[iWrite]

Seriously, why is it that "minorities" can form any group or organization but if you're considered "caucasian" it's almost against the law to recognize that you're white?

I read somewhere recently that "white" people will be a distinct minority by 2040 in this country due to Latinization and Africanization of this country.

Given that consideration, and the fact that I'm proud of my culture and race, I think I should be able to start the "NAAWP" or the National Association for the Advancement of White People."

Why should there be a stigma against it? We can help poor white kids get into college for example. It could be a positive thing.

Before anyone gets started on the racist argument against me, understand that a couple of my black friends think this is an amusing idea. They agree that African-Americans in this country pull the "race" argument too much and that true equality will never happen until blacks truly see themselves as equal and don't feel compelled to cry foul where race is concerned.

Questions? Wanna join?

[chris v]

oooooo- k. So. Who has discriminated against you? Were laws broken?

What laws would you change that are discriminitory to you?



CV

[Timo]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Before anyone gets started on the racist argument against me, understand that a couple of my black friends think this is an amusing idea. They agree that African-Americans in this country pull the "race" argument too much and that true equality will never happen until blacks truly see themselves as equal and don't feel compelled to cry foul where race is concerned.

True equality might be obtained when whites see themselves as equal to blacks, and "don't feel compelled to cry foul where race is concerned."

[BRussell]

Already been done. It was founded by David Duke, a former Grand Poobah of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Congratulations.

[iWrite]

I'm not talking about being like David Duke.

That guy IS a racist as far as I know.

As far as being discriminated against because I'm "white" that isn't an issue either.

This isn't an issue about discrimination -- don't fall into the pity party discrimination issue.

I'm talking about celebrating caucasian heritage but NOT at the expense of another race. It doesn't have to be either-or, folks. We can celebrate ALL races and not belittle one or the other. That's the trap that people fall into.

That is the discussion -- a philosophical one based on intelligent reasoning and not reduced to a race issue where one race must be superior to another or one race must be worth less than another one. ALL races can be equal -- and equally celebrated and respected in my world.

[chris v]

WHICH Caucasian heritage? The people of the Caucasus Mountains? The Germans? The French? The Danes? The Norweigians?

You could always come on down to Texas-- we've got Wurst Fest in New Braunfels, which is a big German shindig. Lotsa Sausage and such.

CV

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by iWrite:
I'm not talking about being like David Duke.

That guy IS a racist as far as I know.

As far as being discriminated against because I'm "white" that isn't an issue either.

This isn't an issue about discrimination -- don't fall into the pity party discrimination issue.

I'm talking about celebrating caucasian heritage but NOT at the expense of another race. It doesn't have to be either-or, folks. We can celebrate ALL races and not belittle one or the other. That's the trap that people fall into.

That is the discussion -- a philosophical one based on intelligent reasoning and not reduced to a race issue where one race must be superior to another or one race must be worth less than another one. ALL races can be equal -- and equally celebrated and respected in my world.

Then why form a group to push a "white" agenda?

Why not form the NAAEverybody?

[ZackS]

Let's just hope that activist groups like the NAACP and legislation like affirmative action all meet a watery grave once we can all agree that race issues are moot. I pray constantly for the day the NAACP can disband for no reason other than the fact that they're no longer needed. So far that day hasn't come.

Edit: Reworded ambiguous sentence

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Then why form a group to push a "white" agenda?

Why not form the NAAEverybody?

indeed. I'm white, anglo-saxon male but feel no need to form such an organization.

[iWrite]

Zach S gets the prize! WOO HOO!

You said EXACTLY the right answer: No "groups" at all are necessary.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Zach S gets the prize! WOO HOO!

You said EXACTLY the right answer: No "groups" at all are necessary.

in a perfect world.


*looks around at world*

nope, not perfect yet.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
in a perfect world.


*looks around at world*

nope, not perfect yet.

Exactly my point.

(I reworded my post because I realized it was a bit ambiguous)

[iWrite]

In the meantime I'll start the NAAWP.

Maybe you'll read about it in the news sometime.

Isn't it my "right" as an American?

[The Mick]

Originally posted by iWrite:
In the meantime I'll start the NAAWP.

Maybe you'll read about it in the news sometime.

Isn't it my "right" as an American?

I guess so, just be prepared to let women, blacks, orientals, hindus, buddhists, muslims, jews and queers all join too.

[iWrite]

Don't they have their own groups to join?

I doubt they'll feel comfortable. Just like the NAACP makes "whites" feel.

[finboy]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Don't they have their own groups to join?

I doubt they'll feel comfortable. Just like the NAACP makes "whites" feel.

Actually, some of the important and founding members of the NAACP are "white" folks. Whatever "white" means.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Don't they have their own groups to join?

I doubt they'll feel comfortable. Just like the NAACP makes "whites" feel.

I'm white. I support the NAACP. It doesn't make me feel anything negative, in principle. I agree their individual leaders have not always made policy decisions I agree with, but I support them, nonetheless.

It comes down to this...if the NAACP makes you feel "uncomfortable" this is probably more a reflection on your views than theirs.

[iWrite]

Yeah, maybe you're right.

Visit their site at naacp.org and read the rhetoric and bias at their site.



If there was a "white" site that said things like that about "black" people they would be up in arms screaming "racist agenda."

[Joshua]

Black People Love Us!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Yeah, maybe you're right.

Visit their site at naacp.org and read the rhetoric and bias at their site.



If there was a "white" site that said things like that about "black" people they would be up in arms screaming "racist agenda."

hm...do you mean where they say:
[QUOTE}The NAACP is a constant and effective advocate for issues of immediate concern to all Americans. We are the conscience of America. We take a proactive stance to increase the public's awareness of restraints of freedom, assaults upon civil rights, and barriers to equality. [/QUOTE]?

yeah, I can see where that makes you uncomfortable.

maybe you should be more specific about what bothers you about their policy and philosophy.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by ZackS:
Let's just hope that activist groups like the NAACP and legislation like affirmative action all meet a watery grave once we can all agree that race issues are moot. I pray constantly for the day the NAACP can disband for no reason other than the fact that they're no longer needed. So far that day hasn't come.

Edit: Reworded ambiguous sentence

word up, Zack.

As long as minorities are viewed as helpless folks that need the white man's blessing to succeed - we'll continue to have conflict.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by iWrite:
I'm not talking about being like David Duke.

That guy IS a racist as far as I know.

As far as being discriminated against because I'm "white" that isn't an issue either.

This isn't an issue about discrimination -- don't fall into the pity party discrimination issue.

I'm talking about celebrating caucasian heritage but NOT at the expense of another race. It doesn't have to be either-or, folks. We can celebrate ALL races and not belittle one or the other. That's the trap that people fall into.

That is the discussion -- a philosophical one based on intelligent reasoning and not reduced to a race issue where one race must be superior to another or one race must be worth less than another one. ALL races can be equal -- and equally celebrated and respected in my world.

Actually, there are two distinct sects of the KKK. The violent one, and the political one.

The point of associations such as the NAACP is to achieve equality, not to be a successor.

Unless there is an issue of discrimination against whites (which there clearly aren't), action is only persecution, not defense.

Self defense, and assault are two very different things.

And BTW: Whites becoming the minority is like a never ending deadline. It keeps moving back over the years. You now say it's 2040, which is what i heard as of late. Used to be 2010. For a while it looked like it would happen in the mid 1930's since the Chineese were landing on the west coast...

Until it happens, it remains nothing more than a hoax. There is nothing more than anadocal evidence to back it happening.

If you assume the rate of terrorist attacks on NYC will increase at a steady rate. With your data being the comparison of 2000-2001... well, by 20XX (or something like that), NYC will not exist anymore.

Is that accurate data? No. Do people insist that (above data) is valid, very accurate, and definate... yes.

It's baseless information.

What's interesting is that the majority of white Americans believe that the majority deserve more rights than the minority... yet many also believe they will become the minority... you would think otherwise.

The stats are bogus. They are based on flawed data. By the same data, the majority of Americans should be Italian, or Irish, or Chineese, or Jewish. Each year had a group that came in bulk. If you multiply that data... you would eventually get them becoming a majority.

The data people ignore, is that these population growths are abnormalities, and last only a few years. Not 50+ years.


To make it even more obvious:
For hispanics to overtake, they would each need several kids. Many in this country come from Mexico as migrant workers. They live here for a few years, working hard, and living poor. Back in Mexico, they can live well off of that money. These people are counted as part of the population, although they aren't perminant. Many are seasonal. Many others only stay for a year or two, then leave.

What's been interesting is how in the past 10 years, the amount of people who do this has drastically increased.

It's their equivilant, of giving 10 years to Wall Street, or Alaska, like some do.

And btw: They aren't "stealing jobs"... they are taking jobs that there are still work shortages for.

Your knowingly working off of flawed data.


As far as "losing heritage". Where does that come from? That's purely personal. What's lost? Christmas, Easter, are still holidays. The Church still has a good deal of power over the federal government, despite a separation of church and state. The US only has Allies made up of white populations....

If you lost your roots... that's your personal issue. Maybe you should go beat up your parents for doing that to you... that's pretty sad.

But to assume a giant population lost their heritage because your family may have some issues... is a bit silly.

heritage is personal... you chose not to respect or celebrate it... that's your personal choice. Nobody can stop (or force) you.

If you made that choice... how is that society's fault? What does society as a whole have to do with that anyway.

[Spliffdaddy]

I've wanted to ask this question a dozen times over the years.

Do you make up this stuff as you type it?

[moki]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Given that consideration, and the fact that I'm proud of my culture and race, I think I should be able to start the "NAAWP" or the National Association for the Advancement of White People."

In an ideal world, you'd be right -- but we don't live in an ideal world, and groups do indeed get discriminated against. That's why they exist, and that's why the well off majority (by comparison sake) is looked down upon if they attempt to start such a group.

It may seem unfair to you, but walk a mile in their shoes, and you'll realize they live with more unfairness every day.

On one point I do agree though: many of these groups have outlived their usefulness, and merely breed division.

[iWrite]

spliffdaddy said
word up, Zack.

As long as minorities are viewed as helpless folks that need the white man's blessing to succeed - we'll continue to have conflict.

I AM AMAZED: The day has arrived when spliff said something that I value and agree with! Yer alright, dude.

Moki: You're right too -- "groups" segregate people.

What do I find offensive about NAACP?

Okay, here's an example direct from their president, Mfume:

Mfume said, “What’s almost as bad as Limbaugh’s comments is ESPN’s feeble defense for putting him on the air. If this is the future of ESPN, I think fair-minded fans, who tune in for sports news coverage, and not for racist views, should get their sports on other networks. It is appalling that ESPN has to go to this extent to try to increase viewership.”

This is a PERFECT example: Generalize and categorize ESPN and all of its employees and broadcasters as being in agreement with Limbaugh.

How ignorant is THAT?

He tells everyone that ESPN is a racist organization simply because Limbaugh made a comment about McNabb and how America wants to see black quarterbacks in the NFL.

Sorry, folks, but I do not see anything wrong with Limbaugh's OPINION. I happen to agree with it. I think America DOES seek equality and like equality -- even in the NFL. What is so wrong about stating that? It's a witchhunt for Limbaugh from the left. And I happen to be left-leaning these days. Pretty sad.

Just my opinion this fine morning.

[sanity assassin]

I think it's one thing to talk about equal rights, epecial treatment for minorities and so forth; but it's something altogether different when we start worrying whether the 'white' race will vanish in 40 years time, who cares? Evolution is there for a purpose nad if we all end up being a different colour, then great, so long as our humanity remains.

[OAW]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Seriously, why is it that "minorities" can form any group or organization but if you're considered "caucasian" it's almost against the law to recognize that you're white?

Let me see if I can explain it to you. I've never directly revealed my ethnicity on this board before ... though from some of my posts people may have been able to make an educated guess. But I will say it now to answer your question from a standpoint of personal experience.

I am an African-American male. And I am a Mac user. Talk about being in a small cross-section of the general population!

Anyway, I say that to provide some context to my college experience. Like many black people, I attended a predominantly white university. I'm talking on the order of 95% with regard to the student population, 99% with regard to the faculty, and 100% with regard to the administration. Now we had a Black Student Union organization on campus. In fact, I was the President for a couple of years. And believe you me, I used to always get this type of question posed to me by many of the white students. "The black students have the Black Student Union. Why can't we have the White Student Union?" Blah blah blah. "Why do the black students always sit together in the cafeteria and 'separate' themselves from the other students?" Blah blah blah.

My response was always pretty simple. Given the demographics of the school ... 95% white students ... 99% white faculty ... and 100% white administration .... the rest of the school is the "White Student Union". The BSU existed to provide a mechanism for black students to support each other academically, socially, and to provide local community service to the surrounding neighborhoods and schools (the school was smack dab in the middle of a black neighborhood). It existed as an outlet to address the specific needs and concerns of the black student population ... because the university itself did not because we were just a "drop in the bucket" in our representation on campus. The university often referred to us as "non-traditional" students and often spoke of how it needed to do more to address the needs of its "non-traditional" student population. Of course, this was simply a euphemistic way of saying that the university was set up by white people for the benefit of white people .... and things had been that way for a long time. Now in and of itself, there was nothing wrong with that. The university simply geared itself to address the needs of the people who attended.

So I would simply say to those who asked such questions that a "White Student Union" would be utterly redundant given the demographics of the school. So what would the purpose be? Just to make a point? Or for something more sinister? As for the seating in the cafeteria ... I always found it interesting how it never occurred to the white students who asked about that they were doing the exact same thing that the black students were doing. Simply sitting with their friends and the people they knew. But they never considered themselves to be "separating themselves" from the non-white students. So why was it an issue when the black students did the same thing?

I found it all quite amusing. Anyway, just thought I'd share my 2 cents on the subject.

OAW

[davesimondotcom]

How about the National Association for the Advancement of ALL People?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
How about the National Association for the Advancement of ALL People?

You mean the Democratic party?

[ZackS]

Originally posted by OAW:
The BSU existed to provide a mechanism for black students to support each other academically, socially, and to provide local community service to the surrounding neighborhoods and schools (the school was smack dab in the middle of a black neighborhood). It existed as an outlet to address the specific needs and concerns of the black student population ... because the university itself did not because we were just a "drop in the bucket" in our representation on campus. The university often referred to us as "non-traditional" students and often spoke of how it needed to do more to address the needs of its "non-traditional" student population. Of course, this was simply a euphemistic way of saying that the university was set up by white people for the benefit of white people .... and things had been that way for a long time.

Not to sound racially insensitive but to me equal means equal. There should be no needs you have that a white student would have need as well. This has always bothered me. The school need to address "black needs." What black needs? What extra "support" could you possibly need? Black kids don't benefit from a good education, room and board, and access to food? They need something else to supplement? They're in the same dorms, go to the same classes, participate in the same events. It's not like there's any segregation. I just don't get it.

Originally posted by OAW:
I always found it interesting how it never occurred to the white students who asked about that they were doing the exact same thing that the black students were doing. Simply sitting with their friends and the people they knew. But they never considered themselves to be "separating themselves" from the non-white students. So why was it an issue when the black students did the same thing?

I found it all quite amusing. Anyway, just thought I'd share my 2 cents on the subject.

OAW

I don't know about your school, but at mine there are the integrated students: ie almost everyone regardless of race (including most of the black population), and then there is the group of 4 or 5 black kids who band together and never associate with a non-black person if at all possible. All they do is sit at their own little table in the dining hall and glare around the room. If a white/asian/hispanic talks to them they usually just stare as if to say: "You've gotta be kidding me. I would kill you if there weren't so many people around." It's seriously frightening.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You mean the Democratic party?

No, I don't think that there is a party that represents that statement.

The Democrats would be the National Association for the Advancemnt of Any Democrat or Anyone Willing to Call Themselves Democrat.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by ZackS:
What extra "support" could you possibly need? Black kids don't benefit from a good education, room and board, and access to food? They need something else to supplement? They're in the same dorms, go to the same classes, participate in the same events. It's not like there's any segregation. I just don't get it.

Upon further thought, I'd have to say what support other than a forum to discuss frustration with racism if that's a serious issue at your school. I can totally understand that.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
How about the National Association for the Advancement of ALL People?

Because in the minds of Western culture. For one to advance, they must pass, another.

Unlike Eastern cultures, where advancement is a personal achievement.

That is why Communism (in it's true form, not totalitarian or military dictatorship) could succeed in Eastern cultures.

For the west, Advancement is being better than someone or something. The space race, the cold war, military buildups, bigger boats, bigger cars. Manifest Destiny, Crusades,... you can go on and on, and still not cover it all.

Eastern culture regards advancement as a personal passage through life. Buddism, is an example. It's something many westerners have turned to. Many westerners have found peace with the philosophies of eastern culture.

That's not to say there isn't some of the other in eachother. They both have some of each. But for the most part, western culture is more competitive.


Ideas such as differentiating based on height, sex, age, sexual orientation, skin, etc. go back in Western history as long as it can be traced back.

In eastern culture, there are small pockets of it. Mostly where there were interactions with the west. The downside of this is that they became very remote. Where as Westerners became very confident and spread more. They took eastern advancements and used them to better themselves (Marco Polo). Eastern cultures didn't like the idea of doing that. In a sense, limiting their technological evolution.

They both have their strong points. Self advancement is very important, and has become a more "higher level" way of thinking. Yet competition makes one stronger, and also advances ones self.

Perhaps a balance in pholosophy will be found... I'm not sure I like the word advancement.


Perhaps the WAB would be better.

World Association for Being

Simply promote worldwide (rather than be Americancentric) the idea of being your own person, and interacting, and benefiting in a global society.


IMHO you are responsible for your own destiny, and priorities. Learn your heritage, be yourself. But also realize that understanding others is often what differentiates the lone individual, from the large majority.

Knowledge is power. Knowing where another comes from makes you an honorary part of that group. The one who is able to bond with all, is in good shape regardless of what life brings.

Learning the history and culture of all groups allows you to take advantage of the best all have to offer.

[icruise]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Given that consideration, and the fact that I'm proud of my culture and race, I think I should be able to start the "NAAWP" or the National Association for the Advancement of White People."

Why should there be a stigma against it? We can help poor white kids get into college for example. It could be a positive thing.

Wow, another classic example of the right "Just Not Getting It" (TM). If race in America really wasn't an issue as many Republicans like to think, then sure, there would be no need for an NAACP, and its very existence would be suspect. But I've got news for you -- race is still very much an issue in the US. Aside from the hundreds of years of history that blacks have only in the last few decades been able to begin to overcome, there is still racism alive and well in the US. Blacks have really only been able to vote since the 1960s! Can you believe that?! These issues don't just go away overnight. Even if everyone suddenly lost all traces of prejudice tomorrow, there is still the fact that America's history of mistreating minorities has put them at a tremendous disadvantage compared to the average white person. In this environment, I think it makes perfect sense to have an organization that looks out for a particular race or group.

Sure, there is some anti-white racism, but almost none on the part of people in positions of power. This means that any organization created for the advancement of whites is at best redundant, and at worst an attempt to keep blacks down (as opposed to promoting whites). Whites are very much a majority, both in terms of numbers and in terms of social and political power. But I think an earlier poster said it best. Just about every organization in the US is already for whites by default.

[macvillage.net]

Racism is healthy as ever these days.

Look at stats comparing education to income. Should be the same. But it's not.

Sexism is also doing very well in the US. So is religous bigotry. Sexual Orientation, Ageism (is there an "e" in that?), among others.



There is a glass ceiling that's cleaned every day to make sure it shines.

Sadly, it's that one sided glass. Like the mirrors in mental institutions. Perhaps one day it will be replaced with a plastic that's transparent both ways. Then change can continue, until the glass is removed and people are treated as they deserve, rather than based on value ______.


Equality isn't impossible. A few hundred years ago, a German would never hire a Frenchman. Now nobody even thinks about that. A protestant would never have worked for a Catholic. That would have been imoral...

so there is some sort of progress. It's just not quite enough to live up the the American reputation of being "The best", as Bush loves to put it.

For a country with so many resources, and a country that promotes itself as "the land of the free". You would think it could live up to those claims.

I'm still of the belief it *could* happen. I'm pretty hesitant to to say *will*, as I'm certain it's out of reach for the next 2 generations, and that's if radical change starts today.

[OAW]

Originally posted by ZackS:
Not to sound racially insensitive but to me equal means equal. There should be no needs you have that a white student would have need as well. This has always bothered me. The school need to address "black needs." What black needs? What extra "support" could you possibly need? Black kids don't benefit from a good education, room and board, and access to food? They need something else to supplement? They're in the same dorms, go to the same classes, participate in the same events. It's not like there's any segregation. I just don't get it.

I respect your viewpoint but I disagree. The fact of the matter is that the typical white person in this country has no clue as to what it's like to be in a "minority" position. Imagine if you attended a historically black college like Hampton U., or Morehouse, or Howard U. Imagine being in a situation where nearly everyone else on campus looked different, acted different, and came from a totally different cultural background. It's really an academic exercise because most whites have never and probably will never experience that.

Having said all that, the organization's main purpose was as a "self help" group. We supported each other academically with study groups because there were many black students there who were smart but came from disadvantaged backgrounds and crappy inner city schools. So we helped each other on that note. This was no different than what many of the white fraternities and sororities did. In fact, what they did went even further because they generally had files of all the tests given by every professor over the years!

We also provided a social outlet. Let's face it. The typical black student isn't into Nine Inch Nails or Nirvana. So when there were school parties planned .... the music catered to the majority. No one had a problem with that. It was just a reality. Additionally, the parties at the white frat houses were typically events where one stood around, listened to rock music, talked, and drank all night. $2 cover charge and all the beer you can drink in a dixie cup from the keg. (Yes I did hang out with the white students from time to time!) But generally speaking, that's not how black people party. So when we wanted to party with some R&B or Hip Hop and actually dance ... we just threw our own parties in a dorm. Usually mine! It wasn't an exclusive thing. Any of our white friends that wanted to come could and did. It's just that most weren't interested. And that was cool. To each his own.

The organization was also a vehicle for on campus activism. Whether it was challenging the administration to hire more qualified minority faculty and administrators ... or challenging them to be more inclusive with regard to the courses offered. It's amazing how one can graduate from college in this country and be considered "educated" ... and spend 99% of one's educational career studying nothing but the history, accomplishments, and culture of Europeans. Not that that's not important. It's just that the other 89% of the world's population has history, accomplishments, and culture worthy of study too. So we lobbied to get a course here and there that actually reflected people who looked like us. A black literature class. A black poetry class. Never could get a black history class in the curriculum ... at least while I was there. They were a few token gestures ... but it was a start.

Finally, the organization was a vehicle for us to serve as role models for other young black kids in the surrounding neighborhoods and schools. Many of the those kids didn't know a single other black person who went to college. The university was simply a bastion of whiteness that existed in the middle of their neighborhood ... surrounded by iron gates and populated by students who typically eyed them suspiciously at best ... and downright contemptuously at worst. So we organized tutoring programs with 8th graders and interacted with them. Not only to help them with their homework ... but to show them that there were in fact black students at the university ... and that they could go to college too. In a sense, we served as a "liaison" between the university and the surround neighborhood.

Originally posted by ZackS:

I don't know about your school, but at mine there are the integrated students: ie almost everyone regardless of race (including most of the black population), and then there is the group of 4 or 5 black kids who band together and never associate with a non-black person if at all possible. All they do is sit at their own little table in the dining hall and glare around the room.

My school was the same way. There were times when there were integrated situations. And there were times when it was not. We had some black students who hung out with nothing but white students. And we had some black students who hung out with nothing but other black students. Most however, hung out with both depending on the circumstances.

The issue is this. When a group of white students hang out together ... other whites see nothing wrong with that. It's just ... "normal" behavior. It's never considered to be "separating themselves" or "anti" anything or anyone. But when blacks do the exact same thing ... all of a sudden it's a problem with a lot of whites. Why the double standard? To me, it's simply a modern manifestation of a long standing problem where many whites view a group of blacks or other minorities with suspicion. There was a time when it was actually against the law in the country for more than a handful of blacks to congregate in a public place (other than their own churches). It goes all the way back to slavery because the white population's greatest fear was a slave revolt. There were many places where the slaves outnumbered the whites ... so they were seriously concerned about waking up in the middle of the night with a knife to their throat and the "big house" being burned down. Nat Turner wasn't the only one who led a revolt. He's just the only one the white educational establishment chooses to talk about.

My point is that there is a difference between "desegregation" and "integration". A desegregated environment doesn't require separation. However, it doesn't mandate togetherness either. Often times there are those who promote integration for the sake of integration. But like everything else in life, there's a time and a place for everything.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

OAW

[iWrite]

Thanks for chiming in OAW. You sound like a person that I could "hang" with!



Your posts were not only insightful and eloquent (a rarity around here), but prompted a lot of thought.

Je suis tres fatigue, so I need to Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ---> as I just got back from Miami Beach...

Night!

[Jansar]

The United States has become racist to white people. There's nothing else to it. "Minorities" can get into harder schools easier, they can be racist against white people, and it's OK. If it was the other way around, all of the illegal aliens and gang members (which are basically minority groups) will cry and say, "Oh, it's not fair! It's not fair! We get treated exactly like white people!"

Boo-fúçking-hoo. It's ridiculous.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by OAW:
[B]I respect your viewpoint but I disagree. The fact of the matter is that the typical white person in this country has no clue as to what it's like to be in a "minority" position. Imagine if you attended a historically black college like Hampton U., or Morehouse, or Howard U. Imagine being in a situation where nearly everyone else on campus looked different, acted different, and came from a totally different cultural background. It's really an academic exercise because most whites have never and probably will never experience that.

I don't buy this part of your argument. As you said about mine, I can respect it but I don't buy it. I don't think there's a fundamental difference in cultures. We live in the same country, consume the same media, speak the same language, etc. It might be true for rich vs poor but it's not for white vs black.

Originally posted by OAW:
[B]Having said all that, the organization's main purpose was as a "self help" group. We supported each other academically with study groups because there were many black students there who were smart but came from disadvantaged backgrounds and crappy inner city schools. So we helped each other on that note. This was no different than what many of the white fraternities and sororities did. In fact, what they did went even further because they generally had files of all the tests given by every professor over the years!

You mention "white" frats. The greek system is not based on race. People of any race can become frat brothers.

Originally posted by OAW:
[B]The typical black student isn't into Nine Inch Nails or Nirvana.

Neither is the average white student But that's neither here nor there. Social point taken but all are welcome anyway.

Originally posted by OAW:
[B]The organization was also a vehicle for on campus activism. Whether it was challenging the administration to hire more qualified minority faculty and administrators ... or challenging them to be more inclusive with regard to the courses offered. It's amazing how one can graduate from college in this country and be considered "educated" ... and spend 99% of one's educational career studying nothing but the history, accomplishments, and culture of Europeans. Not that that's not important. It's just that the other 89% of the world's population has history, accomplishments, and culture worthy of study too. So we lobbied to get a course here and there that actually reflected people who looked like us. A black literature class. A black poetry class. Never could get a black history class in the curriculum ... at least while I was there. They were a few token gestures ... but it was a start.

My school happens to have a very diverse staff and very diverse course selection, especially in History, languages, and English. I tend to forget that many other schools are not like this while living within my own little sphere. My junior English class did a fairly exhaustive study on the Harlem renaissance, just like any other unit (after Shakespeare, before American lit). I hate history no matter what's being studied. European history, African History and Asian history are all equally worthless in my eyes.

Originally posted by OAW:
[B]Finally, the organization was a vehicle for us to serve as role models for other young black kids in the surrounding neighborhoods and schools. Many of the those kids didn't know a single other black person who went to college. The university was simply a bastion of whiteness that existed in the middle of their neighborhood <snip> So we organized tutoring programs with 8th graders and interacted with them. Not only to help them with their homework ... but to show them that there were in fact black students at the university ... and that they could go to college too. In a sense, we served as a "liaison" between the university and the surround neighborhood.

I think that's great but I think it would be equally important to get some of the white kids from the college involved too. It would be to the benefit of everyone to diversify and breakdown barriers to help in the troubling passage I snipped to deal with separately.

Originally posted by OAW:
[B]... surrounded by iron gates and populated by students who typically eyed them suspiciously at best ... and downright contemptuously at worst.

This is my experience here. My brother goes to Trinity College in Hartford, CT, a perfect example of what you're talking about. The school is essentially in the middle of a chiefly black and Dominican area. If I'm imagining what you're saying correctly, the suspicion is justified and the contempt is fear. At Trinity there have been countless muggings and stabbings on campus. If your only contact with a group of people is in food delivery, stabbing and muggings, there's bound to be trouble. I think you'd agree: we need more interaction on such campuses! I'm really trying to not sound racist but it's the truth. You see a white person late at night and you think, "ok, there's no chance I'll get mugged. The only white kids here are students."

It goes the other way too. Just walking down the streets of Hartford I feel like I've done something wrong just because of the color of my skin. People stare at me, the little dominican kids should out "gringo" and if I ask for directions or something I'll just get a blank stare or a "get the **** out of here, gringo."

Originally posted by OAW:
[B]The issue is this. When a group of white students hang out together ... other whites see nothing wrong with that. It's just ... "normal" behavior. It's never considered to be "separating themselves" or "anti" anything or anyone. But when blacks do the exact same thing ... all of a sudden it's a problem with a lot of whites. Why the double standard?

I wouldn't hold this as a double standard. If there was a group of 6 or 7 white kids who only talked to each-other and no one else, especially people of other races, that would raise a red flag with me. That said, in a strictly probability situation, if the white:black ratio is 3:1, and everyone has an equal chance of being friends with someone else, the likely hood of white-white is larger than black-black. There is a pattern that you'll catch. People become friends with others who hold common interests. One of my friends who happened to be black was really in to computers. Race is something that two people can know they have in common at just a glance.

Originally posted by OAW:
[B]To me, it's simply a modern manifestation of a long standing problem where many whites view a group of blacks or other minorities with suspicion. There was a time when it was actually against the law in the country for more than a handful of blacks to congregate in a public place (other than their own churches). It goes all the way back to slavery because the white population's greatest fear was a slave revolt. There were many places where the slaves outnumbered the whites ... so they were seriously concerned about waking up in the middle of the night with a knife to their throat and the "big house" being burned down. Nat Turner wasn't the only one who led a revolt. He's just the only one the white educational establishment chooses to talk about.

I'm very familiar with this theory but I think it's just that. I don't think it has any merit in any situation I've seen so far. When I see a group of people who look alike and don't talk to anyone else, I don't immediately think: "Oh God, they're plotting against me!"

Originally posted by OAW:
My point is that there is a difference between "desegregation" and "integration". A desegregated environment doesn't require separation. However, it doesn't mandate togetherness either. Often times there are those who promote integration for the sake of integration. But like everything else in life, there's a time and a place for everything.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

OAW

Agreed, people shouldn't be forced to integrate if they really don't want to, but in many cases it would do a great amount of good if they did. If nothing else, it would help dispel the fear, uncertainty, and distrust that causes racial tension.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Jansar:
The United States has become racist to white people. There's nothing else to it. "Minorities" can get into harder schools easier, they can be racist against white people, and it's OK. If it was the other way around, all of the illegal aliens and gang members (which are basically minority groups) will cry and say, "Oh, it's not fair! It's not fair! We get treated exactly like white people!"

Boo-fúçking-hoo. It's ridiculous.

Despite that, your still much more likely to get into a college as a white student.

Colleges only hold a few seats for minorities. And the rest end up being white.

It's not like it harms your chances a a white person getting into college. Those are seats created for the purpose of increasing diversity at all white colleges.

I know at my school... the amount of diversity isn't what they claim... not by a longshot...

It's sad, how despite how much of the surrounding area is black (I would guess within a 50 mile radius, well over 15%, and that's being very conservative... most likely much higher would still be conservative). Only 3-5% (being generious) are "non-white" (to lump everyone into 1 group.

But then again. Being a mostly white college is what makes it appealing to most students.

In all honesty, I've never heard of a college, (that wasn't created to serve African Americans who couldn't get into white schools), having more than a few minorities.... it just doesn't exist.

If schools ignored race. The school should be representitive of it's demograpahic area.

When African Americans are brought in for athletics... It gets a bit offensive.

Why is it that most colleges claim to be diverse... yet relatively few are less than 90% white (when you look at the campus, not read their propeganda). I've been to a few campuses, that claim to be 60% white... but I never saw anyone on the campus that wasn't white (exception for a janator). How does that work?

Schools discriminate both ways. It's very clear. In the end it balances out. In fact it's still lopsided...

Because it's easier to get a college education if your white. You have more schools that there is enough of a chance to make it worth while, and a higher chance in each school just for being white.

It's still unfair. African Americans, Whites, and all races should get a fair chance at *all* seats in a college. Not just a small section.

Step number one is to fine the living crap out of any college who promotes themselves as "diverse". Lets have the federal government take a demographic of colleges, and post the results. That's the only indication. And no promoting that your more/less than another.

Remove the motivation, and it's solved.

Some schools want to be all white... because it's more prestigious, and many perfer that.

Others attempt to be diverse, because the claim the world isn't all white, and all people deserve a chance.

Lets outlaw the schools ability to promote diversity as a marketing effort.


Secondly:

Forbid questions regarding race, background, or income. Financial aid can be figured out after your accepted. Not prior. Some schools do that already. not all though.

3rd:

Campuses must report race crimes that occour on campus (would perfer all crimes). In most states, crimes on campus, if delt with by campus officials, don't have to be reported to the state... that's how giant schools can go several years without 1 rape, and small schools can have several.


When you remove the tarp from the colleges... what's left?

I'd like to see colleges exposed for what they are. IMHO to many created a few bogus seats for minorities.. with the sole purpose of ensuring that the other seats are reserved for white students.

Sure. For every 100 seats, we will add 2, and make them for minorities. That way they don't compete against the white students.

That was a quick solution.



Fixes are definately needed. But only if they remedy the problem. Not create a new problem.


IMHO the problem is that to many people are afraid of a minority doing better than a white kid in school. So create a few spots, and give them to minorities with low grades... that way there is diversity for marketing purposes, and the white kids can still feel superior.

That's business. Not ethical business. But business.

Colleges are nothing more than non-profit companies. They strive to make money, expand, and make more money. They provide a product that sells. The above is the winning formula right now. A good ad promotion, and product just the way the consumers want it.

[icruise]

Originally posted by ZackS:
I don't buy this part of your argument. As you said about mine, I can respect it but I don't buy it. I don't think there's a fundamental difference in cultures. We live in the same country, consume the same media, speak the same language, etc. It might be true for rich vs poor but it's not for white vs black.

I think shows a little of your unfamiliarity with black culture if you think there aren't any differences. Granted, it's a sub-culture and not a completely independent culture, but there are definitely many differences. Of course it's true that these are not "racial" differences per se. A white person growing up in the same environment would have basically the same cultural traits, and black people growing up outside the culture (as some do) would tend not to share many of these traits. But this is really academic. The point is that many black people do share a common identity and culture that is distinct from "mainstream" America.

You mention "white" frats. The greek system is not based on race. People of any race can become frat brothers.

I think you're being a little naive here. It may be true that there are no rules making it impossible for black people to join, but it takes a lot of guts to be the only black guy in a frat, especially in some places. Realistically, many frats aren't really open to black people.

I think your heart is in the right place, but I'm not sure if you're fully appreciating what it's like to be a minority (not that I do either, really).

[macvillage.net]

There are frats that are diverse... but only a handful.

Most won't even let people of another race go to some parties, unless the ratio is right. Forget about becoming a brother.

And it's not just white frats. But others as well

But these are unoffilliated non-profit organizations. Not colleges.

[ZackS]

Ok, all the frats I've seen have at least one or two asian or black members.

As a side note, why do you think asians don't seem to meet the same sort of troubles as blacks or hispanics? Do they just not complain as much or are they treated better than the other minorities for some reason?

[iWrite]

Bingo, Zack!

Asian kids are THE most successful in college -- and aren't beating the race drum all the way to class every day.

That is ON TOP of the fact that a lot of them barely speak English!

Whenever blacks yell "Hey, I'm a minority here!" I say, "Take a look at Jews. Take a look at Asians. Take a look at Indians (from India)."

They're all HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL.

And they're not "white" and they're usually considered very low income.

As far as the "black experience," no, I haven't had that, of course. But, I have had the, "I had better work my *ss off to get good grades or I won't get into college experience."

That, specifically, is how and why a person should be admitted to college: On grades and application of the self to study(ing).

That's ALL.

Not because of the color of the skin.

As someone SO ELOQUENTLY said, the blacks pull the race trump card ALL of the time in this country -- then when whites recognize it and comment on it the blacks get all pissed off.

Rush Limbaugh mentions that it's good that black quarterbacks are in the NFL...and he's outta there because he didn't say it in a more appropriate way: He discussed it EXACTLY the same way he would have discussed a white quarterback and because he didn't word it in a more politically correct and delicate way because a race was involved, he's tossed out on his ear.

Gives you pause, doesn't it?

[iWrite]

And here is where race admissions becomes a problem -- from today's Los Angeles Times:

UC Berkeley, the University of California's oldest and most prestigious campus, admitted hundreds of freshmen in 2002 who were "marginally academically qualified" at the expense of many more highly qualified applicants, according to a confidential report obtained by The Times.

The preliminary analysis of UC Berkeley admissions, prepared for the UC Board of Regents, showed that nearly 400 students were admitted to the campus in 2002 with scores of 600 to 1000 on the SAT entrance exam, far below the 1337 average SAT score for last year's admitted class. Sixteen hundred on the test is considered a perfect score.

The report also shows that more than 600 applicants with scores on the SAT of 1500 or above were not admitted, along with nearly 2,600 others with scores from 1400 to 1500. Berkeley officials say many of the rejected students with high SATs had relatively low grade-point averages.

Overall, the document finds, the admissions process at UC Berkeley "might not be compatible with [the school's] goal of maintaining academic excellence."

The report was prepared at the request of regents Chairman John J. Moores. It is based on university data, but contains extensive analysis that primarily was written by Moores. The report does not attempt to explain the reasons for UC Berkeley's admissions patterns. It does not break down admissions by race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status, nor does it measure changes over time.

But it urges a more comprehensive study of admissions — including some of these factors — at Berkeley and the university's seven other undergraduate campuses.

One regent, Ward Connerly, said Berkeley's flexible standards might be an attempt to get around the state's ban on affirmative action and admit more underrepresented minority students.

So, it appears that UC Berkeley is "dumbing down" their standards -- and their college -- just to admit less academically qualified students merely because of their race.

Personally, I think it's VERY sad that someone would even WANT to be admitted to college merely because of the color of their skin -- what an insult.

[icruise]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Bingo, Zack!

Asian kids are THE most successful in college -- and aren't beating the race drum all the way to class every day.

That is ON TOP of the fact that a lot of them barely speak English!

Are you for real iWrite? I have trouble believing that someone can be so consistently dense. Every thread you start seems to be designed to get somebody's goat.

[iWrite]

No, it's getting YOUR goat. Because you do not agree.

Listen, I was a "minority" in my advanced mathematics classes at the University of Washington -- because I spoke English.

I had Chinese professors teaching math to our class of about 350 -- and I would justifiably say that 75% of the class was Chinese, Vietnamese, and other Asian nationalities. We had to buy lecture notes separately because we could not understand the professor. He taught in very bad English and Chinese.

Did I bitch and moan and complain? No. Because I would say that about 6 of my year 3 and 4 math classes (out of 8 classes) were the same way. I had to get with the program and deal with it.

Conversely, I'm sure those Chinese students also dealt with it in other classes where they barely understood English.

You can't have it both ways:

You can't say, "Don't differentiate between races in this country," and then say, "I deserve to get into college based on the color of my skin."

You're either equal or you're not!

If you constantly point at yourself (as an individual or as a group) and say, "Hey! Look at the color of my skin!" You're not truly earning EQUALITY.

People who are equal do not feel compelled to complain all of the time that they are not equal, see?

You don't see Jews trying to get into colleges based on the color of their skin (and a lot of Jews are very dark) or their religion or nationality, do you?

NO.

And, by the way, I have Jewish heritage.

It's just the way that I see it. One "minority" to another.

[iWrite]

Also, if I'm irritating you or making you THINK then I consider the thread a success.

I admit, sometimes I make provocative posts, but that is because I'm challenging a thought process -- my own or other persons.

It's called "an intelligent, thought-provoking discussion."

[iWrite]

One more thing?

Do you want a neurosurgeon operating on your brain knowing that he got through his learning experience based on the color of his skin and the fact that he was given a break based on race?

Or do you want the most competent person operating on your brain knowing that he EARNED his degree and profession by virtue of his INTELLIGENCE?

I know what I want -- think about it. Seriously.

When you're looking for a physician you want the most competent person, period. There is a pediatric neurosurgeon at John Hopkins whom I would take my children to if they needed neurosurgery because he is probably the best neurosurgeon in the country -- at least one of the very best. He is black.

But, his educational accomplishments and curriculum vitae are simply amazing.

He has EARNED the respect he generates not through the color of his skin, but because of what he has accomplished.

For the record, with all of the fatherless black children in this country, organizations like the NAACP are a good thing because they're there to take up the slack. As long as the race card isn't drummed into their heads.

It demeans people to suppose that a human being needs a break in life because of the color of skin.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Despite that, your still much more likely to get into a college as a white student..... <Argument for affirmative action>

It's a sad fact but the arguments whites make ARE justified. It is not harder to get in to a highly competitive college if you're white, but it's easier if you're black. One, of my best friends was black and got in to Carnegie Mellon University with a B- average and SAT scores of about 1350. Given, he was a great kid, etc... a white kid with the same credentials would have been rejected on the spot. In fact, my school publishes which colleges admit which students with what types of grades. Only one person, we know who, was admitted to CMU, and he had a B-. 15 other kids, 5 of whom had A-/1500+ credentials got rejected. It's sad to see but if we want to see diversity on campuses we'll need affirmative action. On the flip side, I'll have an easier time getting in to MIT because I'm not Asian. However, the way my friend got in to CMU is pure abuse of the system. He went to the same (private high) school as the other kids with better grades. He was not a ghetto Cinderella story. I fear affirmative action is not helping to level the playing field, but rather allowing rich minority families an easy pass to get their children in to college. Yes I understand that it is helping some disadvantaged kids with poor educations from inner-city schools, but the rich minorities essentially have first pick for whatever they want. There is something GLARINGLY WRONG with that.

PS: I've tried to re-write this post to avoid the "Limbaugh Effect" about 10 times but there's pretty much no way around it if you're going to express an uncensored opinion on a racial subject.