are the ones that, in most cases, you just have to give
up on.

In other words, I understand what you're trying to say and I agree with
you (in principle - I wouldn't know if the examples and studies you're
quoting are correct or not), but being confrontational about it doesn't
help anyone's case.

*Doc' grins. "Don't call me brother. I only have one brother. Friend,
on the other hand, is appropriate."*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
Message no. 27
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 22:03:07 CST
>What do you think an official language is? It's the language of government.
>Take Canada: official languages of French and English, so all government
>proceedings are available in French and English.
>
>Not all countries enforce their official languages, you know...
>
At least not officially! :)

>--
>..sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
>


Geoff Haacke

"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 28
From: Iridios iridios@*********.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 00:07:58 -0400
GMPax@***.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/19/99 10:56:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> iridios@*********.com writes:
>
> > Actually, English *is* the official language of the U.S. 200+ years
> > ago, Congress had a vote whether they should use English or German as
> > the language of official government business. English was chosen by a
> > narrow margin. (IIRC)
> >
> > Just because they don't require citizens to speak English, doesn't
> > mean that it isn't the official language.
>
> >blink<
>
> :: assumes classic "Deer-In-Headlight" position of total poleaxedly-stunned
> amazement ::
>
> >blink ... blink<
>
> Er, could you direct me to the source of your information? I'd dearly
> -=LOVE=- to read that one ... truly!!!!

History text book when I was in high school. As that was over 10
years ago, I can't recall the exact title.

>
> Sean
> GM Pax


--
Iridios
"God does not roll dice"
-Albert Einstein
Message no. 29
From: Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 09:32:39 +0200
Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> Shawn Plummer writes:
> > Adam wrote:
> > >>Well, fortunately for you, you aren't a poor minority driving a beat up
> > >>car, you speak educated English well, and you know your rights.
> > >>
> >
> >
> > Isn't that the purpose of all the citizenship stuff that
> > immigrants go through, so that they understand their rights in the new
> > country they wish to belong too? (an honest question)
>
> Umm... many of the minority groups Adam is talking about (well, okay, one)
> is well known for not going through formal immigration channels.
>

What rights do illegal aliens have? (not being facetious or anything,
just curious)

> --
> .sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com


--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com
Wandata
Message no. 30
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 10:21:59 -0700
>First off, a slight warning: I tend to get very "into" a debate sometimes,
>and may seem to be attacking folks. That's not hte case; I just get too
>involved in the heat of a debate now and then. Read on, with that in mind,
>please. :-)

Noted. However, my point, which I'll summarize here for those that don't
want to read detailed rebuttals, is that you haven't bothered to step
outside the box of your own opinions and read or learn about what I'm
trying to tell you. I don't care whether or not you agree with me; you
haven't said anything convincing. However, at least I've bothered to try to
understand what you're saying.

>Who ever said that? Not me, and I agree (partially mind) that sometimes,
>talk of racial prejudice occupies FAR too much time for far too many people.
>
>Yes, there are still problems. Sometimes significant ones.
>
>But whining about them won't fix them. Get up and DO something to fix them.

I am doing something about it. I'm bettering myself so I can be in a
position to help others. I'm taking part in the activism and politics. And
I'm telling you my opinion, whether you want to hear it or not.

Do you know what Barrios Unidos is? Do you work to teach inner city kids
martial arts to further their self-esteem, provide a good role model, show
them they can succeed?

>Call me a liar then. Want my address so we can MEET face to face?

I don't know what your intentions are here, my friend, but take them
offline. It seems to silly to bother with.

>_Your_ statement is prejudiced: you are using a sterortype ("all people are
>prejudiced") to judge INDIVIDUALS, without any corroborating evidence to
>support your judgement of a given individual.

I have not encountered, in reading, in person, or in correspondence, one
person that I deem to be free of prejudice. That goes for myself, everyone
I know, and everyone I've taught. That's my criteria. I'd be happy to be
proven wrong.

>Do you know that for a fact? Have you investigated every aspect of this
>person's life to the nth detail?

The point is not him, the point is the minorities. I KNOW for a fact
they've been discriminated against.

>That's not right. It should be the highest scoring youths ... but that girl
>scored well above a large number of minority students, who WERE admitted, but
>she was not.

You think quotas are bad? Perhaps if you could truly understand the
disadvantages faced by a minority living in an environment not conducive to
studying, you might not begrudge the *few* that do make it out of the
ghetto a place and chance for education. It is a fact that it is easier to
succeed with an affluent background than with an inner city one.

>Those whites hold power because (hands over an official Clue (TM, copyright):
>THEY HAVE THE _MONEY_ TO PAY FOR THEIR CAMPAIGN, by and largely. That's
>Plutocratic, not racist.

It's not about campaign money. See U.S. v. Los Angeles County Board.

>You want Latino politicians in office? Latinos are in the majority in
>California? VOTE THEM INTO OFFICE.

That might work if their voting power weren't diluted. It's starting to
happen, fortunately. Of course, the ballots are now all in English, and
Latinos have to wait 14 years for citizenship and the right to vote, vs. 7
years for all others...

>Given enough _involvement_ in the community, enough political _activity_ by
>the community ... there is NOTHING in the US stopping a Latino man woman or
>CHILD (within the requirements of the office ;-) from running for and GAINING
>a political office.

That's right. But don't pretend that the so-called majority tried to keep
the minorities down.

>The Republican Party, shortly after Desert Storm, asked Colin Powell to run
>for PRESIDENT. Yep, Powell --- a black man.

The military doesn't offer the best opportunities for minorities. Given the
percentage of Latinos and Blacks in the Armed Forces, why is Colin Powell
the only high ranking minority?

>And I wouldn't have cared if he was white, black, or POLKA DOTTED.

Glad to hear it.

>I suspect _you_ would, given the power to do so. Your militant stripes are
>showing.

I want a fair share of opportunity, no more, no less. As would any other
reasonable person. I stand up for my rights, and I state my opinions, and I
don't let anyone put me down. If that's what you call militant, I'm proud
to be so, or whatever term you want to use.

>He said "how much" not "all." I suggest reading statements
LITERALLY, not
>_trying_ to see what you _want_ to. "how much" can mean a wide range of
>things. The proper response wouldhave been "What do you mean 'how much' ...
>could you specifiy a ballpark figure of what portion you mean?"
>
>Try again.

This is a dismissal of the problem, and not acceptable from my point of view.
>
>> People of color on the American continent have been targetted for genocide
>> and slavery. The socio-cultural-psycological effects of this linger for
>> generations,
>
>If you LET it.

You know absolutely nothing about this, and until you experience it for
yourself, you have nothing to talk about.

>Sounds trite, but, we are talking about things (actual slavery, for example)
>which, some of them, _ended_ over TWO -ÎNTURIES=- ago!

Really? I guess you and I must add differently because 1865 doesn't seem
like two centuries to me, and let's see, the Civil Rights movement was in
the 1960's and what were those blacks complaining about anyways?

Second, racism isn't just one factor. It's socioeconomic and loss of
opportunities and oppression of culture and wondering where you fit into
this world and a whole host of factors detailed in
_Multicultural/Multiracial Psychology_ by Manuel Ramirez, if you would care
to read.

>For how many MORE centuries will you beat this very very DEAD horse?

Do the reading. Come back when you have actually tried to understand.

>OK, the people of pre-20th century Africa were enslaved (as often by people
>in their OWN nations/continent/etc), and very VERY badly treated by their
>European / American owners.
>
>It's over. Deal with it. Move on.

Easy for you to say. Your ignorance is showing.

>But, to say that ALL white people, and their "system," seek to KEEP DEM
>NIGGA'S DOWN is as racist, as prejudiced, and as much a LIE, as the actions
>of those _individuals_ who do indeed seek such things.

Nice straw man to knock down. I never said anything of the sort.

>OK, opression, as a set of methods, is not something one culture has, and
>another does not. It's a series of decisions.

I see. Politics has no cultural component, then?

>> I challenge you to assert that whites in America have the
>> same oppressive historical factors influencing their culture.
>>
>
>Depends on the specific ethnicity of WHITE you refer to. We come from
>different places too.

That's right. But if you're again looking at my references, you might
remember "White Man's burden" and certain similiarities that Europeans
shared in terms of their attitudes towards indigenous peoples and their
exploitation of "uncivilized savages".

>Religious intolerance (read: ideological prejudice) is what STARTED the white
>presence in the Americas, in a sense. The Puritans and Plymouth Rock, here
>in New England, for example.

Right, and the Puritans turned around and did it to others. Salem Witch trials?

>Not slavery, no. But guess what: NO one, single people has a monopoly on
>suffering the effects of an oppressor.

Never said that. What I said, was that the so-called minorities in America;
Blacks, Latinos, Asian-Americans, and indigenous Americans, suffer the
brunt of oppression in America today.

>No. It's a bunch of bigots and assholes who happen to CHOOSE police work.
>Maybe more Latinos (and other minorities) should seek out employment as
>Police Officers? Then you won't have this one bunch of "good-old-boys"
>sitting on all teh power of the Badge. It will be SHARED, and incidents like
>this one will (a) lessen in frequency, and (b) increase in consequences.

Police work tends to dehumanize in general, and becoming part of the power
structure in this country without helping your own people is what is termed
as "selling out". This unfortunately happens a lot, as Dr. Martin Luther
King eloquent notes.

>And knowing your rights is not something that is _exclusive_ to being White.
>People new to this country, yes. Anyone born here, and/or schooled here,
>should have a clue that they can RESEARCH what rights, if any, they have.

Cultural bias again. First generation people that get to the U.S. don't
necessarily have this attitude. You've at least been educated into the
exercise of your franchise. I know people who literally did not know that
the police couldn't stop them and do whatever they wanted. Oh, they found
out later, but that didn't help at the time.

>According to the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary (keyword: mw for those of
>us on AOL, or you can go to http://www.m-w.com on the web), the definition of
>"racism" is as follows:

I would no sooner use a dictionary as a reference in Ethnic Studies than I
would in Quantum Mechanics. Do the research, my friend.

>I come from that broken home and that unstable family, I have lived with
>violence, I have seen few if any positive role models in my life that I could
>relate to, I have had to direct my violence, hatred, and every OTHER negative
>emotion inwards (staff at a treatment facility, to me: "it doesn't matter how
>you feel, what matters is you must behave properly" -- nie thing to say to a
>13 year old, eh). People like YOU, right now, are attacking my culture, (in

I don't think you understand what an attack on your culture is if I, the
lone dissenting opinion, can give you feelings of persecution.

>Those zoning laws are illegal ... and where _I_ live, there are no such
>things.

That's right, if it's illegal then it doesn't happen.

>This has been refuted already. I refer you once more to a DICTIONARY.

Research.

>Yes you have. You have assumed he did NOT suffer violence in his life. Or
>discrimination of any kind.

No, I said, he has not suffered racially motivated oppression nor does he
feel the weight of a discriminatory system upon him.

>There -- that's ANOTHER assumption. :-)

You haven't been reading my points. I documented this, and provided
references to further studies about this. As I said in the beginning, until
you do some work with inner city kids, take some ethnic studies class, or
chill out in the ghettos, you really can't understand what I'm saying to
you.


--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 31
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 10:41:43 -0700
> Isn't that the purpose of all the citizenship stuff that
>immigrants go through, so that they understand their rights in the new
>country they wish to belong too? (an honest question)

You're absolutely right. And one would hope that it at least gives a start
to new immigrants.

However, the real world is complicated by these factors:

One, people often live in the U.S. for years before gaining their citizenship.

Two, many people (such as those that are, say, fleeing the war in El
Salvador) expect autocratic police and government behavior, whatever the
laws say.

Three, the educational system particularly in the disadvantaged parts of
the United States may not teach these values, and in fact, the social
system may show otherwise.

Four, in California and the Southwestern parts of the U.S., there is a
sizable fraction of people that are in the U.S. illegally. The "Taco
curtain" that separates parts of the border between the U.S. and Mexico is
an indication of the tensions that exist.

>Plum
>shawn@*******.net
>
>"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which
>differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people
>are not even capable of forming such opinions."
>- Albert Einstein (1875-1955)

Amen brother!
--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 32
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 12:06:05 CST
Sorry folks, I promised myself I would drag myself out of this debate but...

>Noted. However, my point, which I'll summarize here for those that don't
>want to read detailed rebuttals, is that you haven't bothered to step
>outside the box of your own opinions and read or learn about what I'm
>trying to tell you. I don't care whether or not you agree with me; you
>haven't said anything convincing. However, at least I've bothered to try to
>understand what you're saying.
>

Ummm, no offense, but it kinda sounds like you suffer from the same
complaint.

>I don't know what your intentions are here, my friend, but take them
>offline. It seems to silly to bother with.
>

Sigh! This whole debate is starting to get silly. NOT the subject
matter, but the way it's being "discussed".

>You think quotas are bad? Perhaps if you could truly understand the
>disadvantages faced by a minority living in an environment not conducive to
>studying, you might not begrudge the *few* that do make it out of the
>ghetto a place and chance for education. It is a fact that it is easier to
>succeed with an affluent background than with an inner city one.
>

Whoo boy. OK example time. In Canada a few yaers ago, there was a case
of a man who complained that he was discriminated against. He was a white
male. He wanted to be a firefighter. He scored well on the testing but
lost out to a woman. This would be OK except she scored a LOT lower than he
did. Double standard no? I dunno about you but if there is a fire I want
the most qualified person, no matter WHO they are to save my sorry behind.

>That might work if their voting power weren't diluted. It's starting to
>happen, fortunately. Of course, the ballots are now all in English, and
>Latinos have to wait 14 years for citizenship and the right to vote, vs. 7
>years for all others...
>

Huh?

>The military doesn't offer the best opportunities for minorities. Given the
>percentage of Latinos and Blacks in the Armed Forces, why is Colin Powell
>the only high ranking minority?
>

Generalship and the Joint Chiefs has to be earned through merit and
experience, maybe he was the most experienced and capable moniroity present?
(Besides, I thought that the military WAS pretty integrated for a while
(comparatively?))

>Really? I guess you and I must add differently because 1865 doesn't seem
>like two centuries to me, and let's see, the Civil Rights movement was in
>the 1960's and what were those blacks complaining about anyways?
>

OK bad math aside, he does have a point. I know that I am paying for sins
that my ancestors DIDN'T commit (they all immigtrated long after
Saskatchewan was settled.)

>Nice straw man to knock down. I never said anything of the sort.
>

Actually, you kinda did. :l

>I see. Politics has no cultural component, then?

I think he's saying that all cultures suffer from ethnocenticity.

>Never said that. What I said, was that the so-called minorities in America;
>Blacks, Latinos, Asian-Americans, and indigenous Americans, suffer the
>brunt of oppression in America today.
>

You hinted pretty strongly tho'.

>Police work tends to dehumanize in general, and becoming part of the power
>structure in this country without helping your own people is what is termed
>as "selling out". This unfortunately happens a lot, as Dr. Martin Luther
>King eloquent notes.

So, then they SHOULDN'T try to gain authority to help their fellows???

>Cultural bias again. First generation people that get to the U.S. don't
>necessarily have this attitude. You've at least been educated into the
>exercise of your franchise. I know people who literally did not know that
>the police couldn't stop them and do whatever they wanted. Oh, they found
>out later, but that didn't help at the time.
>

They should've found out tho'. I thought that immigrants were supposed to
take classes on that sort of thing.

>I would no sooner use a dictionary as a reference in Ethnic Studies than I
>would in Quantum Mechanics. Do the research, my friend.
>

I used a sociology text and you disregarded that. :l

>That's right, if it's illegal then it doesn't happen.

Then why don't folk complain when it does happen?

>Research.

Sociology text.

> >There -- that's ANOTHER assumption. :-)
>
>You haven't been reading my points. I documented this, and provided
>references to further studies about this. As I said in the beginning, until
>you do some work with inner city kids, take some ethnic studies class, or
>chill out in the ghettos, you really can't understand what I'm saying to
>you.
>
And until you listen, you can't understand what we're saying. :l
>--Adam
>
>acgetchell@*******.edu
>"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu



Geoff Haacke
"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 33
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 12:08:07 CST
>Four, in California and the Southwestern parts of the U.S., there is a
>sizable fraction of people that are in the U.S. illegally. The "Taco
>curtain" that separates parts of the border between the U.S. and Mexico is
>an indication of the tensions that exist.
>

Ummm, if they are there illegally, then legally, they dont have rights do
they? (honest question)

>--Adam
>
>acgetchell@*******.edu
>"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
>
>


Geoff Haacke
"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 34
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 14:18:27 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Adam Getchell wrote:

> >Do you know that for a fact? Have you investigated every aspect of this
> >person's life to the nth detail?
>
> The point is not him, the point is the minorities. I KNOW for a fact
> they've been discriminated against.

But your implication is that "non-minorities" have not been
discriminated against, nor have they suffered oppression. This is
patently false, and is an issue that you continually fail to refute.
Again, you're not bringing anything new to the discussion.

> You know absolutely nothing about this, and until you experience it for
> yourself, you have nothing to talk about.

Again you make staggering assumptions about others. Unless you
know someone's personal cultural background, I caution you against making
such sweeping value judgements about what others have or have not
experienced.

> >But, to say that ALL white people, and their "system," seek to KEEP DEM
> >NIGGA'S DOWN is as racist, as prejudiced, and as much a LIE, as the actions
> >of those _individuals_ who do indeed seek such things.
>
> Nice straw man to knock down. I never said anything of the sort.

Actually, you did. Your comments about "the system" and an
organized attempt by majority populations to undermine and oppress
minority populations by its very nature implies that there is a "vast
white conspiracy" in place.
This is simply not the case. I will not argue that the majority
of the people in positions of power are white, nor will I deny that
personal prejudices may influence their policy and legislative decisions.
However, to imply that there is a concerted effort on the part of white
America to consistently, consciously, and unilaterally discriminate
against minorities is incorrect.

> >Religious intolerance (read: ideological prejudice) is what STARTED the white
> >presence in the Americas, in a sense. The Puritans and Plymouth Rock, here
> >in New England, for example.
>
> Right, and the Puritans turned around and did it to others. Salem Witch
> trials?

Actually, this is more or less consistent for any population that
has suffered religious persecution. The Protestants did it in England,
the Puritans did it in Massachusetts, the Mormons did it in Utah, the
Chan and Tien T'ai Buddhists did it in China, and the Jews did it in
Israel.
If history is to be believed, it seems to be more or less a given
that if your people are oppressed, you will become oppressors once you
have achieved your own liberty. It is a trend that spans cultures and
centuries, and is by no means a uniquely "white" phenomenon.

> >According to the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary (keyword: mw for those of
> >us on AOL, or you can go to http://www.m-w.com on the web), the definition of
> >"racism" is as follows:
>
> I would no sooner use a dictionary as a reference in Ethnic Studies than I
> would in Quantum Mechanics. Do the research, my friend.

Actually, I'd be more willing to trust a dictionary simply because
it is a common reference. It is also less likely to be laced with
personal or individual connotations than a specialized text.
If you want a (non-scientific) definition, the place to look is
the Corpus Juris Secundum. This is the dictionary that Congress and the
Courts use when defining terms, simply so there will be a common reference
point and everyone will be more or less on the same page. Its intention
is to reduce the confusion of different people using the same word for two
or more meanings or connotations. I'd be interested to see what the CJS
definition of "racism" is.

> >Yes you have. You have assumed he did NOT suffer violence in his life. Or
> >discrimination of any kind.
>
> No, I said, he has not suffered racially motivated oppression nor does he
> feel the weight of a discriminatory system upon him.

And again you are wrong. Without knowing the individual, you can
make no significant argument in this area. Your argument is mere
conjecture.

> You haven't been reading my points. I documented this, and provided
> references to further studies about this. As I said in the beginning, until
> you do some work with inner city kids, take some ethnic studies class, or
> chill out in the ghettos, you really can't understand what I'm saying to
> you.

Actually, people can understand. To imply otherwise is to offer
platitudes such as "it's a Latino thing, you wouldn't understand." This
is fundamentally a cop out. It has the effect of telling your audience
that you do not value the fact that they have the very human qualities of
sympathy and the ability to draw understanding from the experiences of
others, or worse that you question whether or not they really have these
qualities. This is in essence questioning their compassion and humanity.
It is as insulting and degrading as being told that you are inferior
because of the color of your skin. Some people will choose to be
insulted, others will choose to discount you as readily as you have
discounted them, and still others (like me) will simply say, "try me."
Perhaps the statement should instead be, "it's a *human* thing."
I understand. Do you?

Marc
Message no. 35
From: Dave Post caelric@****.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:22:50 -0700
At 10:21 AM 5/20/99 -0700, Mr Getchell wrote:
>>>The Republican Party, shortly after Desert Storm, asked Colin Powell to run
>>>for PRESIDENT. Yep, Powell --- a black man.
>>
>>The military doesn't offer the best opportunities for minorities. Given the
>>percentage of Latinos and Blacks in the Armed Forces, why is Colin Powell
>>the only high ranking minority?
>

First, I would like to respond to the part I know quite a bit about. I'm
an active duty Marine Corps Staff Sergeant with 10 years of service so far.
I would hope that might establish my qualifications.

The military offers incredible oppurtunites for minorites. As an example,
I am currently enrolled in a program where the Corps sends me to college,
while still paying me my full pay and benefits. Upon graduation, I will be
commissioned as an officer. this might sound like an elitist, white male
only program. far from it. The racial and gender background of the
Marines in this program is quite varied, in fact its just about what the
actual population breakdown of the various races and genders is. Over and
above that, there is a program called BOOST. This translates to 'Broadened
Oppurtunity for Officer Selection Training' This programs seeks out
disadvantaged minorities who might not have had good high school grades or
good SATs, and sends them to a prepatory school to prepare them for the
program I'm in. Upon graduation from Boost, they are guarenteed a space in
the program I am in. On top of this, I work with Navy ROTC students at my
school, the majority of which are on a full ride scholarship. Guess what?
Caucasians are a minority by a small amount. Latinos are the highest
enrollment, followed by by Caucasians followed by African Americans, then
Asian Americans.

There is a good reason why Colin Powell is the 'only' high ranking
minority. I put 'only' in quotes because it is patently untrue. There are
many, and I mean very many black, Mexican, Asian, and even now there are
starting to be many women at the one, two, three, and even four star
general ranks. Not long ago, the highest ranking enlisted man in ALL of
the Army, aka the Command Sergeant Major of the Army, was black. Of
course, he was later court martialed; obviously that was a plot by the
secret white cabal ion charge of everything (tm) back to the reason why
you might think there are no minorites in high ranks in the military. This
is two fold: 1st, how many high ranking military members of the last ten
years can you name? Most people can name two...Stormin' Norman
Schwarzkopf, and Colin Powell. Being a general is not all that glamourous
a job, outside political and military circles. Second, thirty years ago,
which is about how long it takes to make it to the top ranks, the military
was prejudiced. This was the height of the Vietnam war, racial strife was
bad, then. 20 years ago was better, but there were still problem. 10
years ago, most of the problems were gone. Today, all of them are gone,
other than the occasional isolated incident of one or two problem children
who recently enlisted. That will never be able to be fixed; some people
are so screwed up even the Corps boot camp can't change them.

An interesting side note: in the Corps, one of the things we are taught is
that we are all Marines first; in other words, we are all green. Some of
us are dark green, some light green, but we are all green first. By that,
we are taught race does NOT matter. And this pretty much holds true.



Now to make some comments on things you have said that I might not be as
well informed.

First, I always thought you were a quite well educated, intelligent person,
Mr. Getchell. I still believe so, but I find it hard to reconcile this
with what seems to me to be obvious paranoia. I get the impression that
you really believe there is a secret white cabal running everything. And
please don't refer me to U.S. v. LA Board of Supervisors. I haven't read
up on it, but I will take your word that this involved obvious
discrimination by white men trying to keep minorities out of power.
However, one incident does not make a conspiracy. And yes, I will even
believe there are others out there. But, and I do mean but, there are just
as many groups, both secretly and openly, working to give powere to
minorities both racial and gender minorities. You are either a college
student, or a college professor, judging by your email. You should have
witnessed this first hand on your campus. I have. I have seen groups that
act openly and some that act secretly to promote minorites at the expense
of others. We have one right here on my campus, called MECHa. I can't
remember exactly what it stands for, but it works to promote Mexican
Americans at the expense of other group.

Second, do you truly believe that every white man is trying to 'put down
the black man'? It sure soudns like it from the content and tone of your
email. Well, I'm here to tell you thats untrue. I am one example of how
its untrue. I'll bring out the cliched line of 'some of my best friends
are black' Well, that line is true. I have friends, close friends, that
are equally distributed among all the races. In fact, I'd be hard pressed
to tell you how many are of what race, because I truly don't care what race
they are. Now, I know this is not true of everybody, but it would wager
that it is true of quite a lot more people than you think.

Finally, I have a question for you: imagine two kids, one white, one
black. They both come from equally disadvantaged backgrounds. They both
grew up in the inner city, their sets of parents are both equally poor, in
fact, neither one of them has parents that are still together. You are a
college official, and you have one scholarship to give out between these
two kids. Please tell me which one you would give it to, and why. I'm
interested to hear your arguements either way.

Page down a ways for my answer:




















I would give it to the white kid for the following reason. Take a look at
available college scholarships. A large percentage of them are race based.
Of these race based scholarships, try and take a guess how many are race
based towards the white kid? Almost exactly zero. People assume that
because the kid is white, he has middle class parents who are outstanding
citizens and more than capable of paying for college. They assume that the
system works for them. I would imagine that you are one of these people,
judging by your emails. Well, I am here to tell you that you are wrong.
If you are a poor white kid, the system does NOT work for you. As others
have stated, its very difficult to get help if your are poor and WHITE.

Where do people get this assumption that if you are white, you aren't poor?
Well, that I can't tell you, but it is a false stereotype. There are poor
white people, just as there are poor black people. There are middle class
blacks, and middle class white. There are even, heres a suprise,
rich/upper class blacks, just as there are rich/upper class white.

As to your definition of racist, I don't agree with it; I believe that if
you are prejudiced based on race, then you are a racist, whether you are a
minority or the majority. However, I guess, since you believe otherwise, I
can't call you a racist. Instead I will call you a very prejudiced
individual. Prejudice is bad either way it goes, and black on white
prejudice does just as much to damage race relations in the U.S. as white
on black racism.

Thank you for your time, if you have read this far.

David
Message no. 36
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:23:59 -0700
>What rights do illegal aliens have? (not being facetious or anything,
>just curious)

Well, the Declaration of Independence for the United States proclaims:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

In practice, California passed Proposition 187 which disallowed education
for children of illegal immigrants. Fortunately, it was challenged in the
courts and declared unconsitutional, but it gives indication of the
political climate in California with respect to illegal aliens.

>Allen Versfeld
>moe@*******.com
>Wandata

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 37
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 14:57:24 -0400
At 02:18 PM 5/20/99 , Marc Renouf wrote:
>On Thu, 20 May 1999, Adam Getchell wrote:
>
>> >Do you know that for a fact? Have you investigated every aspect of this
>> >person's life to the nth detail?
>>
>> The point is not him, the point is the minorities. I KNOW for a fact
>> they've been discriminated against.
>
> But your implication is that "non-minorities" have not been
>discriminated against, nor have they suffered oppression. This is
>patently false, and is an issue that you continually fail to refute.
>Again, you're not bringing anything new to the discussion.

What I want to know is what is it called when one minority discriminates
against another minority. Adam stated that no member of a minority never
can discriminate because minorities don't have power. Today I caught a bit
of a news report about racial tensions boiling over in Detroit. Seems there
were several large fights, and I believe at least one shooting, because an
Arab girl was being accosted by some young men. The problem is that the men
were African American. So now there is a lot of racial tension with both of
these groups hating each other for no reason other than the color of their
skin.

But that's not condsidered racism?

>> I would no sooner use a dictionary as a reference in Ethnic Studies than I
>> would in Quantum Mechanics. Do the research, my friend.
>
> Actually, I'd be more willing to trust a dictionary simply because
>it is a common reference. It is also less likely to be laced with
>personal or individual connotations than a specialized text.
> If you want a (non-scientific) definition, the place to look is
>the Corpus Juris Secundum. This is the dictionary that Congress and the
>Courts use when defining terms, simply so there will be a common reference
>point and everyone will be more or less on the same page. Its intention
>is to reduce the confusion of different people using the same word for two
>or more meanings or connotations. I'd be interested to see what the CJS
>definition of "racism" is.

The other problem with Ethnic Studies books are the implied bias by many of
the authors. There are plenty of books that make these cases to various
degrees. Not many will say that a member of a minority can be racist. The
standard definition in these texts says that they cannot be. Why is their
no dissenting opinion? Just on this list we seem to range the gambit of
opinion, why don't these texts at all?

>> You haven't been reading my points. I documented this, and provided
>> references to further studies about this. As I said in the beginning, until
>> you do some work with inner city kids, take some ethnic studies class, or
>> chill out in the ghettos, you really can't understand what I'm saying to
>> you.
>
> Actually, people can understand. To imply otherwise is to offer
>platitudes such as "it's a Latino thing, you wouldn't understand." This
>is fundamentally a cop out. It has the effect of telling your audience
>that you do not value the fact that they have the very human qualities of
>sympathy and the ability to draw understanding from the experiences of
>others, or worse that you question whether or not they really have these
>qualities. This is in essence questioning their compassion and humanity.
>It is as insulting and degrading as being told that you are inferior
>because of the color of your skin. Some people will choose to be
>insulted, others will choose to discount you as readily as you have
>discounted them, and still others (like me) will simply say, "try me."
> Perhaps the statement should instead be, "it's a *human* thing."
>I understand. Do you?

Adam has made a lot of arguments based on statistics and quotes based in
some of these texts. From the data and material given they have been very
good arguments IMO. But it does raise the point, do the authors of these
books, and the teachers of these subjects, ever "step out of the box" and
look at other points of view? How many studies are carried out and then the
conclusions are drawn and how many studies are done to prove the conclusions?


Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 38
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 15:39:06 -0400
At 02:23 PM 5/20/99 , Adam Getchell wrote:
>>What rights do illegal aliens have? (not being facetious or anything,
>>just curious)
>
>Well, the Declaration of Independence for the United States proclaims:
>
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
>that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
>that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to
>secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
>just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of
>Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
>to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
>foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
>them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.

Amendments to the Constitution

Article XIV.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article XV.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.

>In practice, California passed Proposition 187 which disallowed education
>for children of illegal immigrants. Fortunately, it was challenged in the
>courts and declared unconsitutional, but it gives indication of the
>political climate in California with respect to illegal aliens.

According to the INS homepage, after 5 years of Being a Permanent Resident
of the US, an immigrant may become a US citizen. IIRC, my roommate got his
PR status after 2 years. Hence, 7 years and an immigrant can become a US
Citizen (which is what it took him). I could not find anything about
Hispanics needing to be here 14 years to become a citizen.

In practice, most laws assume that they will apply to legal immigrants and
citizens of the US. If you are an illegal immigrant, you are breaking the
law and are deported. As an illegal you still have most rights guaranteed
to a citizen or PR, but not to services such as welfare. And while I would
like to see all kids get the best education they can, every child who is an
illegal immigrant is taking away resources from kids who are there legally.

I would also like to say that coming from the East Coast of the US, when I
hear illegal immigrant, I don't think Hispanic. Nationally, the largest
number of illegal immigrants are of Eurpopean descent who cam on a work
visa and just stayed or came from an Eastern European country. I believe
that if they are here illegally, white, black, hispanic or whatever, they
should be deported.

There are immigration laws for a reason. Unfortunately, more limited
resources mean that not everyone can come into the country. Last time I
checked, the US still had some of the most lax immigration laws of any
industrial country, and excepted more in absolute terms and as a percentage
of population than any other. Look how hard it is now to get European
countries to let in Albanian refugees.


Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 39
From: arclight arclight@**************.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 22:24:09 +0200
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-admin@*********.org
> [mailto:shadowrn-admin@*********.org]On Behalf Of Sommers
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 9:39 PM
> To: shadowrn@*********.org
> Subject: Re: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias

> of population than any other. Look how hard it is now to get European
> countries to let in Albanian refugees.

In fact, Germany accepted 10,000 albanians after a week or so,
and was the first western country to do so. So what?

arclight
Message no. 40
From: Josh grimlakin@****.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 16:14:54 -0500
Adam Getchell wrote:

> >Who ever said that? Not me, and I agree (partially mind) that sometimes,
> >talk of racial prejudice occupies FAR too much time for far too many people.
> >
> >Yes, there are still problems. Sometimes significant ones.
> >
> >But whining about them won't fix them. Get up and DO something to fix them.
>
> I am doing something about it. I'm bettering myself so I can be in a
> position to help others. I'm taking part in the activism and politics. And
> I'm telling you my opinion, whether you want to hear it or not.
>
> Do you know what Barrios Unidos is? Do you work to teach inner city kids
> martial arts to further their self-esteem, provide a good role model, show
> them they can succeed?

So what I get from what you just said is I am prejiduce <ok spelled wrong> because
I don't take the time out to target minorities for special benefits or teaching?
Quick question. You have a clean 8 yer old wht child dressed in well kept clothes
and a 8 yr old black child dressed in not as well kept clothing and perhaps a
little dirtyer on the whole. They both think it would be really neat to take
martial arts and their respective friends informed them about the class's. Do you
take them into class? Or do you take only one or the other? Or if you have space
for one whitch one do you choose?

I would choose the one that could ask me politely in that case. If both were
represented equally I would take both.

Second question: Do you take a tax rideoff for every minority non paying student
that you take? Is it more or less than what you charge paying students? What
percentage of yourstudents are paying and what percent are paid for by the
government?

I would think that you could take several students perhaps 15 - 20 percent of you
class if not more and have the govenment pay for it. The same government that has
institutionalized segregation. At least as far as represented by yourself.

> >_Your_ statement is prejudiced: you are using a sterortype ("all people are
> >prejudiced") to judge INDIVIDUALS, without any corroborating evidence to
> >support your judgement of a given individual.
>
> I have not encountered, in reading, in person, or in correspondence, one
> person that I deem to be free of prejudice. That goes for myself, everyone
> I know, and everyone I've taught. That's my criteria. I'd be happy to be
> proven wrong.

Stereotyping is part of it all. Drop the stereotype or admit you too have racist
tendancies. Even by defenition.

> >Do you know that for a fact? Have you investigated every aspect of this
> >person's life to the nth detail?
>
> The point is not him, the point is the minorities. I KNOW for a fact
> they've been discriminated against.

And I know for a fact everyone has at one time or another. Does time since racisim
make a difference?

> >That's not right. It should be the highest scoring youths ... but that girl
> >scored well above a large number of minority students, who WERE admitted, but
> >she was not.
>
> You think quotas are bad? Perhaps if you could truly understand the
> disadvantages faced by a minority living in an environment not conducive to
> studying, you might not begrudge the *few* that do make it out of the
> ghetto a place and chance for education. It is a fact that it is easier to
> succeed with an affluent background than with an inner city one.

Quotas are a form of Racisism or segregation wether you want to take advantage of
it or not. As soon as we can safely abolish quotas then we will have a utopian
society.

> >Those whites hold power because (hands over an official Clue (TM, copyright):
> >THEY HAVE THE _MONEY_ TO PAY FOR THEIR CAMPAIGN, by and largely. That's
> >Plutocratic, not racist.
>
> It's not about campaign money. See U.S. v. Los Angeles County Board.

One singular case in point. Run an equally funded campaign with equal air time for
all parties involved and see what happens. <Very hard to do today even because of
party memberships involved.>

> >You want Latino politicians in office? Latinos are in the majority in
> >California? VOTE THEM INTO OFFICE.
>
> That might work if their voting power weren't diluted. It's starting to
> happen, fortunately. Of course, the ballots are now all in English, and
> Latinos have to wait 14 years for citizenship and the right to vote, vs. 7
> years for all others...

That is because of the influx of hispanic immigrants are over taxing the system.

> >Given enough _involvement_ in the community, enough political _activity_ by
> >the community ... there is NOTHING in the US stopping a Latino man woman or
> >CHILD (within the requirements of the office ;-) from running for and GAINING
> >a political office.
>
> That's right. But don't pretend that the so-called majority tried to keep
> the minorities down.

He isn't it seems that you are though.

> >The Republican Party, shortly after Desert Storm, asked Colin Powell to run
> >for PRESIDENT. Yep, Powell --- a black man.
>
> The military doesn't offer the best opportunities for minorities. Given the
> percentage of Latinos and Blacks in the Armed Forces, why is Colin Powell
> the only high ranking minority?

Because he was the only gay officer that happend to be of a minority? <joke>I
think it is because of the stereotypes and what they minorities in the military
think that they can achive. Look at enlistment. How many minorities enlist in a
position that will clearly see them into comissioned officer? I am betting the
numbers are low. You have to TRY to get their. Don't expect it to come for free
from anyone for anything.

> >I suspect _you_ would, given the power to do so. Your militant stripes are
> >showing.
>
> I want a fair share of opportunity, no more, no less. As would any other
> reasonable person. I stand up for my rights, and I state my opinions, and I
> don't let anyone put me down. If that's what you call militant, I'm proud
> to be so, or whatever term you want to use.

Militant no. Bull headed maby a little <like I am not see another joke>

> >> People of color on the American continent have been targetted for genocide
> >> and slavery. The socio-cultural-psycological effects of this linger for
> >> generations,
> >
> >If you LET it.
>
> You know absolutely nothing about this, and until you experience it for
> yourself, you have nothing to talk about.

What race has not expirenced it? How much time is enuff time? And now for an
extremist statement that I don't wholly agree with but should get a reaction. How
long can a minority MILK one mistake in history for special favors and pardons?

> >For how many MORE centuries will you beat this very very DEAD horse?
>
> Do the reading. Come back when you have actually tried to understand.
>
> >OK, the people of pre-20th century Africa were enslaved (as often by people
> >in their OWN nations/continent/etc), and very VERY badly treated by their
> >European / American owners.
> >
> >It's over. Deal with it. Move on.
>
> Easy for you to say. Your ignorance is showing.

I would say lack of information. Ignorance would be "Ain't you blacks born with
tails?".

> >But, to say that ALL white people, and their "system," seek to KEEP DEM
> >NIGGA'S DOWN is as racist, as prejudiced, and as much a LIE, as the actions
> >of those _individuals_ who do indeed seek such things.
>
> Nice straw man to knock down. I never said anything of the sort.

You might not have said it. But you have intimated just as much. You have led me
to feel as if that is what you intended.

> >OK, opression, as a set of methods, is not something one culture has, and
> >another does not. It's a series of decisions.
>
> I see. Politics has no cultural component, then?

In it's pureist form it SHOULD NOT.

> >No. It's a bunch of bigots and assholes who happen to CHOOSE police work.
> >Maybe more Latinos (and other minorities) should seek out employment as
> >Police Officers? Then you won't have this one bunch of "good-old-boys"
> >sitting on all teh power of the Badge. It will be SHARED, and incidents like
> >this one will (a) lessen in frequency, and (b) increase in consequences.
>
> Police work tends to dehumanize in general, and becoming part of the power
> structure in this country without helping your own people is what is termed
> as "selling out". This unfortunately happens a lot, as Dr. Martin Luther
> King eloquent notes.

Sigh so what you are telling me is the minorities fate in life in america is to be
downtrodden orange pickers with no future and they police will target them for any
crime wether innocent or not. Added to that if they try to change the system they
will become sellouts and racist aginst their own race.

Why bother. Why should any minority try to change their rights.. Not like it is
going to happen. Sigh too bad. Might as well become adjusted to this sad life
then and learn to pick oranges dress in K-Mart clothes and live my life in the
social climate that I am used to. Right?

You are opressing the opressed with your speach about how bad they have it. Why
not enhance the oppritunities that are their however few they are? Become more
oppritunistic instead of so damn fatalist.

> >According to the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary (keyword: mw for those of
> >us on AOL, or you can go to http://www.m-w.com on the web), the definition of
> >"racism" is as follows:
>
> I would no sooner use a dictionary as a reference in Ethnic Studies than I
> would in Quantum Mechanics. Do the research, my friend.

So you would rather make up your own defenition so you can claim that you are not.
Adhere to accepted facts and work within the system you want to change or forever
be ousted by that said system.

> >Those zoning laws are illegal ... and where _I_ live, there are no such
> >things.
>
> That's right, if it's illegal then it doesn't happen.

Exactly.. that is why black people don't sell black people drugs.. and white
people don't do drugs and don't carry guns.. and why everyon go's to school, why
their is no un accounted for immigrant.

>
>
> >This has been refuted already. I refer you once more to a DICTIONARY.
>
> Research.

Dictionary = Fact as is accepted

Research = hypothisis yet to be proven. Also known as a NON FACT.

> >Yes you have. You have assumed he did NOT suffer violence in his life. Or
> >discrimination of any kind.
>
> No, I said, he has not suffered racially motivated oppression nor does he
> feel the weight of a discriminatory system upon him.

It happens to everyone. Maby not a grandios of a scale as you feel the minorities
of America are treated.

> >There -- that's ANOTHER assumption. :-)
>
> You haven't been reading my points. I documented this, and provided
> references to further studies about this. As I said in the beginning, until
> you do some work with inner city kids, take some ethnic studies class, or
> chill out in the ghettos, you really can't understand what I'm saying to
> you.

I was raised in an underclass houseing, For all intensive purposes in the ghettos
of Batonroughe LA. Does discrimination exist? yes. Did i feel it? Some. Do I
carry on with it? No. Do I feel the need to feel guilty for the sins of my father
<so to speak>? No. Should something be done about discrimination that is
happening? Yes but on ALL acounts.

IE: What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

> --Adam

Josh
Message no. 41
From: Alex van der Kleut sommers@*****.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 17:28:30 -0400
At 04:24 PM 5/20/99 , arclight wrote:
>
>> of population than any other. Look how hard it is now to get European
>> countries to let in Albanian refugees.
>
>In fact, Germany accepted 10,000 albanians after a week or so,
>and was the first western country to do so. So what?

Germany was god about it, although there are more to the order of 100's of
thousands of refugees. However, the officials in Germany literally had to
beg and plead with just about every other country to get them to accept any
refugees.

Generally, European countries have very strict immigration laws, much more
so than the US. And just to show that its not just the Caucasian Europeans
who discriminate, check out some of the policies of Japan or Korea.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that in general any time that you
have a majority group of some sort there is a tendency to opress others
that are different. Every country has it, from the Americas to Europe to
Asia to Africa to Australia. And some of the biggest problems occuring
today are a result of stressing all of these cultural and ethnic
differences too much.

IMHO the way the US works best is when new types of people can come and
contribute to the society as a whole. But the transfer has to go both ways,
with the society picking up some of the traditions of a group of people,
and the group of people taking up the American tradition. If there is no
common bond betwen people, if everyone describes themselves as an African
American, Asian American, Dutch American, Irish American or whatever, the
country is going to eventually Balkanize.

Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Slovotsky's Laws #
143. It's not the principle of the thing. It's the money.
Message no. 42
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 18:52:37 EDT
In a message dated 5/20/99 2:09:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
knight_errant30@*******.com writes:

> Ummm, if they are there illegally, then legally, they dont have rights do
> they? (honest question)

No they do not.

In fact, I am unaware of ANY law stating that ANY rights _must_ be extended
to anyone beyond our own citizens. Doing so, as I undertsand it, is merely a
proper, responsible COURTESY.

Would the law student care to expand upon this? :-)

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 43
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:08:30 +1000
GMPax writes:
> In a message dated 5/20/99 2:09:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> knight_errant30@*******.com writes:
>
> > Ummm, if they are there illegally, then legally, they dont have
> rights do
> > they? (honest question)
>
> No they do not.

Bzzt... care to try again?

Under US law, all people have certain inalienable rights, even if they
aren't citizens. These include the Miranda rights, mostly: the right to
silence, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be beat up by the cops,
the right to food, water and shelter while in federal custody, etc, etc.

If they had no rights, you would be permitted to go up and blow them away on
the street. Well, not on the street, that would be unsafe handling of a
firearm.

Go read the logs on the debates about the rights of the SINless in SR: it's
the same thing. (Wow, I worked in an SR element!)

> In fact, I am unaware of ANY law stating that ANY rights _must_
> be extended
> to anyone beyond our own citizens. Doing so, as I undertsand it,
> is merely a
> proper, responsible COURTESY.

There's the UN declaration of international human rights. While no country,
AFAIK, has accepted that document in it's entirety, most Western countries
at least have accepted elements of it, and extend certain rights to
non-citizens in the country.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 44
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 19:37:48 EDT
In a message dated 5/20/99 7:09:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
robert.watkins@******.com writes:

> > In fact, I am unaware of ANY law stating that ANY rights _must_
> > be extended
> > to anyone beyond our own citizens. Doing so, as I undertsand it,
> > is merely a
> > proper, responsible COURTESY.
>
> There's the UN declaration of international human rights. While no country,
> AFAIK, has accepted that document in it's entirety, most Western countries
> at least have accepted elements of it, and extend certain rights to
> non-citizens in the country.

Exactly, "a proper, responsible _courtesy_." :-)

As for noncitizen rights protecting them from being murdered, and miranda
rights et al ... reading miranda rights is a _requirement_ of the police
officer, who AFAIK is rarely if ever qualified to determine citizenship on
the spot.

Murdering someone is illegal for the citizens, and for anyone. Prohibition
of murder does not make a "right not to be murdered" which is then extended
to everyone. :-) Semantical and nitpicky I know, but ...

My mother has a Canadian citizen, AFAIK a permanent resident (her husband and
kids are Americans). She complains ALL the time about the laws here, the
politicians, her taxes ... <sigh> and comes out with "don't _we_ have the
right to some say in this?"

To which my answer is usually along the lines of (silently and to myself to
avoid being rude :-) "then don't LIVE here!"

If you want to spend your life in a country, and want to have a hand in it's
course through history ... BECOME A CITIZEN. I know the Canadian I mentioned
above, specifically, has resided here for some 5-7 years (her eldest is about
4 or 5 now, and was born here ... after a couple years of marriage and US
residency for the mother).

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 45
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 16:43:55 -0700
> Whoo boy. OK example time. In Canada a few yaers ago, there was a case
>of a man who complained that he was discriminated against. He was a white
>male. He wanted to be a firefighter. He scored well on the testing but
>lost out to a woman. This would be OK except she scored a LOT lower than he
>did. Double standard no? I dunno about you but if there is a fire I want
>the most qualified person, no matter WHO they are to save my sorry behind.

Well, you can find one example of what you've decided is discrimination. I
can walk through a whole neighborhood of it every weekend in the Mission.

Let's look at how the tests were conducted. What was the basis for scoring?
Tell me that information and I'll decide if I agree with your conclusions.

>>That might work if their voting power weren't diluted. It's starting to
>>happen, fortunately. Of course, the ballots are now all in English, and
>>Latinos have to wait 14 years for citizenship and the right to vote, vs. 7
>>years for all others...
>>
>
>Huh?

That means: Latinos are discriminated against in the U.S. in attainment of
citizenship. It takes them on the average twice as long to get it.

>Generalship and the Joint Chiefs has to be earned through merit and
>experience, maybe he was the most experienced and capable moniroity present?
> (Besides, I thought that the military WAS pretty integrated for a while
>(comparatively?))

More about this in another post.

>>Really? I guess you and I must add differently because 1865 doesn't seem
>>like two centuries to me, and let's see, the Civil Rights movement was in
>>the 1960's and what were those blacks complaining about anyways?
>>
>
>OK bad math aside, he does have a point. I know that I am paying for sins
>that my ancestors DIDN'T commit (they all immigtrated long after
>Saskatchewan was settled.)

You missed my point, which was referring to the Civil Rights movement in
the 1960's. If racism was so stamped out of the U.S. by that time, then why
did that movement occur? Please study a little history of ethnic politics
before commenting.

>Sociology text.

I must have missed your reference, could you post it again? Page number(s)?
Supporting quotes? I've given all of these ...
--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 46
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 20:35:30 EDT
In a message dated 5/20/99 7:44:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
acgetchell@*******.edu writes:

> Well, you can find one example of what you've decided is discrimination. I
> can walk through a whole neighborhood of it every weekend in the Mission.

That does not invalidate his evidence. You have seemed to be trying to
assert that whites NEVER got the short end of the stick. Period. That such
was the sole and absolute territory of minorities alone.

He disproved that by showing at least the one case where even a white maile,
suffered discrimination. Gender, not racial, but then ... us white males get
a free ride on "the system" all our lives, right? Haven't you been obliquely
saying _just_ that of late? "You cannot understand discrimination until you
experience it, and you haven't" type of statements, directed at people you
know OR assume to be white?

> Let's look at how the tests were conducted. What was the basis for scoring?
> Tell me that information and I'll decide if I agree with your conclusions.

Yes lets. They test needed elements on fighting a fire: physical strength,
stamina, and endurance largely. Add in a bit of speed, the ability to work
well and respond accoring to training when under pressure, and familiarity
with the equipment and techniques of firefighting.

Yes, unfortunately for those women who wish to be firefighters ... when it
comes to strength and stamina, et al, there _is_ a real and measurable
genetic difference between men and women: men will _tend_ (not as an absolute
rule but as a rough measure of chances) to have greater upper-body strength
and a corresponding increase in overall stamina, as compared to women, with
an equal level of input into developing those traits.

So yes, men will tend to test higher than women, in general, on those
firefighter tests. So? Shouldn;t the job go to the person most qualified?
After all, if the firefighter who comes to save you from burning to death
cannot lift the ladder to your window ... yer dead. Real nice of the Fire
Department to give the firefighter a chance to fulfill their dreams ... but
you are STILL a crispy critter.

Oh and note, I said "the firefighter" in that last pair of sentences. If the
weaker, less able firefighter is male it matters not, to me. Less able is
less able, period.

> >>That might work if their voting power weren't diluted. It's starting to
> >>happen, fortunately. Of course, the ballots are now all in English, and
> >>Latinos have to wait 14 years for citizenship and the right to vote, vs.
7
> >>years for all others...
> >>
> >
> >Huh?
>
> That means: Latinos are discriminated against in the U.S. in attainment of
> citizenship. It takes them on the average twice as long to get it.

INCORRECT. Once more, Mr. Getchell, you have used misinformation and
misdirection to support your position. Reading directly from the INS
website, I found that the post made previosuly (by Sommers IIRC) s directly
and accurately quoted in toto from the INS page.

Additionally, I find NO reference, either in their file purporting to be the
"entire Naturalization Requiements Document" or in the instructions to form
N-400, which is specifically the application for naturalization as a US
citizen.

Your claim that hispanics, specifically, must wait double the usual length ot
time is as yet unsupported. You claim to provide documents, page numbers,
and so forth. Do so now, or drop this claim: it has so far been proven, by
weight and validity / reliability of evidence and testimony, to be false
and/or incorrect.

It is possible, you mistook one peron's claim for a blanket policy; perhaps
the person(s) you spoke to did not and would not learn English, and were of
an age where it would take them 15 years of Permanent LEgal Residency to
qualify for citizenship? The numbers there would seem, if only
coincidentally, to match up reasonably well.

>
> >Generalship and the Joint Chiefs has to be earned through merit and
> >experience, maybe he was the most experienced and capable moniroity
present?
>
> > (Besides, I thought that the military WAS pretty integrated for a while
> >(comparatively?))
>
> More about this in another post.

I await the claims you make there, eagerly. >:-)

>
> >>Really? I guess you and I must add differently because 1865 doesn't seem
> >>like two centuries to me, and let's see, the Civil Rights movement was in
> >>the 1960's and what were those blacks complaining about anyways?
> >>
> >
> >OK bad math aside, he does have a point. I know that I am paying for sins
> >that my ancestors DIDN'T commit (they all immigtrated long after
> >Saskatchewan was settled.)
>
> You missed my point, which was referring to the Civil Rights movement in
> the 1960's. If racism was so stamped out of the U.S. by that time, then why
> did that movement occur? Please study a little history of ethnic politics
> before commenting.

I never said it was ALL over. You, Mr. Getchell, brought up the issue of
slavery. Slavery IS indeed over. I never said the need to equalise
everyone's Civil Rights was over; don't even TRY to argue my statements out
of context. :-)

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 47
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 20:32:58 -0700
Iridios wrote:
>History text book when I was in high school. As that was over 10 years ago, I
can't recall >the exact title.

Dunno, but there seems to be one everybody has, that I'll have to lug around next
year...Was it "The American Peagant" (That BEHEMOTH of textbooks....perhaps one
other history text, "The Western Heritage", which is a college-level text
freshman honors history classes use around here, if only as a study guide.)? From
last year, when my brother had to lug that one around, I tend to remember
it....as a book which included some of the most obscure stuff known to
man....Though, I have YET to see anybody go full in on any of America's wars.
(Revolutionary War especially is DIFFICULT to find stuff on.)

John
Message no. 48
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 17:43:40 -0700
> But your implication is that "non-minorities" have not been
>discriminated against, nor have they suffered oppression. This is
>patently false, and is an issue that you continually fail to refute.
>Again, you're not bringing anything new to the discussion.

No. What I said was, the so-called minorities bear the brunt of oppression
in the U.S. And I have quoted facts, figures, and various authors of books
that study this phenomena to prove this point. You are welcome to examine
my references, find others of your own, and from them, make your own
conclusions.

But if you make that much effort, unless you are set on your opinion and
have already decided what the outcome of your supporting evidence will be,
then this discussion has been productive.

Actually, you did. Your comments about "the system" and an
>organized attempt by majority populations to undermine and oppress
>minority populations by its very nature implies that there is a "vast
>white conspiracy" in place.

No. I argue that the system, which is in the majority, consisting of
whites, via malice aforethought or via ignorance, perpetuates
discrimination upon the minorities. It does not have to be vast: it merely
need include people in positions of authority. If these people of authority
have common stereotypes, they will have similiar responses towards the
position of the so-called minority. I have cited more than one case of this.

Your strategem is a common one in an attempt to marginalize and trivialize
what I am saying as a case of paranoia, which many members in this
discussion have already done.

> Actually, I'd be more willing to trust a dictionary simply because
>it is a common reference. It is also less likely to be laced with
>personal or individual connotations than a specialized text.

Specialized texts are necessary. Like I said, the dictionary definition of
"eigenstate", if it possesses one, is useless to me in my work on Quantum
Mechanics. Jargon and specialized definitions are common in all fields of
academic endeavor, including, of course, Ethnic Studies.

>> No, I said, he has not suffered racially motivated oppression nor does he
>> feel the weight of a discriminatory system upon him.
>
> And again you are wrong. Without knowing the individual, you can
>make no significant argument in this area. Your argument is mere
>conjecture.

Not conjecture, my friend. The case of the U.S. vs. L.A. County Board of
Supervisors was a case of political discrimination against Latinos. Ergo,
if you are not Latino, you did not suffer.

> Actually, people can understand. To imply otherwise is to offer
>platitudes such as "it's a Latino thing, you wouldn't understand." This
>is fundamentally a cop out. It has the effect of telling your audience
>that you do not value the fact that they have the very human qualities of
>sympathy and the ability to draw understanding from the experiences of
>others, or worse that you question whether or not they really have these

No, my friend. I have said, "Come, experience, or read about, what I am
telling you. Then,let's see if your attitudes change."

I am, in fact, counting upon logic, sympathy, and interest (for whatever
reason) in this debate to make my points. If I were truly to write off my
audience in the manner you suggest, I would not bother to post.

I do not insult people for being of whatever ethnic/cultural group they
are. I do provoke, insult, and reply to what I deem to be ignorance,
sarcasm, and lack of compassion. I loudly exercise my right to free speech,
both because I can and because there are so many that cannot.

If you truly have compassion for your common man, we are on the same
"side": equal opportunity for all. The success or failure of an individual
should rest solely within their self-directed destiny. Compassion means an
acknowledgement of culture, ethnicity, values, psychology, history,
temperament, and all the things that our children will learn from and
experience in this world. My best efforts are directed at children, because
to teach compassionately self-respect, honesty, integrity, responsibility,
cultural identity, and understanding is to teach them about themselves. I
know generations of strong Latinas who have passed these values from mother
to daughter.

And that is where we launch the future.

>Marc

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 49
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 10:51:39 +1000
Sean GMPax writes:
> > That means: Latinos are discriminated against in the U.S. in
> attainment of
> > citizenship. It takes them on the average twice as long to get it.
>
> INCORRECT. Once more, Mr. Getchell, you have used misinformation and
> misdirection to support your position. Reading directly from the INS
> website, I found that the post made previosuly (by Sommers IIRC)
> s directly
> and accurately quoted in toto from the INS page.

Hmm... wonderful debates. :)

Statement: Hispanics take twice as long, on average, to obtain US
citizenship (twice as long as what? Asian or European immigrants, I
presume). (NOTE: No claim as to the validity of this statement is being
made)

Conclusion: Hispanics are discriminated against in the US in attainment of
citizenship.

Adam, I'm afraid Sean is right. This conclusion is erroneous.

If it takes an Irish person, say, who already speaks English, 7 years to
become a citizen (2 years for residency, 5 years to meet the
time-requirement), and a Mexican with no English 17 years to become a
citizen so they can bypass the linguistic requirement, that's not evidence
of discrimination on grounds of race. It just shows that the Mexican should
go do some English-language lessons.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 50
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 11:02:48 +1000
Adam Getchell writes:
> No. What I said was, the so-called minorities bear the brunt of oppression
> in the U.S. And I have quoted facts, figures, and various authors of books
> that study this phenomena to prove this point. You are welcome to examine
> my references, find others of your own, and from them, make your own
> conclusions.

But, Adam, you have not shown that they bear the brunt of oppression on any
other grounds than socio-economic. To prove that they suffer from
DISCRIMINATION ON RACIAL GROUNDS, you need to show that members of other
racial groups, in the same socio-economic strata, have it easier. You
haven't. All the data you have shown has merely pointed out two things that
are not in dispute: people better off to start with have it easier in life;
whites are currently better off to start with.

> Actually, you did. Your comments about "the system" and an
> >organized attempt by majority populations to undermine and oppress
> >minority populations by its very nature implies that there is a "vast
> >white conspiracy" in place.
>
> No. I argue that the system, which is in the majority, consisting of
> whites, via malice aforethought or via ignorance, perpetuates
> discrimination upon the minorities. It does not have to be vast: it merely
> need include people in positions of authority. If these people of
> authority
> have common stereotypes, they will have similiar responses towards the
> position of the so-called minority. I have cited more than one
> case of this.

Again, you have not shown this to be true as a general principle.

Sure, some whites are racist and/or ignorant. So are some blacks, some
hispanics, etc, just as some women are sexist. You have not shown that the
society of the US, as a whole, perpetuates discrimination on racial grounds
(as opposed to socio-economic factors).

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 51
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 18:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
<BigSnip(TM)>
What race has not expirenced it? How much time is enuff time? And
now for an extremist statement that I don't wholly agree with but
should get a reaction. How long can a minority MILK one mistake in
history for special favors and pardons?
<BigSnip(TM)>
<Josh>

Actually, pretty damn long, Josh.

I live in Australia. I've been here most of my life. My family, however
has only been here a couple of generations - say, 70-odd years, I
think. So we (as in, my family) didn't come in and oppress the
aboriginal population (hereby to be called aborigines - I'm not sure if
that's the current PC term, but I don't give a devil rat's ass for PC,
so I don't keep up to date with it). However, we are still made to
suffer for the mistakes of the early Australian settlers - although,
yes, Adam, our particular suffering is nowhere near as oppressive as
that which a number of minority populations have suffered the world
over.

I work. I pay taxes. I probably pay more taxes than I should.

Aborigines may, IF THEY WISH, receive social benefits instead of
working. In other words, I support them (the ones who do not work)
because their ancestors were oppressed by people I have not been
directly related to for centuries (if not millenia). Admittedly, it is
not always easy to find work in this day and age, but that can be
worked around by getting a decent education and working hard.

Which brings me to my second point. Many aborigines (definitely not
all, but a good number of them) protest that they can't get an
education, that they're hard done by, that they're oppressed and
mistreated and so on and so forth.

Bollocks!

All right, to a degree, some of that still may be true. But, in terms
of welfare and government assistance, the aboriginal population of
Australia is better off than anyone else - even the 'white male'. It's
called reverse discrimination - they get more money and more benefits
than anyone else, because of their skin colour.

If someone wants to get out of the gutter, the best way to do so is to
get an education, right? If you learn, you can get a good job and you
can get a good life. EVERY LEGAL RESIDENT of Australia is entitled to a
full education, up to and including high school. If you want to go
further than that, yes, you need to pay money - but aborigines have to
pay a hell of a lot less than the rest of us because of government
handouts. So why aren't they getting that education? Because they don't
want to help themselves! And THAT'S what needs to be addressed. Not the
issue of whose fault it all was, or even the fact that racism exists.
We all know it does, but the majority can't help the minorities unless
the minorities help themselves.

You can turn up at any public school in Australia and get an education
- if you're the right age, of course, or are coming back as a
mature-age student. Yes, you can do that - I was in year 11 with a girl
who left school after year 10, then came back five years later so she
could go on to university. She was cute. I had a crush on her. :)

We don't have the problems of violence in schools that many American
schools seem to have, so there's no excuse for not attending on those
grounds. And legally, you HAVE to attend school, at least until year
10.

So why isn't the entire aboriginal population (people whose schooling
is subsidised to an almost ridiculous degree) well-educated and in good
jobs? Because all too many of them are so well treated by the system
that they don't want to make the effort!

My mother is a teacher. For three years, she taught at a public school
in a country town (which I also attended). She had many aboriginal
students during that time and almost to a man (woman, whatever - it's
just an expression, people!) they made absolutely NO effort in class.
See, as kids, they only got their government benefits if they attended
school. Note the key word there - ATTENDED. They didn't have to do
homework, they didn't have to submit assignments, they didn't even have
to pass. All they had to do was show up for class and have their name
marked down as being there. For most of them, that's all they did. Show
up, then sit there and misbehave in class and NEVER do any work at all.

Does that sound like a good thing to you?

And I'm not even going to go into the issue of the 'national apology'.

So, yes, historical mistakes, no matter how bad they were, can be
milked too far. And that is just the kind of thing that causes further
resentment and prejudice and hatred and perpetuates the cycle.
Discrimination and racism are bad and should be discouraged - but
reverse discrimination is just as bad.

*Doc' refrains from making a smartass comment on this topic.*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
Message no. 52
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 18:52:50 -0700
I'll try to keep this as brief as possible:

> It's not ignorance and insensitivity. It's acknowledging that a
>problem exists but realizing that pointing the problem out (again) doesn't

My point is that many people are not aware of the problem, and that it
needs to be pointed out to them.

>fix the problem. Yes, there is racism in America. Newsflash! There's

I'm taking steps to do so. The biggest battle to fight is with apathy, and
the feeling that the system will never change.

> What is my point? My point is not that we should ignore racism,
>but rather that we should accept that it exists (because the proof is
>obvious to even the most casual of observers) and actually *do*
>something about it.

I agree. However, apathy (as noted above) is much easier to swallow if the
system doesn't affect you. If you, Marc, do your level best to learn about,
refute, and denounce racism, this conversation is not in vain.

>> "'Conservatism' in America's politics means 'let's keep the niggers in
>> their place.' And 'liberalism' means 'Let's keep the knee-grows in their
>> place -- but tell them we'll treat them a little better; let's fool them
>> more, with more promises.' With these choices, I felt that the American
>> black man only needed to choose which one to be eaten by, the 'liberal' fox
>> or the 'conservative' wolf -- because both of them would eat him ... In a
>> wolf's den, I'd always know exactly where I stood; I'd watch the dangerous
>> wolf closer than I would the smooth, sly fox. The wolf's very growling
>> would keep me alert and fighting him to survive, whereas I might be lulled
>> and fooled by the tricky fox." -- Malcolm X
>
> This quote, while interesting, has nothing to do with the point at
>hand. Please keep the discussion topical.

This quote has everything to do with how Blacks view American politics,
which, as I noted, as a factor in their oppression.

> Actually, it is. Tension and even violence between different
>familial or "ethnic" groups is a well established part of the natural

Read _Multicultural/Multiracial Psychology, Mestizo Perspective in
Personality and Mental Health_, by Manuel Ramirez, PhD, for insight into
the Mestizo culture. That culture is very open and accepting.

> Did I say that? No. I don't think it should be "gotten used to"
>but I think that to continue to carp on it's existence distracts people
>from the important task of figuring out how to fix it. Further,

The first task is getting people to acknowledge its existence. And frankly,
many people don't. As I said, if throughout this long and interminable
debate, some people become aware that there is actually institutionalized
racism in America and, by gosh, we should actually *do* something about it
(like, say, vote racist bigots like Jesse Helms out of office), then its a
battle worth fighting.

> As much as I can be. But then again, when you are exposed to
>minorities at an early age (as I was) it's easier. For instance, can you
>tell the difference between Vietnamese and Korean folks by their facial
>features and skin tones? Or do they "all look the same" to you? I can

Yes, I can. I have both Korean and Vietnamese friends. I can also
distinguish between different nationalities of Latinos (there's 17
countries in Latin America, each with its own culture), different tribes in
Africa, and differences between Scots, Irish, English, German, French,
Italian (though not Swiss, Austrian, Dutch, Luxembourg, etc). I have a
rough guess as to Slavic-Eastern European origins, Southeast Asian, etc.
etc. I could go on, but the point is that we all come in different sizes,
shapes, and colors, with different identites thereupon. I don't assume that
my cultural values apply to someone else.

> No, I don't think most people are color-blind, but I never implied
>that I did. In fact, later in my post (a part which you cut out) I
>ackowledge that unfortunately my level of tolerance and acceptance is by
>far in the minority (among *all* people, not just whites).
[snip]
>ability to interact with them. Yes, I have biases. The important part is
>that I recognize that fact, and do everything I can to make sure that I'm
>not acting them.
>
>> I don't pretend it doesn't exist, or that it's not bad.
>
> Nor do I, and to imply I do sells me short, my friend.
>
>> The system is pretty good to you, whatever you might think.
>
> So says you. Walk a mile, brother, walk a mile.

Kudos to you then, in all sincerity. This is not usually the case. The
pernicious nature of prejudice is that it is unconscious.

However, to talk about "selling someone short" and then talk about "full of
shit" and the other interesting invectives. Well, push me and I push back.

>[snip section on gerrymandering]
>
> You have a very valid point here. This is something that I don't
>really see an easy solution to. The problem is that anyone wanting to get
>and keep power will do this. Do you think it would be any different if
>the Latino population held the political or economic power in the area?
>Politicians are politicians. Unfortunately, so long as we have a
>representative form of government, situations like this can happen, and
>indeed are even likely.
> I'm open to suggestion on how to change it.

Politics is dictated by self-interest, by who gets what. A good system is
one that allows representation of all issues to allow for consensus
building and compromise, without give undue power to a group out of
proportion to its size.

I'm a classic Federalist: I believe national government should exercise the
least power and local government the most. This system allows the
individual to have the greatest voice in their most immediate concerns.
Were I to have the power to do so, I'd cut back the Federal government
enormously, give back the tax money to the individuals to spend (repealing
the 17th Amendment which allowed the Federal government to tax
individuals), and vest the most power possible at the most local level.
After all, my vote is more important in a county of 100,000 than a country
of 250 million. I do not think this solution is easy, free of problems, or
simple, but in a nutshell that's where I'd begin. Discussion of this topic
is likely to fuel another debate, however. ;-)

> Yes, it's total bushwah. But the important part is that people
>actually believed that. It's tough to argue with people when they think
>they're doing you a favor. It may be a twisted form of rationalization,
>but it's the most dangerous form because people tend to be unreceptive to
>the thought that you might *not* want to be "saved." As such,

That's exactly right. "White man's burden" is another example. This is why
disabusing people of the notion that others might want to be "saved" by
their culture is important.

> Further, if it weren't for whites, you'd have no rights at all.
>>From the Abolitionist movement to the Civil Rights movement, minorities
>would have gotten nowhere had there not been a devoted, vocal, motivated
>number of "majority" people espousing their cause. If your perception of
>"white" is to be believed, you'd have us believe that black slaves
>emancipated themselves. This is not the case. Not all white people are
>as shallow, evil, and oppressive as you make them out to be.

Did you forget about the emancipated slaves? "Uncle Tom's Cabin"? Slave
uprisings? When history is written it often does not acknowledge to
contributions or cultures of the minority. You deride black "revisionist"
history authors. Have you actually looked at primary sources, read what
they had to say, considered it equitably. Or did you just dismiss it as
"shit".

Did you stereotype it?

History is written by the victors; ie, the ones in power when the text is
written. This of course, is a generalization: I'm sure there are many
honest historians out there debating what "true history" is. But, I have
news for you, history for a little minority child is that the Mexicans were
bad and the Texans were good and the Alamo was a victory, because that's
what is in the textbooks of the U.S. educational system.

>> > But does this mean that if you're a minority that "the system" is
>> >"out to get you?" Is it just another example of "The
Man" keeping you
>> >down? No. It's not. It's that any law, policy, or social custom is
>> >based on a certain set of assumptions. When those assumptions are no
>> >longer valid, the system discriminates not because it wants to but because
>> >it wasn't designed not to.
>>
>> Wrong. Let's go back and look at history again. The diaspora of the African
>> Americans robbed them of their land, their language, their culture, their
>> heritage, their families (slave families were broken up) as well as their
>> freedom.
>
> This just proves my point. The system is discriminatory because
>the assumptions that it is based on are flawed. Slavery in the Americas
>was based on the assumption that a) people of African descent were somehow
>inferior, b) that their natural environment was apart from "God," and c)
>that a life of "honest work" in the New World was inifinitely better than
>living the "life of the savage."

Slavery in the Americas was based upon the profits of the "Triangle Trade",
more specifically, cotton, gin, and slavers. They did not assume what you
stated above; they used it to rationalize their money-making.

> That these assumptions are unilaterally false just goes to show
>how laws and customs that discriminate happen. People don't like to feel
>like the oppressive bad guy. As such, if they have a rationale for
>thinking that they are doing "the right thing" they will oppress with
>gusto, all the while thinking that they're helping you out.
> Does this make them monsters? No. Does it mean that they're
>ignorant? Yes.

If it were only ignorance, my friend, if it were only ignorance. But in
fact, it was for simple profit off the backs of their fellow man,
rationalized afterwards in the manner you explain. Ignorance feeds into the
problem, but it does not often *create* it.

Murder, enslavement, genocide, and robbery are not acts of ignorance, my
friend, but of the worst vices of the human soul.

>> People of color on the American continent have been targetted for genocide
>> and slavery. The socio-cultural-psycological effects of this linger for
>> generations, along with the culture of being oppressed and the methods of
>> the oppressors. I challenge you to assert that whites in America have the
>> same oppressive historical factors influencing their culture.
>
> Here's where you're falling into the biggest stereotype about
>white people - that we're all the same. Look at the oppression that

No, I don't say you're all the same. I say that your historical oppression
is less than the minorities, and it is not an ongoing factor of your
existance to the same degree.

> Maybe true, but my point is only that *you are not alone*. The
>discrimination you suffer differs only in type and degree.

That's correct. I don't doubt that you haven't suffered oppression. I do
doubt that the general political structure of this country perpetuates it
upon you to the same degree.

> I'm not going to speak for the cops. I think that the very nature
>of being a police officer for any length of time more or less dehumanizes
>you and turns you into a flagrant asshole, but that's just me.
> But god forbid someone should tell the poor Latina that she has
>rights. Her ignorance is not the fault of the police.

I've spoken about this in another post. When you come from a warzone, it is
hard to believe that you really have rights against men with guns. I
suggest you watch that movie. ("Men with Guns") It's in the foreign film
section. "I am Cuba" is another good one.

> And why does that profile look that way. Here's a newsflash for
>you: white kids in suburbia don't kill each other for a fly pair of shoes.

That is a stereotype if I ever heard one. I have a newsflash for you:
minorities don't kill each other for a fly pair of shoes either, and you
are a racist for saying so. Come to the Mission, my friend, and you will
see what the factors of ghetto violence are.

> Before you jump all over my shit for implying that minorities are
>predisposed to criminal behavior, let me clarify that the largest
>determining factor in predisposition to crime is economic status
>(Report of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, pick any year). While
>it is unfortunate that minorities occupy a disproportionately large
>section of the lower economic classes, this also means that they will have
>a disproportionately large share of crimes.

And why, do you suppose, is it that they have the lowest socio-economic
status? Is it because education, housing, and opportunities for advancement
are constantly denied? I'm sitting in arms length of access to a database
that details how much job-related racial discrimination occurs within the
prestigious University of California system. Care to guess how many cases
per year go to court (which is itself a very minor number of the reported
incidents which in turn are a subset of the total)? Around 90 last year,
here at UC Davis, if I remember correctly.

> There's a twisted cause-and-effect duality going on. Minorities
>don't get opportunities because people view them as dirty, poorly educated
>criminals. They get no education and are forced to commit crimes because
>they have no opportunities. Do you see the problem here?

Yes. They need to have equal opportunity. That means that the hated "quota"
system is the only way most of them can even compete with others in the
majority.

> The social factors at work here are exceedingly complex, and
>incorporate far more than race. To imply that police are predisposed to
>harass someone based solely on the color of their skin ignores the fact
>that socio-economic factors propel the grain of statistical truth behind
>the the stereotype.

Read the literature. Bev the police officer says hi, you're wrong.

> Does that make it right? No, but what do you propose to do about
>it. Increasing the minority population in the police force would seem to
>be a good idea, but studies have shown that even minority police officers
>are more likely to "harass" people fitting the profile. Why? Because
>after a while, they see that there's something to it. It is incredible
>how jaded police officers in inner city areas become, regardless of what
>color they are.

Ah, you think that the attitudes of all their compatriots do not rub off on
them, when they are trying to advance? Talk to my friend Bev again sometime.

> Trust me, I both understand and sympathize. Probably better than
>you realize. The difference is that I look for the causes behind the
>effects, and see that it's a much bigger issue than just the color of
>skin.

Color of skin has influenced why minorities are in their socioeconomic
stratum, their education and employment opportunities, etc. If you had the
same oppression of these three factors, do you think you would shrug it off
as not being related to your skin tone?

> I *have* taken an ethnic studies class (they are required at the
>University I attended, which I think is a good thing), and you are full of
>shit. Racism is not defined solely in terms of the majority, and I
>suggest you get yourself a dictionary. There have been at least three
>dictionary definitions of racism given here on the list, so I won't repeat
>them.

Quote me supporting or ancillary evidence from a decent Ethnic studies
text, and I might believe you. Dictionaries are not acceptable references
in academic endeavors other than, perhaps, English and Etymology.

> And let me tell you, I have heard minority individuals spout
>hateful, ignorant, stereotypical invective that made me (the white
>oppressor) sick. If that's not racist, please enlighten me.

There's the very human factor of "right back at you" that sums that up.
There's a reason they're doing this, right? What is the cause behind this
effect?

> No, you miss the point. Race is not everything, and other people
>experience discrimination that is just as bad (if not worse in some cases)
>as yours based on things *other* than race. And in many cases, they
>actually *do* have race as an issue (refer back to my comment on the fact
>that "white" does not imply "same").

Again, my thesis is: minorities are oppressed strongly, chiefly by race.

>> If your theory is true, then answer me this: why is the media vastly
>> underrepresented by minorites? Give me one example of a major media
>> conglomerate owned and operated by minorites. Explain to me why California
>> has only 1 Spanish language TV station.
>
> How does this invalidate my theory? You're off topic again. The
>media exists to make money. If they felt they could make money by
>operating more than one Spanish-language station, do you think they'd
>hesitate for a heartbeat?

Media Conglomerates do not operated strictly by market demand, because in
many cases they *create* the market to begin with. That's another topic,
but peripherally salient to this discussion in that you are wrong and
haven't addressed my questions nor grasped as to how the Media might play
into the establishment.

> Similarly, did that Spanish-language station run more news
>coverage on Columbine than it did on a gang-related shooting in Watts? I
>would be willing to bet that it did, which just reinforces my point. News
>coverage gets the best ratings when it's shocking, it's a point of fact.
>The media makes money off advertising, and ratings make advertising more
>lucrative. Hence, high ratings = more money. Hence, by the transitive
>property of mathematics, more shocking = more money.

Actually, I didn't see coverage on it at all while I was watching. And
Transitivity is a special property that does not apply in all spaces.

>> You're also ignorant of what it means to be truly oppressed; which is
>> not your fault.
>
> Here is where you are so full of shit it pains me. To imply that
>I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth is as racist as the worst
>Klansman. Oppression comes in a lot of different forms, and I *have* been
>discriminated against because of the color of my skin, even though I'm
>"white". I have been discriminated against because of other things as
>well, including my religion (or rather my lack thereof).
> Further, I have had my culture marginalized and destroyed, my
>people hunted down and butchered, and my history written by the
>"victorious majority."
> You see, I am the great all-American mutt. Perhaps I should have
>prefaced all of my statements by pointing out that I am black. And
>Cherokee. And Irish. And Scottish. And German. And English, French,
>and Basque. That my skin is more or less white and that I happen to have
>a French surname might make my life easier, but maybe not.

You haven't proved this, but I'm interested in the details. I don't mean
academic references, but rather your stories. Oral culture is another
marginalized tradition. That you find my statements challenging to you is
no less a reflection of the tone of this discourse.

> But it doesn't *ever* mean that I am not aware of the plight of
>minority groups, that I've never seen discrimination firsthand, that I
>don't see racism for what it is, that I don't understand oppression, or
>that I am an insensitive proponent of the "opressive status quo."

Talk to me about it, that I might understand. If I'm preaching to the
choir, then we ought to find commonality in it. But you seem to be denying
the validity of my research and experience, and I am just as vigorous as
you in my own defense.

>Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)
--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 53
From: Joshua Mumme Grimlakin@****.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 23:06:36 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.edu>
To: <shadowrn@*********.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias

> Actually, you did. Your comments about "the system" and an
> >organized attempt by majority populations to undermine and oppress
> >minority populations by its very nature implies that there is a "vast
> >white conspiracy" in place.
>
> No. I argue that the system, which is in the majority, consisting of
> whites, via malice aforethought or via ignorance, perpetuates
> discrimination upon the minorities. It does not have to be vast: it merely
> need include people in positions of authority. If these people of
authority
> have common stereotypes, they will have similiar responses towards the
> position of the so-called minority. I have cited more than one case of
this.
>
> Your strategem is a common one in an attempt to marginalize and trivialize
> what I am saying as a case of paranoia, which many members in this
> discussion have already done.

So from this I get that you still think it is an organized attempt to opress
minorities?

> > Actually, I'd be more willing to trust a dictionary simply because
> >it is a common reference. It is also less likely to be laced with
> >personal or individual connotations than a specialized text.
>
> Specialized texts are necessary. Like I said, the dictionary definition of
> "eigenstate", if it possesses one, is useless to me in my work on Quantum
> Mechanics. Jargon and specialized definitions are common in all fields of
> academic endeavor, including, of course, Ethnic Studies.

Yes but as you put it specialized text is not used in an open debate. If
you were to tell me as you did that Racisismn does not apply to minorities I
would tell you that you are wrong. As many have.

> >> No, I said, he has not suffered racially motivated oppression nor does
he
> >> feel the weight of a discriminatory system upon him.
> >
> > And again you are wrong. Without knowing the individual, you can
> >make no significant argument in this area. Your argument is mere
> >conjecture.
>
> Not conjecture, my friend. The case of the U.S. vs. L.A. County Board of
> Supervisors was a case of political discrimination against Latinos. Ergo,
> if you are not Latino, you did not suffer.

We are not talking Latino, Black, White, Purple, Or that Little pink guy
that want's your PCS telephone. What we ARE talking about is your
assumptions about individuals.

> > Actually, people can understand. To imply otherwise is to offer
> >platitudes such as "it's a Latino thing, you wouldn't understand."
This
> >is fundamentally a cop out. It has the effect of telling your audience
> >that you do not value the fact that they have the very human qualities of
> >sympathy and the ability to draw understanding from the experiences of
> >others, or worse that you question whether or not they really have these
>
> No, my friend. I have said, "Come, experience, or read about, what I am
> telling you. Then,let's see if your attitudes change."

Theirby implying that they have not expirenced it. And if they say they did
you would say they are wrong because they are not the same color. For
example.

Don't worry about it honey.. they are black people and really don't feel
pain the same way we do.. so the whip just helps to teach them. They like
it actually. See it is because they are black that they feel differently.
Nooo dear we could never take that I know but we are white.. it is
different.. we are a delacite more advanced breed of people.

Is that statement correct? NO. But in essence you are saying the same
thing. <Sorry if that did offend anyone. Just trying to make a point in
the loudest way I could find.>

> I am, in fact, counting upon logic, sympathy, and interest (for whatever
> reason) in this debate to make my points. If I were truly to write off my
> audience in the manner you suggest, I would not bother to post.
>
> I do not insult people for being of whatever ethnic/cultural group they
> are. I do provoke, insult, and reply to what I deem to be ignorance,
> sarcasm, and lack of compassion. I loudly exercise my right to free
speech,
> both because I can and because there are so many that cannot.

Who has been restricted from exerciseing their right to free speech?

> If you truly have compassion for your common man, we are on the same
> "side": equal opportunity for all. The success or failure of an individual
> should rest solely within their self-directed destiny. Compassion means an
> acknowledgement of culture, ethnicity, values, psychology, history,
> temperament, and all the things that our children will learn from and
> experience in this world. My best efforts are directed at children,
because
> to teach compassionately self-respect, honesty, integrity, responsibility,
> cultural identity, and understanding is to teach them about themselves. I
> know generations of strong Latinas who have passed these values from
mother
> to daughter.

And this go's for any color of person right?

> And that is where we launch the future.

Agreed

> --Adam

Josh
Message no. 54
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 22:47:06 CST
>Well, you can find one example of what you've decided is discrimination. I
>can walk through a whole neighborhood of it every weekend in the Mission.

No one said you couldn't. I was talking about how quotas can hurt.

>
>Let's look at how the tests were conducted. What was the basis for scoring?
>Tell me that information and I'll decide if I agree with your conclusions.
>

They were standard firfighters test. Physical, mental. they were all run
through the same course.

>That means: Latinos are discriminated against in the U.S. in attainment of
>citizenship. It takes them on the average twice as long to get it.
>

Hmm, but why just the Latinos? I mean if it's the result of racism as you
say, then why not other minorities (eg, Asians, Serbs, Ruwandans, etc.)

>You missed my point, which was referring to the Civil Rights movement in
>the 1960's. If racism was so stamped out of the U.S. by that time, then why
>did that movement occur? Please study a little history of ethnic politics
>before commenting.
>
Oh no I got your point. I was referring to the Civil war (and a few
personal issue :))


>I must have missed your reference, could you post it again? Page number(s)?

You said that you got your reference from research. I said that i got mine
from a sociology text. i don't have it on me. It was borrowed.

>--Adam
>
>acgetchell@*******.edu
>"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
>
>




Geoff Haacke

"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 55
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 10:37:25 +0200
According to Alex van der Kleut, at 17:28 on 20 May 99, the word on
the street was...

> Generally, European countries have very strict immigration laws, much more
> so than the US.

But it always seems (note I said "seems") as if the US is much tougher
about it, especially when it comes to refugees. I had a good laugh when I
heard some time ago that the US wanted to put up Albanian refugees in
Guantanamo and Guam. If you don't know where those are, look them up...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I never seem to be able to finish what I
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 56
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 08:54:43 -0400
At 04:37 AM 5/21/99 , Gurth wrote:
>According to Alex van der Kleut, at 17:28 on 20 May 99, the word on
>the street was...
>
>> Generally, European countries have very strict immigration laws, much more
>> so than the US.
>
>But it always seems (note I said "seems") as if the US is much tougher
>about it, especially when it comes to refugees. I had a good laugh when I
>heard some time ago that the US wanted to put up Albanian refugees in
>Guantanamo and Guam. If you don't know where those are, look them up...

They were sent to Guantanamo and Guam because they are territories and not
actually part of the US. If a person lands on US soil and is a refugge
(political, from war, etc) and not for economic reasons, he is
automatically granted asylum and put on the track to Residence. Since the
whole point is we would like to see them returned to their homes...

The reason that they seem tougher is because its so automatic, whereas the
European countries tend to be more strenuous about their requirements. This
is from what I remember my dad (from the Netherlands) telling me, so if I'm
wrong please tell me.

Trying to inject some Shadowrun into this, it points to the problems that
could occur if the US split. It went from being one country to about whta,
6 or 7 countries? All of them to various degrees are split on racial
points, from the elves of the Tir to the Indians of the NAN, to the French
in Quebec. While the SR thoughts on mega-corps may be off (although I still
think its possible) there does seems to be a very strong possibility of the
country eventually splitting up into a bunch of smaller ethnic countries.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 57
From: Mark Fender markf@******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 08:20:05 -0500
> GMPax writes:
> > In a message dated 5/20/99 2:09:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > knight_errant30@*******.com writes:
> >
> > > Ummm, if they are there illegally, then legally, they dont have
> > rights do
> > > they? (honest question)
> >
> > No they do not.
>
> Bzzt... care to try again?
>
> Under US law, all people have certain inalienable rights, even if they
> aren't citizens. These include the Miranda rights, mostly: the right to
> silence, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be beat up by the
> cops,
> the right to food, water and shelter while in federal custody, etc, etc.
>
> If they had no rights, you would be permitted to go up and blow them away
> on
> the street. Well, not on the street, that would be unsafe handling of a
> firearm.
>
> Go read the logs on the debates about the rights of the SINless in SR:
> it's
> the same thing. (Wow, I worked in an SR element!)
>
Wow! You're the only one to do that so far. Congratulations, you might have
brought this thread back around.
Message no. 58
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 10:17:19 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Adam Getchell wrote:

> >>Of course, the ballots are now all in English, and
> >>Latinos have to wait 14 years for citizenship and the right to vote, vs. 7
> >>years for all others...
> >>
> >
> >Huh?
>
> That means: Latinos are discriminated against in the U.S. in attainment of
> citizenship. It takes them on the average twice as long to get it.

Whoa, there slugger. Your statement of "Latinos have to wait 14
years..." implies that there is some double standard (i.e. if you are a
Latino, your time to citizenship is measured differently and subject to
different laws). But this is not the case (fact), and you acknowledge as
much in your reply. "It takes them *on average* twice as long to get it."
This in no way refutes the idea that a Latino *could* get
citizenship in 7 years, just that it *tends* to take them longer. The
laws aren't different for Latinos to my knowledge, and if you can prove
otherwise, you have a great case for a civil class action suit against the
United States Government. If you can't then you're blowing smoke.
Why does it *on average* take the Latino longer to attain
citizenship? I can think of any number of reasons (and I'll even grant
that some of them may be discriminatory), but the one that springs most
immediately to mind is the presence of a large Latino support structure
within the US. Yes, that's right, have your ethnic homies around you can
actually *hinder* your ability to attain citizenship. Actually, this is
not unique to Latinos, and happens anywhere where there is a sizeable
population of a single ethnic group concentrated in one area.
Why? Well, if everyone that you know, everyone that you talk to,
and everyone that you deal with speaks Spanish, you have *zero* incentive
to learn English. In a largely Latino community, you can live your entire
life and rarely if ever be forced to speak a word of English. In southern
California, you even get TV in Spanish.
If you doubt my assertion, consider the case of the migrant
worker (I'm from "apple country" in Michigan, so I have dealt with migrant
workers and their children on a personal and regular basis). Discounting
the workers who are in the country illegally (which is actually fewer than
you might imagine), there are people who speak not a whit of English.
They've been in the US for decades in some cases, yet they never take the
time to learn it. Why? Because they don't have to. Usually, the work
foreman knows pretty good English, and simply tells the workers what needs
to be done - in Spanish. Hell, half the white farmers in west Michigan
speak at least some Spanish, simply because it makes dealing with the
workers easier.
Further, the workers socialize mainly among themselves (which is
partly that they're "different" from the folks around them, and partly
that they spend so much time travelling that they never establish real
relationships with people outside their travelling group). This means
that in both their work environment and their social environment, they
have little exposure to English.
Is it any wonder that it takes them twice as long to become
citizens, considering that a knowledge of the English language is a
prerequisite?
Does this make US immigration and naturalization policy
discriminatory? Hell no. Perhaps you might want to consider other
potential social or cultural factors that lead to this phenomenon before
blithely standing up and saying that US citizenship policy is unilaterally
discriminatory against Latinos.

Marc
Message no. 59
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 03:25:32 +0100
In article <v0401174db36a4badd848@[128.120.118.25]>, Adam Getchell
<acgetchell@*******.edu> writes
>Well, you can find one example of what you've decided is discrimination. I
>can walk through a whole neighborhood of it every weekend in the Mission.

I'll give you another. An officer cadet who committed a range-safety
violation: not only loading a weapon without orders, but then pointing said
loaded weapon at a senior NCO.

Guess what? No charges brought, no official record, no punishment
beyond being chosen for guard duty that night (the limit of 'local
discipline')

If I'd done it, I'd have been on the carpet in front of the RSM, the
adjutant, and the CO and "strongly advised" to reconsider my military
ambitions. Certainly fined and had a reprimand placed upon my record. A
night's guard duty would have been the least of my worries.


But then I'm white and the OCDT in question was not, and the Army was
rather jumpy about "institutional racism" at the time (rightly, the Regulars
had just had some rather nasty incidents reported). He was allowed to
screw up where I would not have been. That's racism: because he was a
darker shade of skin than I, nobody was willing or able to tell him he was
screwing up and needed to learn better habits.

And _that_ is discrimination, too, when you fear to give someone bad
news. It helps _nobody_ to withold a genuine performance evaluation. If
they're weak, tell them so... along with suggestions as to how to improve.
It cuts both ways.

>Let's look at how the tests were conducted. What was the basis for scoring?

In the case above, "if he'd pulled his trigger he'd have killed CSM Wilkes".
Not generally acceptible to kill your own instructors on a range in
peacetime, at least not in Britain, and a loaded firearm is (pardon the bad
pun) a fairly black-and-white issue. He skated. I would not have done. One
white OCDT who committed a similar offence was given a choice - quit
quietly, or be prosecuted and risk a spell in Colchester.


Dave wasn't stupid. Out of uniform he was extremely intelligent. In or out
of Army green, he was a likeable and friendly person. Nor did he seem to
hate the Army, or CSM Wilkes. He just seemed... clueless about specific
matters, and it seemed that nobody was willing or able to shout at him
that his mistakes could one day kill him or his comrades. (Can't tell off a
black officer cadet, that would be racist!)

A bad combination, however it came about.


FWIW in that unit our Regimental Sergeant Major was a Greek Cypriot,
naturalised British. Short, unhandsome, about as non-white as a
Mediterranean-born man can be, and one of the finest soldiers I've ever
met. I can't see how those five factors interrelate myself: all that
mattered to me was the crown on his wrist that marked him as a WO1,
because that was all the Army would listen to. He'd persuaded _them_ he
could do the job and we'd damn well better do as he said.

The consensus among both the officer-cadets and the regular staff was
that he was pulled from his own regiment and sent to us, as final polishing
before being commissioned. We accepted that the Army had much racist
baggage, and so that for our RSM to have reached his rank against such so
young indicared either enormous political skill or incredible ability, and
that while we all feared and hated him (as is a RSM's lot) we also believed
he'd earned his rank by talent and drive. He was not much loved: but he
was feared, admired and respected in equal measure, and he was both
ruthless in criticism and generous in advice.

I heard (I left before he competed his tour) that this happened, and that
he returned to his battalion as adjutant. If true, almost unheard of, but if
anyone could have done such, it would have been Chris Norman.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 60
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 22:55:34 EDT
In a message dated 5/21/99 10:30:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Paul@********.demon.co.uk writes:

> I'll give you another. An officer cadet who committed a range-safety
> violation: not only loading a weapon without orders, but then pointing said
> loaded weapon at a senior NCO.
>
> Guess what? No charges brought, no official record, no punishment
> beyond being chosen for guard duty that night (the limit of 'local
> discipline')
>
> If I'd done it, I'd have been on the carpet in front of the RSM, the
> adjutant, and the CO and "strongly advised" to reconsider my military
> ambitions. Certainly fined and had a reprimand placed upon my record. A
> night's guard duty would have been the least of my worries.

From what I remember of firearms training (mind, it was basic training
for raw recruits, not an Officer Candidate School (or it's non-US equivalent)
... doing that would have maybe got him shot dead on the spot.

At least when I was in training, they DID have Range Officers in the
tower, and the M-60 WAS loaded. Id oubt any of the men manning those things
ever expects to USE them, but if a recruit were to point a loaded weapon at
their training officer(s) ... >bang< dead recruit. Regardless, I must say,
of color: the gunners doing the deed likely would have no time OR ability to
discern color of someone's skin, from behind and above.

Ugly business, that'd've been.

That was the theory, as explained to us by the Drill Sergeants ... but I
doubt it was told to us as a mere verbal deterrant. After all, if you go far
enough over the edge to shoot your DI during training, a verbal deterrant is
HARDLY going to even give you pause, n'est-ce pas? Especially given, if YOU
have bullets, so do some 20+ other guys who MIGHT not agree with you trying
to shoot and kill them, and their DI ... <EG>

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 61
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 11:38:43 +0200
According to Sommers, at 8:54 on 21 May 99, the word on
the street was...

> They were sent to Guantanamo and Guam because they are territories and not
> actually part of the US. If a person lands on US soil and is a refugge
> (political, from war, etc) and not for economic reasons, he is
> automatically granted asylum and put on the track to Residence. Since the
> whole point is we would like to see them returned to their homes...

That's the bit the media never explain, and in that light it makes more
sense. Still, IMHO it's ludicrous to fly someone from the Balkans to an
island in the _Pacific_ just to house them somewhere for a while.

> The reason that they seem tougher is because its so automatic, whereas the
> European countries tend to be more strenuous about their requirements. This
> is from what I remember my dad (from the Netherlands) telling me, so if I'm
> wrong please tell me.

Here, refugees are put into refugee centers where they are processed
(which can currently take up to three years or so, but everybody involved
would like to see that reduced). Then, if they are found to be legitimate
refugees -- not having fled for economic or other such reasons, etc. --
they are given "refugee status" (I think it's called) which allows them to
stay, get a job, and other things like that.

However, guidelines for what makes a person a refugee to be accepted,
rather than someone to be sent back to their country of origin have been
tightened over the past decade or so due to the influx of refugees since
the early 1990s. For example, in any EU country you have to apply for
refugee status in the EU country you initially entered -- you can't go to
Spain, then travel to Germany, and apply for refugee status there.

> Trying to inject some Shadowrun into this, it points to the problems that
> could occur if the US split. It went from being one country to about whta,
> 6 or 7 countries? All of them to various degrees are split on racial
> points, from the elves of the Tir to the Indians of the NAN, to the French
> in Quebec. While the SR thoughts on mega-corps may be off (although I still
> think its possible) there does seems to be a very strong possibility of the
> country eventually splitting up into a bunch of smaller ethnic countries.

I'd say that depends on a great many factors. As long as a people feels it
belongs together, I doubt you'd get much splitting-up. For example, if all
the different tribes in the Pueblo Corporate Council (to grab a random
country) see themselves as PCC citizens first and tribe members second,
there is little chance of the PCC going into civil war, etc. OTOH if all
the tribes in the PCC view themselves as different from all the other
tribes in the PCC, you have a potential disaster (as can be seen on the
Balkans). Other factors are also important, like an external enemy can
help keep people together who would otherwise fight amongst themselves.

IMHO, this is something that you either have to do a great big study of,
or simply decide what you feel works best for your game.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I never seem to be able to finish what I
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 62
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 13:44:10 +0100
In article <41e3bea8.247776a6@***.com>, GMPax@***.com writes
>In a message dated 5/21/99 10:30:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>Paul@********.demon.co.uk writes:
>> I'll give you another. An officer cadet who committed a range-safety
>> violation: not only loading a weapon without orders, but then pointing said
>> loaded weapon at a senior NCO.

> From what I remember of firearms training (mind, it was basic training
>for raw recruits, not an Officer Candidate School (or it's non-US equivalent)
>... doing that would have maybe got him shot dead on the spot.

It was accidental, not deliberate. Dave loaded his weapon without orders,
and was holding it, and when CSM Wilkes yelled at him he turned and the
rifle turned with him... and then he realised what he was doing and
started laughing, which was a bad idea. He wasn't about to go on a killing
spree.

You had men with M-60s watching you on the range? Bloody hell. We never
needed anything like that...

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 63
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 09:16:21 +1000
Mark Fender writes:
> > Go read the logs on the debates about the rights of the SINless in SR:
> > it's
> > the same thing. (Wow, I worked in an SR element!)
> >
> Wow! You're the only one to do that so far. Congratulations, you
> might have
> brought this thread back around.

Someone had to step up to the plate and do it. :)

Fortunately, the rest of the list continued to debate OT, so it looks like
no lasting damage was done.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.