| From: | GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Institutional Racism [ very long ] |
| Date: | Thu, 20 May 1999 18:46:45 EDT |
acgetchell@*******.edu writes:
> >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.
And I haven't bothered to read or try to understand you opinions? That
statement is both unworthy of you, and not a judgement you can make. Trying
and failing does _not_ equate failing to try.
> >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.
And I'm telling you mine. Sad thing is, on a lot of points we don't disagree
much, if at all. The major point is, the apparent conviction you hold, that
being born white is a free ride through life, that white pople cannot
possibly suffer as much as nonwhites.
As a group, perhaps being white grants (wrongly, but still) a greater
_chance_ of a better life ... but chances are not absolutes, and I have seen
little from you, sir, aside from absolutes.
>
> 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?
>
No ... I myself am disabled. What little _I_ can do is keep myself "in line"
with regards to racism and prejudice, and vote for candidates who seem to
think/act in a similar fashion. My one, small drop in the bucket. And all,
really, I am _capable_ of doing, at this juncture.
You say I can understand _nothing_ of what a minority person feels. Sorry,
_wrong_ ... my two beloved half-sisters (children of my father's second wife)
are partially african-american: their great-great grandmother (maybe another
great in there, not sure) was a black slave, freed by Lincoln's Emancipation
Proclamation.
THEIR half sister, in turn, shares their (mostly) white mother, and has an
African-American father.
I've seen some of the effects of racial discrimination. Not as the victim,
in those specific cases, but close-up and still rather personal (I care
deeply for my family, VERY deeply).
> >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.
>
Where I am going with that ... my intent is, do not judge me until you _know_
me. If you presume I meant violence ... blecch. Outside games, I abhor
violence, period.
I meant, if you really wanted to call me a liar to my face (as you claimed
you would to anyone who said "I am free of prejudice" ... I'd give you the
chance, by knowing where to find me.
Of course, you might have had a harder time of calling me a liar, after
speaking to me in person for fifteen minutes.
THAT is where I was going.
> >_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.
Aha. But that, itself, is prejudicial. You are using your interactions with
someone ELSE, to judge individuals you have not yet met. Like me, for
example, much earlier in this debate. Is not prejudice what you seek to
combat? How then can you justify harboring a prejudicial attitude?
See the problem I have with your point of view? You _appear_, at least, to
be saying "I can do this wrong thing, but you cannot" ... which is unfair,
and incorrect. Either we BOTH can, or NEITHER of us can.
THAT is truly "fair."
>
> >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 the other HALF of the point is, you have presumed, including in direct
statements, that because he is NOT a minority, he has NOT.
Look; you cannot make absolute statements without 100% or more of the facts
... and not expect a rebuttal pointing out the error(s), if any, in your
assertations. Trying to backpedal and say "that's not the point" when it is
somewhere YOU took the conversation, doesn't work.
> >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.
So instead of SUPPORTING that inequality (by making it so the kids don't HAVE
to work as hard to get into the nicer schools), why not work to equalise the
schools themselves?
Racially-based quotas are racist. Period.
For a truly color-blind society, we must do away with ALL preferences based
on race, not _create_ new ones favoring minorities. Quotas don't work, it's
the "two wrongs don't make a right" dilemma.
> >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...
So why does the latino community need to be in one big bloc to vote their
representatives into office? If they are truly in the majority, compared to
whites, as (IIRC, my apologies if not) you seem to have implied ... why did
the redistribution not cut the legs out of _white_ politicians, too?
If the latino voters have been spread across more districts ... that means
more _chances_ for a latino rep to get voted in, wouldn't you say? Since
there is a "latino vote" present in each of those districts?
Or, alternately, if they have been concentrated into _fewer_ districts ...
should that not almost guarantee a latino representative from those
districts, given the "latino vote" is probably vastly in the majority in
those districts?
So, some folks in power already tried, wrongly, to preserve their power ...
use their actions AGAINST them. That'd be the best (and most ironic) way to
tan their sorry hides, would you not agree?
> Of course, the ballots are now all in English,
Of course: English is the language of our government. Did my grandmotehr,
born in Canada, complain when she had to find work at 14, while not speaking
a WORD of english? No. She made the effort to LEARN the language.
I see no reason why the Latino community could not arrange for a translator
to accompany them into the voting booth.
but adding THEIR language means that ANY language spoken by any minority
group must be included.
I've been on welfare. Whenever they sent an important form, IN ENGLISH of
course, they sent cards int eh envelope which said, in several languages,
"Important notice! Get this translated immediately!"
One time, I got such an envelope with FIVE of those cards. Double-sided, 4
to 8 languages per side (depending on size of script). Laotian, Cambodian,
Chinese, Serbian, Croatian, Russian and one or two of the other slavic
tongues. LOTS of languages.
> and Latinos have to wait 14 years for citizenship and the right to vote,
vs. 7
> years for all others...
What? BS. That would be direct ethnic discrimination, and as I understand
the Civil Rights Act, would be EASILY knocked down in the Supreme Court.
>
> >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.
I will presume, given your past statements, that you meant "... majority [
didn't try ] to keep them down."
And no, the majority itself did not do so. A few, power-hungry POLITICIANS
and their cronies tried.
Does that mean Mr and Mrs Smith, down at the corner, were in on the plot? NO.
Do as you ask US to do: judge people on their INDIVIDUAL MERITS.
IOW, "put up or shut up." :-) Not meant to give offense, mind ...
>
> >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?
>
May I ask where, and when, you served in the military? Short though my time
in service was (my disability earned an ELS discharge, sadly) ... Fort
Leonard Wood, Missouri, TRADOC: D Company, 189th Engineer Batallion. First
platoon, if it matters to you.
And our DI's made something VERY clear to us: racial discrimination was
(IIRC, and I expect I do :-), an offense for which a soldier could
potentially be COURT MARTIALLED. The Army, at least, made a judgement call
some 50 years ago, I think: racial discrimination in combat units could
affect morale ... which is a Bad Thing (tm) in combat.
Try again.
>
> >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.
Standing up for your rights, is all well and fine. Telling ME, that -->[
MERELY BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF MY SKIN ]<-- I am either ignorant of yoru
plight, or "the enemy" ... is NOT the thing to do.
Someone else quoted the old saw: you attract more flies with honey than with
vinegar.
And right now, I smell only vinegar from your direction, sir.
>
> >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.
>
No. It is an attempt to get you to SPECIFY your point, rather than make
broad generalisations with few no supporting facts. Yes, there is a lot of
bigotry. But saying "much of" as he did, is a long way different from saying
"all of" as you have _repeatedly_ done.
> >
> >> 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.
>
Read my later post regarding my weight; I've been discriminated against, not
racially, but by other means. As for racial discrimination: I have been
HOMELESS, where the racial split was closer to even. And yes, the nonwhites
were ... "unfriendly" ... to the whites, a goodly percentage of the time. So
I'd say I've experienced a LITTLE of it for myself.
The corrolary (?sp) of yoru statement is: until you have experienced being
white for yourself, you know absolutely nothing about it, and have nothing to
say about it.
Makes you think, no? I HOPE it does ... because if YOU can know what it is
like to be MY "kind of people" ... then _I_ can know some small part of what
it's like to be YOUR "kind of people" ...
> >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?
>
My apologies, it was late and I misspoke. Still, ONE CENTURY then. And long
before slavery was ended in America, the UK illegalised the slave trade, and
began fighting against transatlantic slave traders.
> 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.
>
And WHITE folks face those economic factors too! That's MY entire point:
just because you are NOT white, does not give you a MONOPOLY on being the
victim of prejudice! YES, minorities get the lion's share. But not ALL of
it.
> >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.
>
I could say the same to you. But I doubt THAT would get through, any more
than the REST of the _volume_ of words and thoughts that have been sent over
the list.
Your mind is as closed as you accuse ours of being, or so it would seem from
here.
> >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.
There is no ignorance. Slavery IS over.
You continually read more into statements than is there. When I said "it's
over" it was after specifically mentioning SLAVERY. Do you wish to contend
that slave ownership still continues? Show me ONE case where a white person
owns a nonwhite person, in the last half CENTURY, in the USA.
You cannot, can you?
Would that not seem to indicate that slavery _IS_ truly over? Hmm?
>
> >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.
Yes, you in effect have. Whenever faced with questions along the lines of
"do you think there is some big conspiracy of white men trying to keep the
minorities down" you have held up examples, including the LA voter-district
issue.
Holding up an example as your response to a question says "YES" in response
to that question. So, yes, you DID say something of that sort, directly and
explicitly.
Perhaps you should choose your words more carefully, before getting into
situations where you must repeatedly say "I never said that" and the like.
>
> >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?
<sigh>
White people do not have a monopoly on VOTING ... and voting is the
foundation of all our politics. You want change in government, Mr. Getchell?
VOTE FOR IT.
>
> >> 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".
I never denied that occurred. Again, the context of this debate (which you
seem to conveniently foget when it suits you) is that the minorities do not
have a MONOPOLY on such things. The majority, yes, I agree. More than their
"fair share" definitely, by far.
All of it? NO SIR.
> >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?
>
"I against my brother. My brother and I against my cousin. My brother, my
cousin, and I against the stranger."
I'm not sure where I read that, but it fits, and applies here.
> >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.
Yes you have: you have insisted that whites have it easier, that whites
_cannot_ understand what it is to suffer the effects of prejudice ... a.k.a.
oppression.
> >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.
So ... if you aren't white, simply becoming a Police Officer is "selling out"
... ?
>snort<
Ridiculous! Utter balderdash!
>
> >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.
Note: I agreed people NEW to this country might understandably be unaware of
their rights. Now, Mr. Getchell, who is not reading whose posts? :-)
> You've at least been educated into the
> exercise of your franchise.
Anyone seeking to become a citizen of this country is AFAIK _supposed_ to
take civics courses, US History courses, and the like ... specifically to
give them the SAME understanding of their rights and history as Americans as
_I_ have.
> 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.
Did they pursue this through the departments IA bureau afterwards? Throught
he courts perhaps? If not ... then THEY become culpable, THEY become
accessories, through their silence. Remaining silent lets the officer(s)
"get away with" whatever they did, and DO IT _AGAIN_.
> 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 did. ;-)
And you now refute dictionaries ... the place where our language is DEFINED.
Listen, Mr Getchell, maybe those courses used "racism" in that way, WITHIN
THE CONTEXT OF THE COURSE. But when you come OUT of those classrooms, you
have to go back to using the definition of words shared by the REST of the
real world.
And IMO, you may have read too much into this definition you cite ... merely
because the _examples_ were given in terms of minority peoples being
oppressed by majority? I'll likely never know for certain, of course. But
... HERE, you _must_ use our definition of that word ... majority DOES rule,
sorry to say for you. And those dictionaries are where we turn to figure out
the meaning of a word, when that meaning comes into dispute.
It's called "doing the research."
> 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.
You are not a lone opinion. I face this repeatedly, from many fronts,
throughout each week.
> >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.
No. People break laws. But that is why the laws include PENALTIES for
breaking them.
Some town makes a zoning law that discriminates based on race or ethnicity?
SUE THE STINKING BASTARDS. Class-action suit by EVERY member of the inner
city, for every dime the community is worth.
Then sink the money into making the inner city better. Or into BUYING a new
community, where prejudice does NOT enter the laws and by-laws.
Or you can do as you imply, take your lickings, and slink back to the inner
city with your tail between your legs. Yeah, THAT'S "doing something about
it" alright.
>
> >This has been refuted already. I refer you once more to a DICTIONARY.
>
> Research.
Which is precisely what I have advised you to DO, Mr. Getchell. Research ...
on the meaning of a word from the English language, which you insist has a
meaning different from that which the REST of us agree on.
>
> >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.
>
Wait a minute. Having a Klansmen burn a cross on a school lawn isn't
"racially motivated" ... ?
Tell me, Mr Getchell, what DOES constitute "racially motivated" in whatever
book you DO use for definitions?
> >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.
Wrong. Maybe I _do_ understand, and don;t agree. Must I say "yes massa" to
be seen as understanding you? And yes, I chose THOSE words for a reason.
Nodding ones head and saying "yes" when required is not understanding. It is
_submitting_ ... two entirely different things.
You have no idea what degrees I have. For all YOU know, I may have, or be
workign towards, a degree in anthropology, with a concentration in ethnic
studies. For all YOU know, I may be TEACHING ethnic studies classes.
But you don't klnow those things. You make generalisations, and absolute
statements based on nonexistant facts.
And then complain that we do no understand you ... when in fact, we simply do
no AGREE WITH you.
Sean
GM Pax
