Racism in America

[bbradigan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

Barack Obama gave a speech on racism in america, I think he is the first presidential candidate to address this problem. What do you guys think about Racism in America? Barack Obama?

[Osborn F. Enready]

I think race and gender are being used to divide the nation, by the two major political parties... among the other tools they are using.

[preservanation]

I found race relations to be quite different from the north and the south.
People were much more open about it in the south, not shy to acknowledge that someone is a different color and might have a somewhat different culture.
In the north one runs into the ridiculous situation that if somebody is trying to describe a black person, they will list a bunch of other attributes before mentioning race.
This leads to absolutely ridiculous conversations such as this...

"You know Jack, he's 5'10'', dark hair, 180 lb, and works at the gas station".

"ah, no I don't think so..."

"oh, cmon, you know him."

"no, sorry I don't know..."

"Sure you do, he's a black guy"

"Oh, Jack!" Yeah, I know him. Why the hell didn't you tell me he was black in the first place, moron."
Huge waist of time.

News media is the same way. Many times they'll omit the race of a suspect they want help locating out of fear of stereotyping. Another example of PC getting in the way of keeping people safe.

I made the mistake of refering to a black friend in WV as an African-American once, only once.
Hoooo Boy did he read me the riot act!
"African!" He yelled. "African??"
"Ever see an African?" he bellowed at me.
"Africans smell, have cracked feet and can't even speak English! I ain't no God Damn African, I'm an American! Don't you forget it and BTW, how long has your family been in America? Mine has been her for 300 years!
Don't ever call me an African!!!"

So I didn't ever again.

Since then I never refer to a black as an African American, and the only people who have ever had a problem with that are white liberals. Go figure.

[Mia]

I'm tired of hearing about race and gender in this election. That's what I think about it. Tired, tired, tired. I want to hear about the best human being for the freaking job, that's it. And I'm also tired of endless discussion over minor differences in health care plans that neither of them can pass anyway! GAH! Are people really going to vote for one because they like the unattainable plan he/she endorses better? GAH!

[preservanation]

I don't mind the race discussion, I guess. But the ignorance and defensiveness of some is disturbing.
Race was not an issue in the campaign untill recently.
Obama was viewed as transcending race and fit very well into his theme of "hope"
Now, all that's out the window.

I saw a poll yesterday.
They asked Dems if this Wright flap had damaged Obama's campaign...
White Dems, 40%, yes
Black Dems, 2%, yes.

I see the battle lines being drawn in the Dem party, and they are along race, and to a lesser degree, sex.
I don't think anyone can deny that now.

[4Reaganomics]

Smerconish wrote a great book called "Muzzled" pres that addresses the media issue you spoke of previously and politcal correctness.

Poltical correctness is having a largely negative effect on our country. When we can't simply say "the black guy" or "the white guy" or "the old guy", we become a group of pansies.

[Elrathin]

Poltical correctness is having a largely negative effect on our country. When we can't simply say "the black guy" or "the white guy" or "the old guy", we become a group of pansies.


Political correctness is nothing more than just an extension of the "manners" that high society tries to live by. Think about it, at a wealthy party, does the woman ask "where's the toilet" or does she ask "Where is the powder room"?

So blame a rich person for political correctness hehe.

[Mia]

I like manners. I'd rather hear ladies room than toilet. I don't think that extends to PC necessarily. They would say, 'the black gentleman', though, instead of that n*#ger, and that's nice!

[Buck Laser]

Barack Obama gave a speech on racism in america, I think he is the first presidential candidate to address this problem. What do you guys think about Racism in America? Barack Obama?

Actually, LBJ attacked racism very effectively in 1964, with the result that Congress passed the milestone Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Even earlier, Harry Truman integrated the armed forces, which had been segregated from the Civil War on. So Obama was not the first, but it's been more than forty years since it's been so directly addressed.

[preservanation]

Smerconish wrote a great book called "Muzzled" pres that addresses the media issue you spoke of previously and politcal correctness.

Poltical correctness is having a largely negative effect on our country. When we can't simply say "the black guy" or "the white guy" or "the old guy", we become a group of pansies.
Never heard of it 4,
Thanks for the tip.
I have heard of it now and will look it up.

As always...thanks.
~p

[preservanation]

Barack Obama gave a speech on racism in america, I think he is the first presidential candidate to address this problem. What do you guys think about Racism in America? Barack Obama?

Actually, LBJ attacked racism very effectively in 1964, with the result that Congress passed the milestone Civil Rights Act of 1964.
LBJ attacked racism by making it worse.
Is this wasn't a fact we wouldn't be complaining about it now, would we?

I don't understand how we can define addressing a problem as a success by exacerbating it ...but that's just me.

[Elrathin]

Actually, LBJ attacked racism very effectively in 1964, with the result that Congress passed the milestone Civil Rights Act of 1964.


So you believe that whites and blacks should be segregated in public and schools? The civil rights act ended that practice.

[Buck Laser]

Barack Obama gave a speech on racism in america, I think he is the first presidential candidate to address this problem. What do you guys think about Racism in America? Barack Obama?

Actually, LBJ attacked racism very effectively in 1964, with the result that Congress passed the milestone Civil Rights Act of 1964.
LBJ attacked racism by making it worse.
Is this wasn't a fact we wouldn't be complaining about it now, would we?

I don't understand how we can define addressing a problem as a success by exacerbating it ...but that's just me.

Do you actually think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 exacerbated racism? If that's what you're saying, I don't think we have any basis for rational conversation. You don't live in the same universe that I do. Of course, it's been clear to me for awhile that you seem to get your talking points from the Dittohead Handbook.

[preservanation]

Barack Obama gave a speech on racism in america, I think he is the first presidential candidate to address this problem. What do you guys think about Racism in America? Barack Obama?

Actually, LBJ attacked racism very effectively in 1964, with the result that Congress passed the milestone Civil Rights Act of 1964.
LBJ attacked racism by making it worse.
Is this wasn't a fact we wouldn't be complaining about it now, would we?

I don't understand how we can define addressing a problem as a success by exacerbating it ...but that's just me.

Do you actually think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 exacerbated racism? If that's what you're saying, I don't think we have any basis for rational conversation. You don't live in the same universe that I do. Of course, it's been clear to me for awhile that you seem to get your talking points from the Dittohead Handbook.
Equality is something that is within us all, not something to be granted by Mr Buck Laser, LBJ or anyone else for that matter.

[Buck Laser]

Equality is something that is within us all, not something to be granted by Mr Buck Laser, LBJ or anyone else for that matter.
[/quote]
In other words, you're against the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts. Gotcha. That's pretty much what I thought.

[preservanation]

Yes, in other words ...your words.

[Mia]

Yes, in other words ...your words.



I agree that others are ascribing meaning to your words - but in the absence of you giving any of your own, and the given context, they are coming to understandable conclusions.

Why don't you clear the matter up and explain your original statement?

[davo]

First of all I should start by asking what racism is actually defined as. To the best of my knowledge, Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) coined the term 'racist' in his 1932 book "History of the Russian Revolution"

As for racial issues in the election, I agree strongly with an earlier statement that the democratic nomination has been dumbed down to a debate on whether its more 'progressive' to have a black president or a woman president, in lieu of debating the candidate's integrity or policies.

To me, the idea we should vote for someone specifically because they are black, is just as bad as not voting for someone because of their race.

If by racism we mean ethnocentrism, then I am totally convinced there will be no such thing as ending racism. Ethnocentric behavior is very much a part of humanity just as much as war and greed. It is futile to claim racism can be eliminated or stopped, just as it is futile to suggest we can end war. This doesn't mean we should all start joining the Klan or Black Panthers, just as we shouldn't start wars all of a sudden. Whilst we should try to reduce racial tensions and 'love thy neighbor' as much as possible, we should be realistic and honest with ourselves when it comes to our identities and heritage, and not believe in politically correct utopianism and social engineering.

[preservanation]

Yes, in other words ...your words.



I agree that others are ascribing meaning to your words - but in the absence of you giving any of your own, and the given context, they are coming to understandable conclusions.

Why don't you clear the matter up and explain your original statement?
Mia, I am responding for your benefit only. Some people don't care what I have to say, they just hurl veiled accusations of racism, and I find it a waste of time.

First of all I think it's self explanatory.
The liberal solution to the race issue was to assume that blacks are incapable of making it in America without white largess. This is insulting and instills resentment.
Blacks have been convinced that they are owed something, once that is achieved it takes away individual responsibility for success or failure. Why strive to achieve when rich white people are just gong to ruin you?
It is not 65 years ago. This is the beauty of capitalism...the best and most productive people will get the jobs and the raises to keep them. The bottom line is truly color blind.
Affirmative action and quotas has done nothing more than to act on liberal racist views that blacks aren't good enough or capable to do the job with out drastically tilting the playing field.
This is not only a lie, but is damaging to the black psyche and foments resentments with whites. How is that helping the race situation in America???

Obviously the civil rights act and voting act were needed and I applaud them.
That is not what I'm talking about.
Also a lot of people don't realize that it was Democrats like Al Gore Sr who opposed the civil rights acts and filibustered them and it was the images of white Dems like Bull Connor with his dogs and water-hoses which were the most disturbing.
How the left has been able to warp history through repetitive propaganda to make people believe that Republicans were the racists is beyond me. They were the ones pushing the amendment.

The problem came when lib policies were enacted by gov and the Great society. Destroyed the black family through welfare policy and turned generations of blacks into de facto wards of the state.
Just more plantation mentality which we had overcome in the 50's and 60's. Dem/Liberal policy resurrected it once again and we are all paying the price for it...especially minorities.

What's frustrating is the Buck knows all this and for him to say this.."Do you actually think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 exacerbated racism?" when I wasn't even addressing these two Acts to begin with and never said it makes me want to puke.
And this..."In other words, you're against the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts. Gotcha. That's pretty much what I thought."
Same thing. Those are his words, not mine.

It wasn't me who opposed them it was Dems, a party of which he is a member.

[Buck Laser]

The problem came when lib policies were enacted by gov and the Great society. Destroyed the black family through welfare policy and turned generations of blacks into de facto wards of the state.
Just more plantation mentality which we had overcome in the 50's and 60's. Dem/Liberal policy resurrected it once again and we are all paying the price for it...especially minorities.

What's frustrating is the Buck knows all this and for him to say this.."Do you actually think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 exacerbated racism?" when I wasn't even addressing these two Acts to begin with and never said it makes me want to puke.
It wasn't me who opposed them it was Dems, a party of which he is a member.

Anytime Preserv starts talking about "libs," he starts spouting the Limbaugh line. Then he makes the neat but unsustainable transition from "libs" to "Dems" by saying it was the Dems who opposed civil rights legislation. Of course, I have to give him that point, because it was the southern Democrats, who never were liberals who opposed civil rights legislation. They were the people Nixon lured into the republican party with his "southern strategy."

Preserv "wasn't addressing" civil rights and voting rights, yet those are the most important landmarks in combating racism since Brown v Board of Education a decade earlier. He and others have continually attacked the War on Poverty as something that fostered racism, and have tossed around figures in the trillions, all without a single shred of substantiation as if we should just accept whatever they say as the truth. And all because they heard it on some dumb-ass AM radio talk show. Just fuckin' unbelievable.

Like any other massive effort, the Great Society failed in a number of important ways. I could (and I have) write for days about what happened during the Great Society days, because I was there and involved in day-to-day implementation in the programs. But Preserv and his little band of talk radio listeners seem to think their own brand of toxic whines somehow trumps actual experience.

[preservanation]

Forced segregation is just as bad as forced integration.
When the gov starts forcing social behavior and taking away individual freedom and liberty, that is where Orwell becomes relevant.
Some just can't see that and have a warped view of what the idea of America is.

[Buck Laser]

Forced segregation is just as bad as forced integration.
When the gov starts forcing social behavior and taking away individual freedom and liberty, that is where Orwell becomes relevant.
Some just can't see that and have a warped view of what the idea of America is.

Forced integration is bad? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forced integration of public facilities. So it's bad? Sure looks to me like you're practicing your Chaos Distribution, Preserv!:love:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck Laser said:
Forced integration is bad?

Forced integration is bad in the strict sense, surely. There are people who don't want to integrate into parts of society, or society all together. Are these people not entitled to live a life, to be happy if they can of their own will without infringing the rights of others?

Buck Laser said:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forced integration of public facilities. So it's bad?

Public facillities HAVE to be integrated if equal rights are observed, as all races, genders are part of the public and have equal rights under the eyes of the law, by design.

Also, politics and public service jobs should be objectively based on relative qualifications for the job being sought, not on race or gender. This is an inherant weakness in unlimited forms of democracy, or populism, as the public can sway the vote on either if blinded by partisanship, propaganda and/or inaccurate/biased/incomplete information.

However, forced integration in the sense I despise are issues like "affirmative action", or percentage based systems on determining "racial friendliness" of a company or business.

I don't know for a fact, but I would be willing to bet that all fields of study are not filled "equally" by race and gender, and why should it be if people of those races and genders don't choose those courses of study equally of their own volition.

If I open a business and hire 10 people for a specific job qualification, do I have to ensure that I pick a "fair" percentage of each race, and why should that take precedent over skill if you alledge it should?

I view that as a form of FORCED integration, and the government has no right to use force in this manner.

I also alledge many issues today are forms of reverse racism.

[preservanation]

You know what I mean, Buck.

Would you be in favor of forcing communities to identically reflect our population, even if minorities didn't want it?
That's what I'm talking about.
Don't you think that blacks should be able to live in a mostly black community if they choose to do so?
Or would you force them into a community in which they didn't want to live?

I wonder why I even bother sometimes...:love:

[4Reaganomics]

No, but tax payer dollars should support systems where minority families are given the opportunity to live in mostly white communities that cost more than they can afford without assistance.

There used to be a concept where you would have to earn a nice home or nice meals.

But judging by other threads, being born a certain color into a certain situation entitles you to things without ever having to earn them


This concept ruined entire neighborhoods in urban cities in America.

[Buck Laser]

If I open a business and hire 10 people for a specific job qualification, do I have to ensure that I pick a "fair" percentage of each race, and why should that take precedent over skill if you alledge it should?

I view that as a form of FORCED integration, and the government has no right to use force in this manner.

I also alledge many issues today are forms of reverse racism.

Uh, Osborn? You should look into affirmative action standards instead of just crapping on what you think they are. Affirmative Action doesn't require a small business owner to follow ANY kind of hiring guidelines. And there's no requirement in ANY business that you hire a "quota" of ethnic minority or female employees. You'd just like to think that's the case, presumably because it gives you something to bitch about.

Affirmative Action requires a business to advertise for employees in such a way that it's clear that anyone with the qualifications needed can apply and receive fair consideration. You can't advertise for a "white male 35-40" just because that's who you prefer. You can't advertise for a "female secretary with big tits" or a "colored janitor" either. If that offends your sense of "freedom," then I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.

What the laws do require is that if you have two candidates for a job who have equal qualifications and ability, and one of them is a minority, then you're expected to give special consideration to that one. Doesn't mean you have to hire, but you'd better have a good rationale for what you did.

I have some acquaintance with this for two reasons: back in the 60s and 70s, when AA was just getting started, I had to monitor Community Action Agencies for compliance. Then, from 1991 to the present, my daughter has been Affirmative Action manager for two national corporations. She's done and supervised hundreds of investigations. Her professional opinion is that about half the complaints filed turn out to be justified, and require remedial action by the company. The other half range from gray areas to outrageously funny stories about people with delusions of adequacy.

I would appreciate it you'd take the time to inform yourself a little more thoroughly about what Civil Rights and Affirmative Action actually require instead of just parroting what its uninformed critics say. The arguments could take place at a level where they should occur instead of requiring me to spend so much time just trying to correct misconceptions. There are definite problems with AA, but they're not even close to the crap uninformed emotional opponents throw out.

[NDNdancer]

Don't you think that blacks should be able to live in a mostly black community if they choose to do so?
Or would you force them into a community in which they didn't want to live?


I think what you're taking for granted is that blacks have a choice as to where they live. That's not true. There are still in place subtle, concerted efforts to keep blacks and other minorities out of neighborhoods.

I have a question to ask you, or a few actually.

Do you ever walk into a grocery store and have to worry about them "attaching" a box boy to watch you as you shop?

Do you ever have to go to school and protect your kids because the teachers/students/staff have made racist comments to them, or done worse?

Do you go to a job interview and think "I'm too white, they'll never hire me."?

Do you routinely get substandard service in restaurants, shops, grocery stores?

I think you and others take for granted the fact that you're white and can pretty much go and do whatever you want in this country and you have a whole system that protects and upholds your rights. That's NOT the case for minorities in this country.

[4Reaganomics]

There are quotas for universities though, basically. I met a statistician a few times who works on making sure that a certain Ivy is in complaince every year. I know of a couple others who work on this as well.

[Buck Laser]

You know what I mean, Buck.

Would you be in favor of forcing communities to identically reflect our population, even if minorities didn't want it?
That's what I'm talking about.
Don't you think that blacks should be able to live in a mostly black community if they choose to do so?
Or would you force them into a community in which they didn't want to live?

I wonder why I even bother sometimes...:love:

Tell me where any of that's being done, boyo. I haven't heard about that except from your fevered imagination. By the way, I live in a nicely integrated community. On my block, there are two hispanic families, a black family, a couple of mixed-race families, at least two gay couples, and a couple of other families like mine--older empty-nesters, in addition to "typical" American families. The only crime we have here is domestic disputes among some of the "typical" families.

[preservanation]

You know what I mean, Buck.

Would you be in favor of forcing communities to identically reflect our population, even if minorities didn't want it?
That's what I'm talking about.
Don't you think that blacks should be able to live in a mostly black community if they choose to do so?
Or would you force them into a community in which they didn't want to live?

I wonder why I even bother sometimes...:love:

Tell me where any of that's being done, boyo. I haven't heard about that except from your fevered imagination. By the way, I live in a nicely integrated community. On my block, there are two hispanic families, a black family, a couple of mixed-race families, at least two gay couples, and a couple of other families like mine--older empty-nesters, in addition to "typical" American families. The only crime we have here is domestic disputes among some of the "typical" families.
It's not, and I would like to keep it that way, thank you very much.

[Buck Laser]

You know what I mean, Buck.

Would you be in favor of forcing communities to identically reflect our population, even if minorities didn't want it?
That's what I'm talking about.
Don't you think that blacks should be able to live in a mostly black community if they choose to do so?
Or would you force them into a community in which they didn't want to live?

I wonder why I even bother sometimes...:love:

Tell me where any of that's being done, boyo. I haven't heard about that except from your fevered imagination. By the way, I live in a nicely integrated community. On my block, there are two hispanic families, a black family, a couple of mixed-race families, at least two gay couples, and a couple of other families like mine--older empty-nesters, in addition to "typical" American families. The only crime we have here is domestic disputes among some of the "typical" families.
It's not, and I would like to keep it that way, thank you very much.

What's not?

[NDNdancer]

There are quotas for universities though, basically. I met a statistician a few times who works on making sure that a certain Ivy is in complaince every year. I know of a couple others who work on this as well.


Actually, if you take a look at most universities, those "quotas" are in place to offset the huge amounts of dollars spent in recruiting, retaining and graduating white students. Just because those programs don't have the "white" tag on them doesn't mean that's not what their intent is.

Here's an excerpt from an article by one of my favorite anti-racism activist friends. We were able to share a dinner recently and almost forgot to eat we were talking so much, the waiter was a bit annoyed that we closed down the place, oh well *S*.
It is that context that best explains the duplicity of the President's criticisms of affirmative action at the University of Michigan. President Bush, himself a lifelong recipient of affirmative action for the rich and mediocre argues that the school's policies are examples of unfair racial preference, and has announced that he will be adding his Administration's voice to those seeking to undo the policies before the Supreme Court on April 1st.

Yet in doing so he has not only showed a profound ignorance of the Michigan policy, but has made clear the inability of yet another white person to grasp the magnitude of white privilege still in operation.

To wit, the President has attacked Michigan’s policy of awarding twenty points (on a 150-point evaluation scale) to undergraduate applicants who are members of underrepresented minorities (which at U of M means blacks, Latinos and American Indians). To many whites such a "preference" is blatantly discriminatory.

Yet what Bush fails to mention are the greater numbers of points awarded for other things, and which have the effect of preferencing whites to the exclusion of people of color.

For example, Michigan awards twenty points to any student from a low-income background, regardless of race. Since these points cannot be combined with those for minority status (in other words poor blacks don't get forty points), in effect this is a preference for poor whites.

Then Michigan awards sixteen points to students who hail from the Upper Peninsula of the state: a rural, largely isolated, and almost completely white area.

Of course both preferences are fair, based as they are on the recognition that economic status and even geography (as with race) can have a profound effect on the quality of K-12 schooling that one receives, and that no one should be punished for such things that are beyond their control. But note that such preferences--though disproportionately awarded to whites--remain uncriticized, while preferences for people of color become the target for reactionary anger.

Once again, white preference remains hidden because it is more subtle, more ingrained, and isn't called white preference, even if that's the effect.

But that's not all. Ten points are awarded to students who attended top-notch high schools, and another eight points are given to students who took an especially demanding AP and Honors curriculum.

As with points for those from the Upper Peninsula, these preferences may be race-neutral in theory, but in practice they are anything but. Because of intense racial isolation (and Michigan's schools are the most segregated in America for blacks according to research by the Harvard Civil Rights Project), students of color will rarely attend the "best" schools, and on average, schools serving mostly black and Latino students offer only a third as many AP and honors courses as schools serving mostly whites.

So even truly talented students of color will be unable to access those extra points simply because of where they live, their economic status, and ultimately their race, which is intertwined with both.

Four more points are awarded to students with a parent who attended the U of M: a kind of affirmative action with which the President is intimately familiar, and which almost exclusively goes to whites. Ironically, while alumni preference could work towards the interest of diversity if combined with aggressive race-based affirmative action (by creating a larger number of black and brown alums), the rollback of the latter, combined with the almost guaranteed retention of the former will only further perpetuate white preference.

So the U of M offers twenty "extra" points to the typical black, Latino or indigenous applicant, while offering various combinations worth up to 58 extra points for students who will almost all be white. But while the first of these are seen as examples of racial preferences, the second are not, hidden as they are behind the structure of social inequities that limit where people live, where they go to school, and the kinds of opportunities they have been afforded.

White preferences, by being the result of the normal workings of a racist society, can remain out of sight and out of mind, while the power of the state is turned against the paltry preferences meant to offset them.

Most telling is the oft-heard comment by whites that "if I had only been black I would have gotten into my first-choice college."

Such a statement not only ignores the fact that whites are more likely than members of any other group--even with affirmative action in place--to get into their first-choice school, but it also presumes, as anti-racist activist Paul Marcus explains, "that if these whites were black, everything else about their life would have remained the same." In other words, that it would have made no negative difference as to where they went to school, what their family income was, or anything else.

It is to once again miss the reality of white preferences, which have generally placed these whites in a better position for college or jobs than any of the persons of color whom they seem to think are taking "their" slots in school.

The ability to believe that being black would have made no difference (other than a beneficial one when it came time for college), and that being white has made no positive difference, is rooted in privilege itself.

The privilege that allows one to not have to think about race on a daily basis.

**edited to add** Thats from Tim Wise: The Mother of all Racial Preferences
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-05/24wise.cfm

Every time I leave my home and go out, I have to think about my race. I'm forced to think about it whether I want to or not. I don't think that's your experience?

[4Reaganomics]

Affirmative Action for the rich

Oh okay. The philosophy is that Universities cannot except students whose families have produced and who are willing to help the future of the university and its endowment through contributions.

But the color of someones skin is okay to admit them over an opponent.

malarkey

[NDNdancer]

Affirmative Action for the rich

Oh okay. The philosophy is that Universities cannot except students whose families have produced and who are willing to help the future of the university and its endowment through contributions.

But the color of someones skin is okay to admit them over an opponent.

malarkey


I think you missed the entire point of my post. It's the color of white people's skin that's getting them into universities based on their race. The quotas are only an attempt to level the playing field for minorities.

Malarkey indeed!

[Buck Laser]

Kyi Yo, thank you for injecting some more fact and first hand experience into a discussion of racism. It's really amazing how right wingers work themselves in to frenzies of righteous indignation over things they have no understanding of, then absolutely refuse to try to understand it. It reminds me a great deal of my 4 to 15 year old grandchildren yelling "it's not fair" before they stop to think. But I guess getting a member of the far right to stop and think is as useless as trying to stop the ocean's tides.

[4Reaganomics]

Two working class families that make 50K a year household income with a student with identical SAT scores and identical credentials and opposing skin colors, the minority student gets the spot.

To say that "a lot of rich people are white and rich people benefit universities so they admit them. Therefore, when there are two children working their asses off and one comes out slightly ahead, the other can leapfrog him due to race" is, I maintain Malarkey.

Universities should have the liberty to admit who they want to according to the benefit that they bring the University. Any restriction of this is unjust and clearly wrong.

[Buck Laser]

Two working class families that make 50K a year household income with a student with identical SAT scores and identical credentials and opposing skin colors, the minority student gets the spot.

To say that "a lot of rich people are white and rich people benefit universities so they admit them. Therefore, when there are two children working their asses off and one comes out slightly ahead, the other can leapfrog him due to race" is, I maintain Malarkey.

Universities should have the liberty to admit who they want to according to the benefit that they bring the University. Any restriction of this is unjust and clearly wrong.

As soon as you can show reliable evidence that that's the case, I'll be willing to listen to you. An isolatedcase doesn't cut it, either. Put up or shut up.

[4Reaganomics]

Put up what?

Universities have been instructed to meet a quota. To meet this you must take people of lower classifications.

Not all white people are rich. There are white people of median income. Their chances of getting into the University are less than that of Black students of median income. This is the truth, not an isolated incident.

[Buck Laser]

Put up what?

Universities have been instructed to meet a quota. To meet this you must take people of lower classifications.

Not all white people are rich. There are white people of median income. Their chances of getting into the University are less than that of Black students of median income. This is the truth, not an isolated incident.

That's not responsive to my post. I want provable statistics, not your uninformed opinions.

[Buck Laser]

Link (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-aaquotas.htm)
Myth: Affirmative action means quotas.

Fact: Quotas are illegal -- AA merely establishes the true qualified talent pool.



Summary

Quotas are illegal in the United States, except on rare occasions when judges order them to correct blatant discrimation. Affirmative action works by setting flexible goals -- which are based on the percentage of qualified minorities and women in the region. A company that searches in good faith but fails to find qualified minorities or women is not penalized for their failure.



Argument

Affirmative action is not a quota system, which would be illegal in the United States. The only exception is when a judge orders a quota on a company that has been found guilty of extreme or blatant discrimination in employment.

What is affirmative action, then? It is really a system of goals. Companies are encouraged to search in good faith for qualified minority or female employees. Their goal -- that is, the percentage of minorities and women they are seeking to hire -- is primarily determined by the percentage of qualified minorities and women in the region. (There are other factors). A company incurs no legal penalty if it makes a good-faith search but still cannot meet its goals.

Some critics of affirmative action claim this is still a quota system, since it quantifies the number of minorities and women that a company is supposed to hire. But notice that this system does not require a company to hire unqualified people to meet its goals. Also note that goals are flexible, since they are derived from the (changing) number of qualified minority and female workers in the region. Also note that if the company fails to meet its goal, the goal is simply re-established the next year -- and the next and the next, as long as the company fails to find qualified people. This is far different from a rigid quota system, in which a company must hire a certain percentage of minorities and women, or else be penalized by a judge.

[NDNdancer]

Put up what?

Universities have been instructed to meet a quota. To meet this you must take people of lower classifications.

Not all white people are rich. There are white people of median income. Their chances of getting into the University are less than that of Black students of median income. This is the truth, not an isolated incident.


Links and data to back up your assertion?

[4Reaganomics]

Statistics to back up what?? What I heard first hand from a statistician who works for Penn on their end of the year report? Or a link to the fact that there are white people of median income?

Lets use logic here.

If a University takes race into the equation and wants a certain amount of minorities in the University, who will be affected.

Will it be qualified minorities who are hurt? no

Will there be instances where qualified whites will not be hurt? Yes

Will there be instances where qualified whites will be hurt? Absolutely

How do people fail to see this?

Schools want a certain percentage of ethnicities, of course this will hurt people who are not of these ethnicities.

I can speak of instances that I know of in regard to admissions as well as someone I have met who works in the field. As far as what students with high qualifications were leapfrogged by minorities with lesser qualifications, I can only speak of some of the instances I have heard of. I do not believe that Universities release this information.

[Buck Laser]

So what you're telling us is your opinion. Got it. It's easy enough to repeat an opinion over and over.

[NDNdancer]

Statistics to back up what?? What I heard first hand from a statistician who works for Penn on their end of the year report? Or a link to the fact that there are white people of median income?

Lets use logic here.

If a University takes race into the equation and wants a certain amount of minorities in the University, who will be affected.

Will it be qualified minorities who are hurt? no

Will there be instances where qualified whites will not be hurt? Yes

Will there be instances where qualified whites will be hurt? Absolutely

How do people fail to see this?

Schools want a certain percentage of ethnicities, of course this will hurt people who are not of these ethnicities.

I can speak of instances that I know of in regard to admissions as well as someone I have met who works in the field. As far as what students with high qualifications were leapfrogged by minorities with lesser qualifications, I can only speak of some of the instances I have heard of. I do not believe that Universities release this information.


Actually, I happen to know some people who work at Penn in the Institutional Research Office who DO have to report annually those kinds of statistics. I've sent off a couple of emails asking them if your opinion is true. I'll let you know probably by the end of the week or early next week. They're very busy folks, but I'm just as certain as you are that your opinion is based on bias and prejudice and not fact or data.

[davo]

Penn & Teller made a good episode of 'bullshit' about political correctness and diversity programs on university campuses. I strongly recommend you watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8qMbP8ArZMp
*edit* youtube tags don't seem to be working. Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8qMbP8ArZM

I'm amazed at the levels of bullshit regarding diversity and multiculturalism and anti-racism there is on university campuses these days. There once was a time where people attended university were fluent in Latin and Greek and were interested in learning and education into the fundamental laws of nature. Its truly depressing to see how things have changed for the worse.

[4Reaganomics]

Statistics to back up what?? What I heard first hand from a statistician who works for Penn on their end of the year report? Or a link to the fact that there are white people of median income?

Lets use logic here.

If a University takes race into the equation and wants a certain amount of minorities in the University, who will be affected.

Will it be qualified minorities who are hurt? no

Will there be instances where qualified whites will not be hurt? Yes

Will there be instances where qualified whites will be hurt? Absolutely

How do people fail to see this?

Schools want a certain percentage of ethnicities, of course this will hurt people who are not of these ethnicities.

I can speak of instances that I know of in regard to admissions as well as someone I have met who works in the field. As far as what students with high qualifications were leapfrogged by minorities with lesser qualifications, I can only speak of some of the instances I have heard of. I do not believe that Universities release this information.


Actually, I happen to know some people who work at Penn in the Institutional Research Office who DO have to report annually those kinds of statistics. I've sent off a couple of emails asking them if your opinion is true. I'll let you know probably by the end of the week or early next week. They're very busy folks, but I'm just as certain as you are that your opinion is based on bias and prejudice and not fact or data.


First hand accounts and logic are the tools that I used to come to my assertion.

I do not have a biased right wing funded poll that I will link to as the know all and be all. Just as I expect that a left wing funded poll wouldn't be used against me.

Buck is correct, this is my opinion. Yet, I assure you that this opinion comes from student accounts of those who I know were admitted and not admitted and their credentials. Also, accounts with a statistician and others who work in the field lead me to my conclusion.

My conclusion based on what I have heard,

Minorities now must make up a certain percentage of the University in order for it to appeal as somewhat ehtnically diverse. Those affected by Universities accepting minorities at a rate that they would not have are caucasian students. Given that wealth can help further endow a University and make up for race, I am asserting that caucasian students of middle-class to upper-middle class families are hit the hardest.

I don't think that it is a radical opinion at all. This is not some man on the moon, 911 Hoax type of conspiracy theory.

[Deadshot]

Reagan has a point. I'm an older white guy that just got my Bachelor's from the University of Missouri. That University, and the Colleges in the area actively recruit and give preferential treatment in the financial aide process to Minorities.

I joke with friends, but I am serious, that I'm glad I have what are considered two minority children, i.e. girls. That way they can claim some kind of minority status to push them just a little higher up the aide ladder.

[NDNdancer]

First hand accounts and logic are the tools that I used to come to my assertion.

I do not have a biased right wing funded poll that I will link to as the know all and be all. Just as I expect that a left wing funded poll wouldn't be used against me.

Buck is correct, this is my opinion. Yet, I assure you that this opinion comes from student accounts of those who I know were admitted and not admitted and their credentials. Also, accounts with a statistician and others who work in the field lead me to my conclusion.

My conclusion based on what I have heard,

Minorities now must make up a certain percentage of the University in order for it to appeal as somewhat ehtnically diverse. Those affected by Universities accepting minorities at a rate that they would not have are caucasian students. Given that wealth can help further endow a University and make up for race, I am asserting that caucasian students of middle-class to upper-middle class families are hit the hardest.

I don't think that it is a radical opinion at all. This is not some man on the moon, 911 Hoax type of conspiracy theory.


No, but it's a very uninformed opinion. It took me all of one day to email the vice-provost for educational equity at Penn State with a few questions, one of them asking for the breakdown by ethnicity and gender of their quota system that you and the statistician assert is in place. Your statistician's talking through their ass, there is none.

You also might want to check out the data, the real data on the population breakdown of Pennsylvania vs the breakdown of students at Penn state. It's interesting indeed. That took me all of an hour this morning. If you can't be bothered to find out the most basic of data to back up your assertion, my opinion is that the data didn't back your opinion up which is why you never offered it. I was right.

Here's his email if you want to educate yourself and form opinions based on fact and data rather then emotion and bias: wtj18@psu.edu

[NDNdancer]

Reagan has a point. I'm an older white guy that just got my Bachelor's from the University of Missouri. That University, and the Colleges in the area actively recruit and give preferential treatment in the financial aide process to Minorities.


Got anything to back that up? I already did Reagan's homework for him, please don't make me go dig up the statistics and data that refute your claims. I'm cranky this morning and really hate doing other people's work for them.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck Laser said:
Uh, Osborn? You should look into affirmative action standards instead of just crapping on what you think they are. Affirmative Action doesn't require a small business owner to follow ANY kind of hiring guidelines. And there's no requirement in ANY business that you hire a "quota" of ethnic minority or female employees. You'd just like to think that's the case, presumably because it gives you something to bitch about.

Affirmative Action requires a business to advertise for employees in such a way that it's clear that anyone with the qualifications needed can apply and receive fair consideration. You can't advertise for a "white male 35-40" just because that's who you prefer. You can't advertise for a "female secretary with big tits" or a "colored janitor" either. If that offends your sense of "freedom," then I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.

I have no problem whatsoever with the point you made above. I am not a study of the current "affirmative action" laws, so I am not fully informed on the issue.

I will state this clearly however.....

If I open and run a business at my own expense, I have the right to hire people who have the qualifications to fill the positions to my best judgement, if they are interested in working for me for what I have to offer.

If I run a female topless bar, I have the right to hire only females who meet my criteria for running the business successfully.

If I open a bar, on my property, and I smoke cigarettes, I have the right to only hire people who smoke, or don't mind working in smoke from cigarettes, and only cater to people who smoke.

I agree, there should be no racial barriers on positions of employment, but there ARE viable reasons to have sex and other issues as determiners of employment viability, and the law interfering to this point is unconstitutional.

I have seen with my own eyes, several forms of "race grading" businesses, and often it is done by "headcount" of minorities. That is entirely inaccurate for a way to measure a business, and is often used by those petitioning congress as "proof" for more laws to regulate who is and who is not hired.

Buck said:
What the laws do require is that if you have two candidates for a job who have equal qualifications and ability, and one of them is a minority, then you're expected to give special consideration to that one.

THATS BS, and I don't agree with it at all.

Why should skin color get ANY special consideration, regardless of WHAT color it is?!?

I don't agree with that AT ALL, and the only reason I need is because I have the right to choose.

Buck said:
Doesn't mean you have to hire, but you'd better have a good rationale for what you did.

Yes, I pay the bills, I pay the wage, I SUFFER THE LOSS if the business fails. That is the only rationale necessary.

Buck said:
I have some acquaintance with this for two reasons: back in the 60s and 70s, when AA was just getting started, I had to monitor Community Action Agencies for compliance. Then, from 1991 to the present, my daughter has been Affirmative Action manager for two national corporations. She's done and supervised hundreds of investigations. Her professional opinion is that about half the complaints filed turn out to be justified, and require remedial action by the company. The other half range from gray areas to outrageously funny stories about people with delusions of adequacy.

Well, we are all entitled to run our companies as we see fit, if we own them and operate them as our livelihood, with respect to the rights of others being equal. THAT however does not entail giving "minorities" special respect above "non-minorities" and its a form of reverse racism.

Buck said:
I would appreciate it you'd take the time to inform yourself a little more thoroughly about what Civil Rights and Affirmative Action actually require instead of just parroting what its uninformed critics say.

Why do you think I debate issues? To learn.

I have learned something today, and I only agree with half of what you have told me about affirmative action, so my ignorance and opinion was only partially flawed thus far.

Buck said:
The arguments could take place at a level where they should occur instead of requiring me to spend so much time just trying to correct misconceptions. There are definite problems with AA, but they're not even close to the crap uninformed emotional opponents throw out.

Who is being emotional here?

I don't waste my time studying about AA because I know that the little I do know of it, it rieks of reverse racism. I am entitled to that belief if I have reason to have it, and the reasoning is one example of which you provided above.

[Buck Laser]

Buck said:
I would appreciate it you'd take the time to inform yourself a little more thoroughly about what Civil Rights and Affirmative Action actually require instead of just parroting what its uninformed critics say.

Why do you think I debate issues? To learn.

I have learned something today, and I only agree with half of what you have told me about affirmative action, so my ignorance and opinion was only partially flawed thus far.

Buck said:
The arguments could take place at a level where they should occur instead of requiring me to spend so much time just trying to correct misconceptions. There are definite problems with AA, but they're not even close to the crap uninformed emotional opponents throw out.

Who is being emotional here?

I don't waste my time studying about AA because I know that the little I do know of it, it rieks of reverse racism. I am entitled to that belief if I have reason to have it, and the reasoning is one example of which you provided above.

First, let me commend you for detailed and comprehensive responses to a couple of issues we've debated today. I appreciate that, and it seems to be very rare between people of such different points of view.

But you've made some statements from time to time that I believe just go WAY beyond the bounds of reason or verifiability. For example, in this thread, you've called Affirmative Action "unconstitutional." Now I don't quarrel with your right to believe it's unconstitutional, but the plain fact is that the Supreme Court has never ruled on it, and I don't think you can realistically say it's unconstitutional until the court has ruled on it.

Similarly, you've said in another thread that the president is a traitor. I've called you on that, and if you've answered, I haven't seen it. But to call a president a traitor, even George Bush, is an incredibly serious charge. Are you just saying that, or do you really believe it? If you do, then surely you must believe some other presidents are traitors as well. Would you care to name the ones you don't consider traitors, since that's likely to be a shorter list?:lmao:

These issues hightlight the kind of problems I have with libertarianism. They seem to see just about everything in binary terms: if something isn't to their liking, it's treasonous or unconstitutional. I just don't see the world that starkly. My own experience has been that all of life involves accommodating the the needs and flaws of others.

To bring this back to racism, I don't see Affirmative Action as something that will be needed forever, but on the scale of my own life span, I'd have a hard time saying it isn't needed now. I s'pose younger people, who've not known anything but a country where there are guarantees of equal employment opportunity, might think the need for remedial measures is over. I don't, and I probably won't until my dying day.

[4Reaganomics]

First hand accounts and logic are the tools that I used to come to my assertion.

I do not have a biased right wing funded poll that I will link to as the know all and be all. Just as I expect that a left wing funded poll wouldn't be used against me.

Buck is correct, this is my opinion. Yet, I assure you that this opinion comes from student accounts of those who I know were admitted and not admitted and their credentials. Also, accounts with a statistician and others who work in the field lead me to my conclusion.

My conclusion based on what I have heard,

Minorities now must make up a certain percentage of the University in order for it to appeal as somewhat ehtnically diverse. Those affected by Universities accepting minorities at a rate that they would not have are caucasian students. Given that wealth can help further endow a University and make up for race, I am asserting that caucasian students of middle-class to upper-middle class families are hit the hardest.

I don't think that it is a radical opinion at all. This is not some man on the moon, 911 Hoax type of conspiracy theory.


No, but it's a very uninformed opinion. It took me all of one day to email the vice-provost for educational equity at Penn State with a few questions, one of them asking for the breakdown by ethnicity and gender of their quota system that you and the statistician assert is in place. Your statistician's talking through their ass, there is none.

You also might want to check out the data, the real data on the population breakdown of Pennsylvania vs the breakdown of students at Penn state. It's interesting indeed. That took me all of an hour this morning. If you can't be bothered to find out the most basic of data to back up your assertion, my opinion is that the data didn't back your opinion up which is why you never offered it. I was right.

Here's his email if you want to educate yourself and form opinions based on fact and data rather then emotion and bias: wtj18@psu.edu


Penn state? Who said anything about Penn State?

I was referencing the University of Pennsylvania and a statistician who works for them. He has specifically said that the University wanted to make sure that there was a certain percentage of minorities. There was no set number, but if the number came in at 2 or 3%, I was told that would be unacceptable. Thus, he told me the admissions office was adivsed to keep it "well balanced"

You can contact their head of educational diversity, or whomever you want. They will simply say the have a program towards diversity and there is no set quota.

I acknowledge being in private school that it is much different than public school, especially when you consider the competition level. I can reassure you that there are white students hurt here. You can speak out of ignorance all that you want and believe what administrations tell you, but the policies behind the scenes hurt a good amount of white students, many of them my close friends.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck said:
First, let me commend you for detailed and comprehensive responses to a couple of issues we've debated today. I appreciate that, and it seems to be very rare between people of such different points of view.

Thank you, and I respect the same actions from you sir. I also agree that it is growing more rare it seems.

Buck said:
But you've made some statements from time to time that I believe just go WAY beyond the bounds of reason or verifiability. For example, in this thread, you've called Affirmative Action "unconstitutional." Now I don't quarrel with your right to believe it's unconstitutional, but the plain fact is that the Supreme Court has never ruled on it, and I don't think you can realistically say it's unconstitutional until the court has ruled on it.

The court doesn't rule on something unless its challenged, so there is need for people to make such challenges.

The court of today is entirely bi-partisan, which in reality equates to unequal representation for the citizens of this nation. They were appointed, questioned and approved by "bi-partisans" for bi-partisan intrests and values. Those values of the two major parties no longer reside in the concept of respect for the constitution and the limitations imposed by the BOR.

The government is there to serve the people, not vice-versa. The government is there because we allow it to represent us, and we also reserve the right to amend it, or remove it and start again. Our constitution makes specific guarantees, and has specific processes and limitations on spheres of authority. BOTH major parties have regularly and routinely side-stepped, changed or ignored a major portion of these processes over the last 100 years, mainly 1913, 1933, and all the time since about the late 1960's. All of these changes have had serious, negative effects on the nation, and our rights as citizens, especially our right to directly influence government through the ballot.

To say that these two parties in any way stand today as protectors of the rights of the people they serve, or defenders of the Constitution is simply a denial of factual voting records, proposals and legislation that has passed into law.

Buck said:
Similarly, you've said in another thread that the president is a traitor. I've called you on that, and if you've answered, I haven't seen it. But to call a president a traitor, even George Bush, is an incredibly serious charge. Are you just saying that, or do you really believe it?

I not only said, I believe it. I think the volume of proof is overwhelming, and all around the Washington landscape, that which has not been destroyed or "lost" as with the hard drives (holding e-mail) being asked for recently. I have seen the evidence compiled by those calling for impeachment, and I have seen with my own two eyes the way this and past presidents have evaded facts using nationalism, populism, and downright patriotism to slander, demonize and discredit anyone who even mutters anything "not applicable" to the offical story from the state department or the white house spokesperson. (never mind the facts that come out after they are out of office, and out of reach)

Buck said:
If you do, then surely you must believe some other presidents are traitors as well. Would you care to name the ones you don't consider traitors, since that's likely to be a shorter list?

Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison(with reservation on his federalist extreme nature), Monroe, John Quincy Adams to name a few. I respected the aims of Lincoln, but deplored and disrespected his methods for achieving it. I respected Teddy Roosevelt as a person, but didn't agree with the bulk of the 1900's foreign policy due to obvious constitutional conflicts. I view Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the most well meaning idiot to ever hold rule, and we are still living with the mistakes he and his administration (both parties) created in many ways.

AS time has passed, few presidents have lived up to the example Washinton set.

Buck said:
These issues hightlight the kind of problems I have with libertarianism. They seem to see just about everything in binary terms: if something isn't to their liking, it's treasonous or unconstitutional.

This is where I call bias on you.

You say that as if the libertarian platform is based on arbitrary reasoning, when its clearly not. Something is either constitutional in originalist context, or it is not. Something is either treasonous, or it is not. Acting with knowledge, to create laws that directly infinge, abridge or otherwise impede individuals enumerated rights or the exercise of them, is plainly unconstitutional. The only people who can CHANGE rights, are the people (we) ourselves. Our representatives do not have the right to consolidate powers (as they have) without due process of the people. Our representatives do not have the right to regularly and consistently create and pass legislation that directly infringes upon citizens rights to do business legally without excessive tax and fines, to do private trade without excessive taxes and fines, to travel, to eat, to live without excessive taxes and fines.

The bi-partisan monopoly on power, mainly after the "New Deal" grew government exponentially. They could do this due to the gerrymandering and ballot access they controlled through partisan association and similar goals, and the rampant partisanism and propaganda that took place during and after WWI and WWII.

The fact is, the government of the United States today, shares very little resemblance to the Constitution or its "required" limitations through the BOR, which was demanded before ratification. The "government" which operates on our "conscent" has not abided by the "rules and regulations" the people demanded of it, for it to be realized and respected as valid. The longer this continues, the further eroded the society will become, or devolve.

Republics devolve into democracy, and we are seeing that in the new voice for populism and the old calls of socialism. Its this cycle that costs societies their wealth, their future and their property most times, and it can usually be avoided.

Don't you think its beneficial to avoid it if possible?

Buck said:
I just don't see the world that starkly. My own experience has been that all of life involves accommodating the the needs and flaws of others.

Individuals can do that, and do frequently.
This can't be dictated from law however, or it only creates infighting due to legal, codified hypocrisy.

For example, central banking as in current practice. A constitutional travesty the court simply refuses to hear.
Another example, jury nullification rights.
Another example, withholding taxes in protest while serving a petition of redress.

The list is long of constitutional questions not addressed by the court, and todays court is entirely bi-partisan, so many, like myself wouldn't trust it to hear the issues to begin with.

Buck said:
To bring this back to racism, I don't see Affirmative Action as something that will be needed forever, but on the scale of my own life span, I'd have a hard time saying it isn't needed now.

I can respectfully disagree with you Buck, and do.

If we all have equal rights, the only notation in law necessary is the recognition of all races, genders as equal under the law and to be respected as having equal rights as enumerated in the BOR, and others not enumerated.

Buck said:
I s'pose younger people, who've not known anything but a country where there are guarantees of equal employment opportunity, might think the need for remedial measures is over. I don't, and I probably won't until my dying day.

I have had 26+ jobs in my life, not including the Navy. I have worked for large and small business', and seen some of the better and some of the worse. I've been a crewleader, subcontracted laborer, and lone wage earner working for a quota. I have been in unions, without unions, and worked as a union steward for one company.

There is much I don't know, but I have seen a lot. Enough to know I will work for myself from now on, on my terms, and that I am not giving government anything until it lives up to its promises, sworn oaths, and BINDING LAW requires.

If that doesn't work.....

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the right of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
-Thomas Jefferson

[oberhaenslir]

A human 'race' or human 'races' don't exist.

And sorry, which ‚America’ do you mean?

We cannot answer this question because your term ‚America’ isn’t clear.

Which continent do you mean? North or South America? And which country in one of theese 2 continents called 'America'?

'America' for 'USA' is politically and geographically not correct.

This is a FACT not an OPINION; I’m the messenger only.

[Osborn F. Enready]

We were talking about "America" as in the "United States of...".

I apologize for not making my reference more clear, and it was not intended as an insult to other portions of the Americas.

[David]

I call them black. They call me white. All is good. PC FTL