Reverse sexism and reverse racism

I have a feeling he is citing Affirmative Action as an example of "reverse-discrimination" since it gives favor to a historical minority group. Any thing that encourages in-equality can is a form of discrimination even if it is theoretically done for a good cause.

Exactly; thanks, finalcut.

The reverse-racism argument lobbied at affirmative action has been debunked a dozen times by statistics showing that despite affirmative action minorities with the same qualifications and the same experience in the same position make LESS than the majority candidate and are LESS likely to be given a particular job.

pwyll, I'm suprised. From a casual perspective it makes it seem quite the opposite. Any chance you have any links to those statistics?

Let me figure out how to put links in and post a proper response.

The reverse-racism argument lobbied at affirmative action has been debunked a dozen times by statistics showing that despite affirmative action minorities with the same qualifications and the same experience in the same position make LESS than the majority candidate and are LESS likely to be given a particular job.

There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics. I can only tell you what I have directly experienced in the contracting world and other areas of life. These set asides are real and they are part of federal law. During the competition for the multbillion dollar crew exploration vehicle by NASA my company was specifically removed the small business section despite my having considerable support at the top management level of the large aerospace companies that were competing. Only 8A's were allowed to subcontract.

I can't link yet, I haven't been on Newsvine long enough apparently. Just google, "wage gap." You'll find all the stats you need. White men make at least 24% more than any other group on average. That's kind of a staggering figure. That's over $500,000 in a lifetime over a white woman. There are job specific stats, too, that show that men occupy over 50% of the management jobs in the US but make up just under 50% of the population. The stats are there. I'm surprised you haven't read anything on the subject if you are comfortable calling affirmative action reverse racism/sexism. Even Wikipedia has a decent article on it.

Your personal experiences with contracts are anecdotal and have absolutely nothing to do with the average American's experience. We'll even leave out ghettoizing, police brutality and abuse, and forcibly maintained class divides and just talk job to job. The stats are there, the raw data is there, in such staggering numbers it can't be slanted. If you have even a cursory knowledge of stats you know that census sized statistical runs aren't subject to the same skewing of smaller data sets. The larger the set, the smaller the margin for error, and the more effective the model. It's just irrefutable that minorities make SUBSTANTIALLY less than white men in America. It's the absolute case. Arguing that fact is like claiming evolution doesn't exist: there's a mountain of empirical evidence that says it does, and you have to completely ignore that to think otherwise.

No one is claiming that "ghettoizing, police police brutality and abuse" don't exist, that there is no wage gap or that either of these aren't bad. The only thing being argued is that Affirmative Action does indeed force agencies and companies to choose minorities over majorities solely because they are minorities and that doing such a thing is 'reverse racism.'

Exactly

Space guy's contracting story is anecdotal, but it reflects a strong trend in the federal government, where the employment of minorities greatly exceeds their representation in the civilian work force, and where, as he mentions, certain amounts of contracts have to go to minority owned businesses. The EEOC itself has been successfully sued for reverse discrimination multiple times, and lost. I don't know how much impact federal government hiring has nationwide, but living in the DC metro area as I do it has tremendous impact around here.

So in one tiny sector of government spending there is a trend to hire *companies* because they are minority owned. That doesn't mean that the company has a majority of minorities, nor does it mean that the minorities in that company are making as much as the white men. It's a big smoke cloud that says yes, this tiny section of the overall country, 8A small businesses, has an advantage when bidding on Fed contracts. Meanwhile a vast majority of jobs that pay over poverty level are occupied by white men, managerial jobs are majority white, and pay in the same job for the same experience is lower. Affirmative action gives benefit to those that, in society, have a disadvantage. It is an attempt to level the playing field. It does NOT skew it out of the white man's favor, and it does NOT give an unfair advantage to minorities. It attempts to afford minorities the same opportunities we, as white men, get for just being white.

I'm not saying reverse racism can't exist, as I've seen it around my home town (there is a large population of Hispanics), but I've also seen police mercilessly beating Hispanics for doing nothing out of the ordinary, so I know that I have it good.

I think Space Guy's experience is more than anecdotal. That word, anectodal, I am starting to dislike it! lol

I have worked for several large corporations and have seen affirmative action IN action.

Reverse prejudice is huge. When I worked in human resources as a trainer, I saw thousands hired based on color, then I had to train them that Chicago was a city, not a state. MANY of them could not list 10 of the 48 contiguous states. It was a major hotel chain and my students were reservations agents. We had a quota of hirees of color to fill annually. Now, they did not have to STAY they just had to get hired, trained and out on the reservations floor for a certain period of time.

We often hired more for the summer rush, and that helped us reach quota.

However, I do believe racism exists and must be combated.

Is dumbing down requirements in hiring and in education the answer? NO!

We do people of any color a disservice if we indirectly tell them we don't think they can achieve on a par with others. Dinesh D'Souza is not my favorite guy, but there is some truth in his books.

I think we're pretty much in agreement, generaldecay. While I don't mean to disregard the majority of cases of isms where it isa case of those in power being responsible, I think it's foolish to claim that you can't be an -ist because you're a member of the group typically discriminated against. If such were true, no statement could ever be designated as -ist without specifying information about the individual who said it, which I find pretty absurd.

Oh I have been a victim of this many times.

In 1978 when I applied for a job at United States Steel I was told that even though I scored the highest on their test for electrical work, he could not hire me as he was bound to hire a specific number of black people because of quotas in place at that time. When I was sitting with those same people waiting to be interviewed, they laughed about how they were going to work there just long enough to get their benefits and then get laid off.

From 1998 until now I have owned a small company that works with government contracts. I have a small business classification. However, NASA is required by congress to apportion 20% of their total subcontract work to "8A" businesses, which are minority or female owned with a recent addition of veterans. Because there are not a lot of these companies and there is not a lot of this subcontract work, NASA gives almost all of the work to the 8A companies.

Most of these companies are 8A in name only as they put the stock in their wives name or put a figurehead minority person with 51% of the stock in place and then rake in the cash from the contracts. This goes on all the time in the government contracting world and though my technical marks on executing contracts is high, I am consistently overlooked for contract awards.

This also extends to large contracts with the big aerospace companies as they have percentages of work that has to go to 8A companies and there is little or nothing left for my company.

I have had to resort to subcontracting through and 8A company where they rake of 20% of the money as a "passthrough" charge and I do all the work.

Business loans? Same thing as defacto quotas in this area make it to where it is not worth my time to even apply for an SBA loan.

Yes Virginia, this is an endemic problem in the system today.

You are in a dominant group, yet you feel ism-ed against,

Just a minor point of clarification - but I think it is important - I have felt "ism-ed" against at times but I certainly don't feel ism-ed against in general.

Overall, as they say, I've got it pretty good with the way our society is structured to favor the white guy. I'm not much of a victim but I have been one temporarily. My experience is trivial compared to those who suffer either or both of the ism's I experienced on a daily basis.

Amazingly enough, within the last couple days I experienced another "racial" moment so I wrote an article about it.

Here's a very simple privilege that the majority enjoys - not to be a suspect. Those of us who are not black cannot possibly know what it feels like to walk into a department store and know you will be followed around - differently than a white customer, no matter what your appearance may suggest about your economic status, while the white customer gets a pass. We don't know what it's like to be walking down your own street and hear the click of a car door locking as that car stops for a light ear whereyou are walking.

Of course this sort of bigotry is encapsulated as DWB, "Driving While Black."

There is another layer to this conundrum, which is that sometimes it is black Americans who are most suspicious of their fellow black American.

The question is not just one of privilege, but one of indignity endured day to day. In my experience it is most endemic with respect to race, but also pertains to sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Ah, marital status - this does remind me of indignities I've suffered at times for being a single, and later a divorced woman. It galled me no end that people in my office treated me differently after I got married. In fact it wasn't until after I got married that I realized I had put up with a low level (or maybe not so low) of bullying that took the form of snide speculation about my love life, attractiveness, or sexual orientation. I was an outsider until I married. How did a wedding ring become a passport - and suit of armor? Still I experienced this indignity not as a member of a disrespected community but as an individual who was somehow less than totally respectable for not meeting a community "norm" which is to be married. What I'm saying is that the magnitude of what I went through, while serious and reprehensible, is not comparable to institutionalized racism.

I agree with your point almost completely, urbane, but I have to point out that when you say the following:

Those of us who are not black cannot possibly know what it feels like to walk into a department store and know you will be followed around - differently than a white customer

it's not entirely true. Though I hate to seem like I'm dismissing the serious problem of racism, I can honestly say that as a white male, the same has happened to me. I have on several occasions always had a store employee not more than twenty feet from me and watching me and someone asking me what I was looking from every minute or two. Most likely because I'm an adolescent and therefore statistically more likely to shoplift, but, nonetheless, it was a judgmental bias based on my age.

What I want to say that it's difficult to deal in absolutes and I have personally experienced a few exceptions to the otherwise reliable statements. It's really starting to seem like a contest to seem more victimized to me, though.

Yes but when you grow up you wont face the age discrimination will you whereas a black man your age will face both and continue to face racial discrimination when he grows up.

And why is it that telling people experiences are tantamount to playing victim. The act of racism victimizes others, You deciding that sharing ones experiences is about creating competition for victim hood is insulting and offensive. You can never know racial discrimination, but please feel free to share with us your own sense of victimisation - I am sure that makes you feel better that it cannot possibly be that bad.

Ah, adolescent. Any smart shopkeeper will watch out for teens - it's just a fact of life. If there's a behavioral basis for watching a customer, there's no prejudice.

Recently, I heard Condoleeza Rice's biographer tell of an incident some years ago where Condi went into a jewelry store, only to be shown the cheap stuff. The salesperson made a prejudicial assumption toward a grown woman of means who arguably conducts herself with decorum; this is the sort of situation I had in mind, and, yes, it is different to be of a certain age and accomplishment and still suffer such indignities than when one is young and as yet unproven.

I'm the mother of a teen & a young adult, btw, to say nothing of being a former teenager (though some of us oldsters act as if we had no recollection. . .)

I saw an Oprah programme once (it was under duress) and she sent two men out to get a job, apartment, car finance. Both had identical qualifications, wore similar style clothes etc but one was black and one was white. The black man was told the apartment had been let when it hadn't, the white guy got to view it immediately, even though he applied after the black guy. The results were the same for the job and finance. They were treated differently even though they came from similar backgrounds, same education and so on.

When an audience member was asked what she thought of the outcome, she maintained it wasn't all that bad and that if you project a respectful kind of persona, you will be treated well. In other words despite seeing the evidence for herself she refused to believe racism existed as she had already decided that the world was an equal playing field.

I find it distressing that ok it happens, but then people go into denial about it really being racism and there must be some other factor. People of race get tired of being victimised twice, first by the racist and then by the denial of people who cant believe it.

Gendecay,

This was back in the 80s, FWIW. I'm not in the working world now, so I can't speak as to how things are now.

chasencash, I was about to give Compo Menits some "looky here you young whippersnapper" & backed off. Thanks for stepping up.

There is a big difference when you are a wealthy ex-pat minority in a foreign country then when you are grouped with a minority occupying all the wrong statistics in a society of whites. Racism can happen against whites in third world countries sometimes because of privilege and class, and sometimes because you may be part of systems that represent those issues.

I have also lived in both situations and am of colour, I can tell you I received the same form of racism that whites did when I was in a third world environment because of the company I was involved in and the relative wealth I enjoyed compared to local standards. It seemed to be a class issue and there was also resentment and suspicion of colonial type intervention. If locals live on $1 local money an hour if they are lucky and they cannot even afford the foreign goods on offer, foreigners look like they come to exploit and live in excess, even if that is not their intention. Therefore you are treated with some disdain when you spend what could be a years worth of wages to someone else on one dinner party.

so is what you experienced in those countries classism or racism chaseencash?

Final cut: Actually probably priviligism, which is not a word but who cares. It indicates the fact that because I was privileged I was discriminated racially against as a white even though I am not white.

One of the more interesting anecdotes I've read on race was by an African-American who took a trip to Africa. While walking up to a taxi stand he heard people calling out "Let the white guy through". He looked around prepared to be outraged and then realized everyone was talking about him, because while he was "black" in America, he was "white" in Africa.

Great topic.

One of the markers of privilege is that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the privileged person violently insists that his/her view of the world is correct. because for them to be wrong would be to lose a bit of privilege, and they can't have that. So on the one hand I say reverse racism and reverse sexism may be limited to instances of prejudice but for it to be racism and sexism it would have to be institutional and systematic. Racism/ Sexism= Prejudice + Power. By definition, Blacks and other minorities cannot be racist because they do not have insitutional, systemic power. The term Minority doesn't even refer to a minority of numbers any more, but instead to a minority of power.

By definition, Blacks and other minorities cannot be racist because they do not have insitutional, systemic power.

Not true in the majority black county I grew up in, with majority of businesses black owned, majority of cops being black, school system majority black, teachers majority black, county politicians majority black, etc.

So in the country you grew up in the Black majority historically controlled all the economic power and are of privilege yes? Anyone can be racist but when they occupy a privileged position they were oppressive and racist yes? What country is this? I wrongly assumed you meant PG country as Papua New Guinea, my mistake, I am Pacific oriented.

I do however believe racism exists anywhere and everyone can participate, but when it is perpetrated by the ruling economic classes, its effects on the minority are devastating.

Not true in the majority black county I grew up in, with majority of businesses black owned, majority of cops being black, school system majority black, teachers majority black, county politicians majority black, etc.

Even then you experienced far more privilege than a person in a reverse position because ultimately that black county in a state run by someone of privilege.

Why is everyone so bound and determined to dismiss the possibility of racism by a minority no matter what situation I describe? I grew up as a minority in my county even though I'm white. I experienced all the sorts of things minorities normally experience - the racial epithets, the coach not letting me or my fellow minorities play ball, being threatened because of my race, having the police search me for being "suspicious" for being the wrong color for the neighborhood (in my own neighborhood) - all of it. Other people's experiences in other counties in my state was irrelevant to my personal experience, and what I experienced was not just discrimination but actual racism.

@chasencash - it is PG county, not a country. It is a majority black county in Maryland. It's been majority black for ~35 years or so, longer than I've been alive. It is the wealthiest majority black county in America, so it is not typical of anywhere else in the country.

Because you are not conforming to the accepted view, an irony lost on some. There are likely deeper reasons many the same given for white people who deny their privilege. Nobody likes to know that they are capable of doing wrong.

OMG, I should read more carefully - you mean you were raised in America!
No wonder I was wondering what country is he actually referring to? I guess because the place you are referring to is atypical of the white experience in America - it never even crossed my mind.

That is funny. Sorry. I see you are saying that racism can happen when privilege is reversed, which is what we are saying too. Privilege and racism are problematic and exclusionary but racism itself on its own, happens everywhere - colour is of little consequence. Racism and power is the issue.

Jeez I need glasses!

KyleN - good old cognitive dissonance.

chasencash - yeah, I used to watch typical "teen movies" with a blank lack of comprehension. I thought they were all some crazy throwback to some 1950s imagining of America, because they certainly had nothing to do with my reality. I was shocked when I met people who actually went to schools like that, with preps and jocks and all that other stuff I thought was pure fantasy.

I think that the reason many privileged people use "prejudice" and "racism" as synonyms is that they don't understand that there is a need in our US lexicon for a word such as "racism". They don't really understand the difference between isolated instances of prejudice that happen to everyone, and the institutionalized inequities that come from racism.

Here are two examples taken from my personal life that illustrate for me the difference between racism and prejudice.

Prejudice: I am black and live in a almost completely black neighborhood. I brought a friend of mine who is white to my home. We went to a grocery store but entered seperately. A black cashier will be friendly and helpful to me, and then aloof and cold to my friend when it was his turn. he was left to wondering whether this is because the cashier has a problem with white people or did he personally do something unintentional that offended her. The key concept: everyone knows how it feels to be given the cold shoulder by others for superficial reasons, and everyone resents it.

Racism: For my work, I work in a prison. The overwhelming majority of inmates are black I'm not exaggerating. This isn't because all of the criminals in my city are black. They aren't. It's partly that the white criminals are more likely to get sentenced to punishments other than jail terms. It's partly that white defendants are more likely to afford good lawyers. It's partly that the drug offenses that tend to lure black people are prosecuted much more severely than the drug offenses that tend to lure white people. Take a look at the crack law and how 20 years have past for the courts to say "you know what these laws weren't fair" while thousands of black men lost the best part of their manhood. There are more parts too… These are just a few reasons for the inequity. The key concept: in the US, only black people know how this feels, and everyone else can only imagine the psychological effect, and if they don't want to bother imagining anything, they haven't got to because there is no disproportionately white US jail (except maybe for that special wing where Paris Hilton/ Mel Gibson/ Lindsey Lohan stayed.

You just can't describe occasional public rudeness with the same word you use to describe the kind of appalling situation that exists in that jail. They're related concepts, but not even close to synonymous.

As with everything, there are varying degrees. That does not mean that blacks and other minorities cannot be racist because they do not have institutional, systemic power. A position of power or dominance is not a prerequisite for racism.

institutionalized inequities

Would that be like say government programs or contracts based on race?

I find people far less than credible trying to convince me that some types of discrimination are required and others are wrong and to tell the two apart lets just compare our skins. Those who seek equality fight for equality not a new system of institutionalized inequities that benefit them instead.

Affirmative action is an attempt to eliminate the VAST advantage white men have in the work place. It hasn't done that. Yes, it's prejudicial towards a very privileged section of the US, white men, but if you remove it do you think the playing field will even out any more? Or will it revert to good ol' boy white dominance? Advocating against Affirmative Action is naive or ignorant or both.

Advocating against Affirmative Action is naive or ignorant or both.

You don't make a level playing field by building up one side of the field.... what is naive is the way that liberal governments have gone about all of this - By separating out different groups, and setting false targets, they pit one group against another and produce more inequities....

What governments need to do is set the example - the best people for a job should be employed regardless of background - A decent education may be at the bottom of all of this, in which case, it should be the governments stated aim to provide that decent education to all .... and if one group is found to be failing still with that, then it should be re-examined to find out why....

... but let's take the guessing and the false targets out of this - a level playing field starts when school starts...

but if you remove it do you think the playing field will even out any more

I think it will make little difference on leveling a playing field in the short run and will help in a very round about way in the long run. The reason is the policy does next to nothing of what it purports while raising tensions and strife. It's a disaster of a policy that should have been obvious wouldn't work from the start.

Advocating against Affirmative Action is naive or ignorant or both.

Calling people silly and stupid really advances your argument well. Advocating for a policy that has managed to fail for 30 years and increase strife seems rather naive or ignorant or both. Of course you might be benefiting from it in which case it's actually economically rational to support it even if it's not completely moral. The last time the country went down this road it took major action to overthrow, I don't have many illusions that it will be different this time.

I'm a white man with a degree. I am in the advantage in every situation and every interview.

Spaman: so how do you suppose we level the field? You ABSOLUTELY bolster one side to even out the other. That's HOW you level a field... or did you miss the day they taught analogies in elementary school?

Yes, schooling is the first place to start. WAIT! School funding is based on property taxes so poor neighborhoods get less funding! Oh no, the playing field is completely skewed toward rich neighborhoods filled with white people! White people are more qualified for every job because much more of them go to university than minorities! What do we do now? Well, I guess we let the divide by race widen, what choice do we have?

Affirmative action has NOT failed. It has decreased the wage gap and disparity between minority and majority workers in almost every industry. Just because it makes some ignorant white people angry doesn't make it a failure.

Advocating against Affirmative Action is naive or ignorant or both.

Exactly how long should Affirmative Action last? Until every single ethnic group has identical income? That would be really hard since recent immigrants naturally fall at the bottom of the ladder. Should it last for 100 years? 200 years? Is there a specific target that can be met after which you would agree it's time to remove affirmative action? If not, how many decades must we have it before its proponents realize that it is simply never going to achieve its stated goal?

Every government program should have a stated goal. When the goal is met, the program is ended. Alternatively if the goal is not met after X years, the program is re-evaluated, a new proposal is come up with, and then you try the new program. If a massive federal program hasn't worked after 40 years, it may be time to think that it is not just going to suddenly work tomorrow and maybe its time for a different approach.

Affirmative Action has been a success, it's just slow going. I'm all for re-evaluating and setting goals, but calling it reverse racism and advocating the removal of programs aimed and evening the playing field is ignorant.

Affirmative action is an attempt to eliminate the VAST advantage white men have in the work place. It hasn't done that.

Affirmative action has NOT failed.

Failed, not failed which story would you like to stick with?

If you are at the advantage in every interview then try interviewing more or becoming a government contractor. I've not exactly bounced around between jobs a whole lot and am fairly young at 30 and I've had multiple occasions to be decidedly not at an advantage a couple just flat out denied to interview at all. So that is itself a vast simplification. As has been pointed out the country isn't all the same, different areas have different mixes. I live in the south in a predominantly minority neighborhood that is about 40% black, 40% hispanic, 20% white/asian/indian/other.

how do you suppose we level the field? You ABSOLUTELY bolster one side to even out the other.

First you figure out an objective measure. Then you study the root causes. Then you try solutions. So far a political solution was used without any measuring without any root cause study and the result has been unsurprisingly poor. In a zero sum game can you bolster one side? Obviously no. It's semantics to call it bolstering or depriving. What is a real solution? Make it a non-zero sum game.

It's funny you mention property taxes, that is a great example of how poorly designed government programs can destroy unity and compromise all it's citizens. A mix of very bad zoning, redistribution programs, and politics has ruined an already disadvantaged school system. It wasn't evil ignorant angry white people that did that, it was everybody but more than most those who think you can level things by blind redistribution. What is the number one feature of property taxes? They are set locally. Think about what that means.

I want there to be equality, continuing AA program is a surefire way to NOT reach it inside my lifetime. There are many many other plans from both sides of the political spectrum that might have a chance but this one has proven to be a bad gig. Private education with vouchers and a flat tax scale all have a larger potential to fix the root problems. All AA does is teach a new generation that it's all about what you can force on others to get ahead in life.

What? Flat tax, which burdens the poor even more than the current tax system, privatized education and a voucher system will benefit poor minorities... how? That's just nonsense.

There has been MARKED improvement since the adoption of AA. It isn't finished, but there has been a huge improvement.

Keep on repeating

Affirmative Action has been a success

enough and you might convince yourself

Yes, schooling is the first place to start. WAIT! School funding is based on property taxes so poor neighborhoods get less funding

Well isn't that the place to start - an intelligent government would find a way to fund that requirement without making others suffer ... but oh I forgot, its liberal leaning governments we are talking about here ... that means no fairness and no intelligent application of taxes

What? You're saying that the conservative governments have applied taxes better in their history than liberal ones? Are you kidding?

You're saying that the conservative governments have applied taxes better in their history than liberal ones? Are you kidding?

I kid you not - It's the liberal come socialist governments that put in all these ineffective programs that cost the Earth and produce no results - they love pouring our money down the drain - makes em feel like they're doing something...

...and you didn't dispute that

an intelligent government would find a way to fund that requirement without making others suffer

Good that you can accept that now....

So the War On Terror is a liberal thing? It drains FAR more than any other program in our budget. Defense spending in general is a majority of our budget. How does Affirmative Action drain so much funds? Maybe you're confused.

http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/

Take a look for yourself.

Defense spending is not a majority of our budget. Your graph is way overly complicated. Look at the one here:

http://www.federalbudget.com/

We spend more on Social Security than we do on Defense. We spend more on Health and Human Services than we do on Defense. We spend almost as much on the Treasury Department as we do on Defense.

Now add the cost of the discretionary funds generated for the war in Iraq (not written into the budget):

http://nationalpriorities.org/cms/costofwar

Oh! Defense is back on top! By a wide margin!

Also, regarding Social Security, it's not part of the budget. It's a separate entity.

So the War On Terror is a liberal thing? It drains FAR more than any other program in our budget. Defense spending in general is a majority of our budget.

You are jumping about all over the place - how can the alleged 'war on terror' (WoT) be a government funded program - it's an entirely different subject from drugging school kids....

I don't dispute this activity is costly(WoT), and I do not support the premises behind it all, but this is a million miles away from the topic to make a fairer society.

So, getting back to the original idea....and isn't it amazing how socialists/liberals always use the poor card... it's used as a show stopper - to show what awful people are that argue against high priced government social programs ... ....
in creating a balanced society, liberal/socialists can only throw money at it, but it's a false God - you can never get a society that is naturally balanced financially because it doesn't naturally work out that way... You are trying to set a false reality

I'm not saying there should be great differences between the upper and lower levels - nobody should have to work 20 hours per day and live in poverty - but what the governments have to do is provide the opportunities ... take away false barriers and make it a whole lot easier for people to live up to their potential ..... if they don't take that opportunity then so be it ... but it starts with education, and if a government cannot improve that for everyone, then they are not fit to be in government

This has nothing to do with the original discussion, either. But whatever. You seem incapable of keeping your arguments together.

Yes, education needs reform. I've said as much. That reform should not take the avenue of privatization or vouchers, as that completely separates education level by class even more than the current system.

Now add the cost of the discretionary funds generated for the war in Iraq (not written into the budget):
Oh! Defense is back on top! By a wide margin!

No, it's not. Your original statement was that it was the majority of our budget, and it isn't. Now you're adding in the emergency spending - that's fine, it's still not the majority of our budget. Want to move the goalpost even further and just say that it's the most expensive single part of the budget? If you did that it would just top Health and Human Services by a bit. But still, the social programs of Social Security and Medicare would be way more than Defense. Now I think we spend about 85% too much on defense, but nothing is gained by misrepresenting how much it costs us. Also, the link you gave was completely useless, it's just a ticker. If you're going to say add in the emergency spending, please go to the trouble of googling a page that lists how much the emergency spending actually is.

I apologize, I actually meant that it was the majority of the discretionary budget. I didn't count a number of institutions like social security, medicaid and medicare.

Military spending is ~2/3rds of the discretionary budget.

This has nothing to do with the original discussion, either. But whatever. You seem incapable of keeping your arguments together.

Yes, education needs reform. I've said as much. That reform should not take the avenue of privatization or vouchers, as that completely separates education level by class even more than the current system.

Do keep up pwylladune - you wandered off - I answered that and brought the subject back... and do be polite...

I take your points about wasted cash elsewhere, but this is mainly down to liberal programs that do not produce results.... the war is a different subject

Do you have a response to the mismanagement of public funds that cannot provide for decent schooling yet can provide funds to drug schoolchildren, allegedly against hyperactivity

I just said that educational funding needs reform. My argument was that it's not LIBERALS who do the majority of wasteful spending. And I've proven that.

How have you proven that? If I regard Medicare and Social Security as wasteful spending then the majority of wasteful spending in the government is on liberal programs.

Then go ahead and explain to my grandma how Social Security is a waste of tax dollars. Then tell her she can't get medical treatment because Medicaid is also a waste of tax dollars.

If you're talking about misappropriation, then you should talk, again, to the conservatives. Raegan started the trend of stealing from Social Security to pay for other projects, so you might want to rethink this assumption of yours.

My argument was that it's not LIBERALS who do the majority of wasteful spending.

Agreed that governments of all colours do waste money - I can't answer for Reagen, nor will I defend waste........... but the point still is that if the liberal socialists stopped wasting so much money on social programs that helped nobody, then they would have more than enough to fund a proper education system that was fair to all ....

You could do the same thing with less than 1/10th the amount we spend on defense. And what social programs are you talking about that help nobody?

You name it - any alleged social program - from giving drugs to schoolkids to fingerprinting them

I'm not disputing too much is spent on defense...WAR ..... can't disagree, but I was focusing on social programs ...as that was the general area up for discussion

What programs, specifically, are requiring kids to take drugs or get fingerprinted? Can you reference a bill or policy I could look up? I have 4 cousins in high school, 2 nephews and a niece in junior high and a nephew in elementary school. None of them are on drugs and I haven't heard of any drugs for kids act being undertaken. Please clarify.

Why don't we restrict this: you give me bills or projects currently under way with citations that you think should be at the top of the list for cuts. That'll make this a lot easier. My top of the list? Defense spending. Your turn.

Then go ahead and explain to my grandma how Social Security is a waste of tax dollars. Then tell her she can't get medical treatment because Medicaid is also a waste of tax dollars.

Thanks but I don't want to get whacked with a broom :)

Doesn't change how I see the situation.

I hope you die before you're 60, then.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little." - FDR

If you have eyes that see Social Security and Medicaid as the main sources of poor spending in this country, you must be blind. Those bolster the weak and the infirm, they allow the elderly and the underprivileged a chance to actually live instead of crawl into a gutter and die, and you see them as the major misappropriation of our government. I am sad for you and your lack of affection.

I hope you die before you're 60, then.

I wish Brian and you a long, happy, and successful life. It's a bit presumptuous to assume he has made no provisions to take care of himself post 60. If insulting pessimism was required it would be more accurate to say I hope you have no major disaster or series of disasters for which you have made inadequate plans.

If I had an opportunity to respond to FDR in this quote it would be: It's a test of our intelligence to see how we can do one by means of the other.

Many people get affection, compassion, and socilism mixed up. Taking money from people by force isn't compassionate and it isn't affectionate it doesn't matter what you spend said money on. Compassion (or affection) requires voluntary action. If you can't support something voluntarily then maybe you don't really believe it's a good idea.

I have affection in that I believe that the Social Security is a right cause. I give of my pay to ensure that our elderly are cared for. If you are unwilling to aid our elderly, I would say that you lack affection, and that selfish ignorance is sad.

I would like to see Social Security reform, but I want benefits to INCREASE in my lifetime, not decrease. There is a huge section of the populace that is incapable of preparing for retirement, and it's insulting to tell them to do so when we do not provide them adequate preparation to compete for better paying jobs.

For you pwylladune

>>>Homeland stupidity

>>>Pharma Lobbies to Drug Kids in Schools - Citizens Resisting Pharma interests have united with mental health organizations to push through legislation that would require mandatory testing and forced administration of drugs to kids in schools - without their parents' consent.

Does psych drug pusher to kids Mark Probert do too much Ritalin

>>>FDA approves strong psych drug for kids November 20th, 2007 WASHINGTON (AP) The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday approved a widely used adult psychiatric drug for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in children and adolescents.

>>>New Scientist just days ago came out with an article Prescribing of hyperactivity drugs is out of control that discusses the mind boggling figures of child drugging at the hands of psychiatrists in the U.S.A.

>>>Damaging children for the sake of profits

After taking a survey that suggests they are abnormal, the next thing you know, Susie and Tommie will go running to the teacher saying, "You know, now that you mention it, I do have these thoughts and feelings, I must be mentally ill."

Mission accomplished. Two new customers. All the survey had to do was plant the idea in Susie and Tommie's mind.

The truth is the New Freedom Commission serves as the hub for a grand profiteering scheme involving the Bush administration, federal and local government officials, and drug companies to broaden the market for the sale of expensive but lethal drugs. If all goes according to plan, it will generate millions of new prescription drug customers.

Thank you. You're right, that is a very stupid action. Also: it's being undertaken by conservatives. So another point for my argument?

I'm relying on my own investments to take care of me in retirement. By the government's own admission they are going to start being unable to pay for full Social Security benefits in 2040, and I'm retiring in 2041. I would be a fool to rely on them fixing the problem. I'm not a fool, so I'm taking care of myself. If Social Security is still around in some form and paying 60% of benefits, or delaying it for a few years or whatever, fine. If not, fine. It was never meant to be a person's retirement plan.

Thank you. You're right, that is a very stupid action. Also: it's being undertaken by conservatives. So another point for my argument?

Yes.... even the Conservatives are becoming stupid in their attitude to government programs - they should know better, for big government never works effectively for the people...and these types of program are utterly suppressive

You still haven't mentioned a liberal, superfluous program. Are you planning on doing so?

Brian: It's nice that you have the option to save for retirement. I am doing the same. I don't want to live off Social Security, so I save and plan and invest to the best of my ability. That doesn't mean people below the poverty line, who can't save enough to buy new clothes once a year, are going to be able to do that. That's the largest class in America, by the way, the impoverished class.

I'm happy to pay into Social Security, because it helps people that really do need it, that can't rely on anything else to keep them fed, clothed, or sheltered after they are too old to work.

Social Security has no means testing. If it was aimed at the poor, I would judge it differently, though I would still decide against it. It's not. It's aimed at everyone. Even millionaires collect social security when they retire. How is that not wasteful?

You still haven't mentioned a liberal, superfluous program.

Every program not explicitly authorized in the Constitution is superfluous, whether liberal or conservative.

Every program not explicitly authorized in the Constitution is superfluous, whether liberal or conservative.

Exactly!

Have you read the constitution?

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

The purpose of the constitution, in black and white, in the first paragraph therein, verbatim. The point of SS is not to aim at the poor, but to help all United States Citizens in their old age. The point is that it matters not your social standing, but the country provides for it's aging citizenry. To provide for the general welfare of our people.

Do not stop after the preamble, please keep reading.

Yes, the purpose is in black and white; but so is the how, in the Articles and Amendments. Nowhere in there is Social Security mentioned.

I have a copy of the constitution on my coffee table next to my Jefferson bible and my copy of the 2008 budget.

No, SS isn't mentioned, but the framework to implement it and the driven purpose of the US as stated in the first paragraph of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are most definitely there.

This is constitutional theory 101. The powers explicitly granted to the federal government can be used to promote the general welfare, definitely. This does not mean that any program they can dream up that can be argued to promote the general welfare is thereby authorized.

It also means that not all programs not specifically outlined in the text of the constitution are superfluous or anti-constitutional.

It does not mean that a program not specifically outlined in the text is not superfluous.

That was not my assertion. It was, actually, your assertion that:

Every program not explicitly authorized in the Constitution is superfluous, whether liberal or conservative.

Exactly!

I have debunked you. Next!

You have not shown that any program not explicitly authorized in the Constitution is not superfluous.

Sorry.

They weren't needed when the country started, historical fact. You think they're needed today, I do not. You are the one making a positive claim though, so the burden is yours. My justification for saying they're superfluous is simple - they weren't there in the past and everyone got along just fine without them. What has changed to make them needed today? Human nature?

Regardless of whether they're needed today or not, if they're not authorized by the Constitution, then the federal government doesn't have the legal authority to implement them (needed or not).

You have not shown that any program not explicitly authorized in the Constitution is not superfluous.

That wasn't my burden to prove. You made the absolute claim, that all programs not specifically articulated inside the constitution are superfluous. I made the inference that the constitution allows for programs outside of it's architecture, and that these programs are not universally superfluous. You agreed, and thus the point is done. Thanks for playing.

Regardless of whether they're needed today or not, if they're not authorized by the Constitution, then the federal government doesn't have the legal authority to implement them (needed or not).

So you are a Constitutionalist. That's fine. There are plenty of arguments set down by the Supreme Court of the US that would have to be reversed if the federal government's ability to set programs or policy in place that are not specifically worded into the architecture of the constitution were to be stripped. My argument is as follows:

We are given a direction to progress as a country by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Constitution gives us a framework of rights and abilities as sectioned into the form of government and the governments limit of power (and the declaration of rights as given to the state and the people). Programs that lie outside the realm of the specific architecture of the Constitution are, in fact, encouraged by it's verbiage, and well within the rights of the government and, vicariously, it's people. The direction of these policies and programs is dictated by the founding fathers in the documents we adhere to, and that direction is towards the greatest happiness for the greatest people; public welfare is encouraged.

Programs that lie outside the realm of the specific architecture of the Constitution are, in fact, encouraged by it's verbiage, and well within the rights of the government and, vicariously, it's people.

Absolutely. At the state level only though. Not at the federal level.

and that direction is towards the greatest happiness for the greatest people

That is a utilitarian/majoritarian concept that is anathema to everything in the bill of rights. The bill of rights is all about protecting the rights of the individual from intrusive government - not one word in there about using the federal government to ensure maximum happiness, only about making sure they don't get in the way of you seeking your own happiness. For instance, the great majority of Americans would probably be greatly happy to ban atheism, but I'm grateful they don't have that power.

I'll give you a hint here. People who are new to arguing about the Constitution always seem to point to the general welfare clause as the one justifying all the extra-Constitutional authority they want the federal government to have. That is not, however, the clause that the Supreme Court has used to force a larger and larger federal government on us. It's the commerce clause.

You still haven't mentioned a liberal, superfluous program.

You're confusing terms here - liberal programs/policies can be enacted by any government

Spaman: Ah, I thought you were specifically targeting the "liberals" aka Democrats. I apologize.

Brian: I will disagree here. I point to the first paragraph because it gives direction for the entire document, not because it justifies any specific program. And the greater good principle is exactly what the constitution aims for. It also makes sure that we don't step on individual rights by setting those rights out implicitly. As long as we aren't infringing on the rights guaranteed by the constitution when we pass laws, the constitution allows for those laws to exist. That's how the process works.

That's not how the process works. If Congress can't point to a Constitutional authority to pass a law, it can be and sometimes is (too infrequently) struck down as un-Constitutional.

http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/docs/statutes.html

The Supreme Court has declared at least 161 acts of Congress unconstitutional in whole or in part. The Court's power of judicial review, taken for granted today, is not explicitly established in the Constitution, but few scholars believe the omission means that the Framers intended to deny the Court this authority.

Supreme Court decisions striking down acts of Congress are among the Court's most important and controversial rulings. The Court used the power to blunt civil rights laws in the Reconstruction era, thwart social and economic legislation in the Progressive and New Deal eras, throw out some antisubversive laws during the cold war, and enforce the separation of powers among Congress, the president, and the judiciary. Under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court in the 1990s began throwing out federal laws that it found to be infringements of states' sovereignty.

Alexander Hamilton anticipated the Court's power to invalidate acts of Congress during the debate over ratification of the Constitution. In No. 78 of The Federalist Papers, Hamilton reminded his readers that the Constitution limited legislative authority. Those limitations, he argued, "can be preserved in no other medium than through the medium of the courts of justice, whose duty it would be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void."

Chief Justice John Marshall relied heavily on Hamilton's reasoning in his landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803), striking down a provision of an act of Congress for the first time. Like Hamilton, he stressed the Constitution's role of limiting the power of the legislature and the courts' role in enforcing those limitations. In the event of a conflict between a law and the Constitution, Marshall said, the court was bound to decide the case by applying the Constitution rather than "any ordinary act of the legislature." The ruling invalidated a minor provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789, but the principle it established was of historic significance.

Recent laws thrown out have been the Violence Against Women act and the Line Item Veto act, because Congress had no power to pass those acts.

Exactly. They infringed upon the Constitution and were thrown out. How does this negate my point?

As long as we aren't infringing on the rights guaranteed by the constitution when we pass laws, the constitution allows for those laws to exist.

That is incorrect. A correct version would be "As long as the laws are constitutionally authorized, the constitution allows for those laws to exist". The difference is important. One assumes an all powerful legislature that can do anything it wants (except infringe on bill of rights protections), the other assumes a limited legislature that can only use the limited powers at its disposal. The line item veto act didn't infringe on anyone's rights, but it was still not constitutionally authorized.

There is no ethnic majority in California anymore. So is there no longer racism?

There is no ethnic majority in California anymore. So is there no longer racism?

It doesn't have to do with majority-minority numbers, explicitly--these are just easy shorthand. Racism takes into account power relations between races and identifies the hegemony (whichever race is at the top of the food chain, so to speak) as an unmarked subject that cannot be racialized.

To clarify: in America, whiteness is considered to be the absence of race--the norm. Anything that is not white (nonwhite) is racialized.

At the top of which food chain? I notice you shift from California to the whole country.

At the top of which food chain?

The socioeconomic food chain.

I notice you shift from California to the whole country.

This really has no relevance. California was merely an example of a place where racism occurs independently of the white-nonwhite dichotomy upon which the given premise is based.

Why does it not have relevance? The white-nonwhite paradigm might make sense on a national scale where it is the majority-not majority schism, but I don't see that it has as much relevance in California where there is no majority.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/csre/reports/report_13.pdf

Asians are clearly not white, but in California look at the money situation. White family, $65k, Asian family, $61k, but white household, $54k, Asian household, $55k. Is there much evidence that Asians are suffering in California due to their non-white status? Whites and Asians have nearly identical economic performance in California. You seem to just be assuming that all minorities will automatically be doing worse economically. In the only state with no ethnic majority, that doesn't seem to be the case.

You seem to just be assuming that all minorities will automatically be doing worse economically.

No, you assume this. And I don't understand what your actual argument is.

In California, where there is no majority race, the racial dynamics (social, economic, and political) are different than they are in middle America which still has a white majority. In other places, like a county with a majority black population, the racial dynamics are again different than they are in middle America, and are different than they are in California. My argument is just that you have to consider whether the area you are looking at has a majority, and if it does, what race is that majority, before you can see which group is dominant or powerful enough in that area to practice racism. Just because whites are the majority in the country doesn't mean they are the majority in every state, every county, or every corporation. In states, counties, or corporations where the majority is not white, that majority can, in that context, practice racism because they have the power.

Not necessarily though, Brian.

Look at South Africa.

What about South Africa, Stacy?

Yes. Majority does not mean hegemony.

In some cases it does not, in others it does. In at least some of those cases, the conditions exist for a group that is a minority nationwide but in the majority at that local scale for that group to practice racism, due to their access to and control of institutional power at that local scale.

I don't know much about modern day South Africa actually, particularly economically. When you look to Zimbabwe you can see a clear example of how one group took power and then turned around and persecuted the group that previously held power.

Roan -

South Africa is an interesting study on race. Until 1994, they had a system of Apartheid which disenfranchised black citizens, who make up the overwhelming majority of the population. They still deal with race issues to this day obviously, since segregation only ended 13 years ago.

It shows that even though the group assumed to be in power (whites) was the minority, they were still able to suppress all the citizens that were not white. The illusion that white = power was enough, regardless of the actual numbers.

Stacy,

I know the history, I lived through it. I was trying to understand why you thought South Africa disproved what Brian was saying.

The white were definitely the minority (11%), and they were definitely in power. They were able to remain in power because they had always controlled the government, military, and police; and because they passed laws to ensure that nobody could challenge the status quo.

From '67 until '91 they had a law (Terrorism Act of 67) that allowed the police to indefinitely detain any person without charge or trial simply on suspicion that they may endanger the maintenance of law and order.

There was no illusion, white did equate to power, because it was written into the law, and the whites controlled the entire legal and security systems of the country. Including laws that limited the free movement of blacks, restricted education, defined where they could live and work, and ensured that the highest black in a company could not occupy a position higher than the lowest white. Of course since blacks could not vote, they had no legal means of challenging the system.

All I see Brian saying, is that you need to look at local situations to see who hold the dominance and power there, regardless of the national situation. I agree to an extent, but that does not mean those who do not hold the position of dominance or power cannot be racist or sexist.

Case in point, many of the black PAC members were horribly racist, even under the yoke of apartheid. Not having a position of institutionalized or systematic dominance or power did not stop them from feeling superior to and killing people simply because of their lack of pigmentation.

All I see Brian saying, is that you need to look at local situations to see who hold the dominance and power there, regardless of the national situation.

I don't disagree with this either. But it seems Brian is trying to argue that population equals power, which I do disagree with.

I mean, there are more people in the low-income class then in the high-income class in America. But that doesn't make the poor more powerful than the rich, something else is going on there.

I don't think Brian is saying population equals power; I can see how you would interpret that but I think he is saying something different.

In states, counties, or corporations where the majority is not white, that majority can, in that context, practice racism because they have the power.

He isn't saying that the majority population always has power - just that in some contexts that is how it works out. Sure there are exceptions (such as the S. Africa example) but, generally, I think it is probably a safe assumption to suggest that the ethnic majority in most countries has the power.

I'm trying to think of a region of the world where this isn't a common trend and I can't really think of any nations where the ethnic majority doesn't hold the most power currently - though, admittedly, I know little of the ethnic makeup or power struggles in most African nations.

'decay:

Oh, I agree with your other community that there is a critical distinction, and I'd like to see the distinction highlighted. Another way to think of it is that while prejudice may be morally discreditable in any any case, it generally has much greater discreditable effects when aligned with existing social structure rather than against or tangent to it.

They're just are doing a terrible job making the case. It's intuitively repulsive. They'd be better off inventing an entirely new "-ism" and letting "rac-ism" and "sex-ism" denote "any prejudice."

preyism.

Unfortunately I am born into this generation, the origins mystify me. The emptiness of resource of the dominant socio-types are revealing the illusion of institutional sanctification. They hold the doors shut with narcissism.

It is a fallacy that a position of dominance or power is a prerequisite for discrimination.

That depends on your definitions of "dominance" and "power".

How so Ryan?

Looking at what discriminate, prejudice, racism, and sexism mean; we can clearly see that being in a position of power or dominance is not a prerequisite for any of them. One may need to feel superior in order to be racist or sexist, but they do not need to be superior. A homeless man can be racist.

Neither is an actual negative action a prerequisite, which is the implication when you claim that only people in positions of power or dominance are able to be racist or sexist.

discriminate: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit

prejudice: preconceived judgment or opinion; an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge; an instance of such judgment or opinion; an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; racial prejudice or discrimination

sexism: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Roan, have you read Foucault?

Only Birth of the Clinic, why?

I am far too tired to walk you through Foucault's theories of power/knowledge, but I recommend you do some reading and then come back to this discussion.

So Foucault's theory is that truth is not an absolute, power is relationships, and power and knowledge exists through discourse.

In short, what do you believe that has to do with whether or not a position of power or dominance is required for discrimination or prejudice?

My contention is that being an object of discrimination only matters to me if the person discriminating against me has collateral. In this case, racism being a sociocultural phenomenon, the cultural capital of belonging to the hegemony (ie power, privilege) is the relevant factor at play.

My contention is that being an object of discrimination only matters to me if the person discriminating against me has collateral.

So if I think you are a sub-standard human being, like all whites; you are fine with that and I'm not racist because I do not have the cultural capital or hegemony?

I'm sorry, but I do not need cultural capital or hegemony to assault or kill you because you are white, and I think whites are sub-standard human beings.

Fair enough.

Hmm. I think there is more to racism than conscious action or inaction. I can be respectful to a person and still hate them.

Disrespect is less the issue than hate. And hate is by far the most dangerous embodiment of most of the -isms. We have enormous hate in the world today, at all sorts of volumes and in all sorts of way. This hate brews its evil potion, poisoning people and lives as it moves from place to place. I see hate in our politics, hate in our parties, hate in so many places.

Our most dangerous elements are in our seats of power. And they threaten to move us toward a lawless society rather than one of laws. This is not Hillary Clinton, who is attacked so vociferously. It is, however, the lying establishment created and supported over the past seven years. The delight in hate over the airwaves. The pathetic attempts of calling others out when the persons involved have become a part of the problem.

Can we eliminate hate? Our greatest leaders have managed to seek to do this. And many great wars were based on this effort, actions themselves bringing out hate for others.

The litmus test is not numbers, or who is a part of the group experiencing discrimination. It is instead the effect of the hate on the world. Very few began the hate that engulfed Europe, hate of overwhelming, horrendous proportions. Hate had to take part in the fire bombing of Dresden and Koln. And hate had to be present when our country made the decision to destroy the only two cities ever destroyed by the use of nuclear devices.

In reading so many of the posts in Newsvine, hate emerges to some degree. Some may have mistaken some of my own materials as bounded or fired by hate. They are not. They are stoked by worry about our youth, our views, and our world.

We need not worry about what is correct protocol. It seems to me that women have frequently been at odds on what discrimination is. Read at least three feminist works and you will find that some issues, the use of assertive as opposed to aggressive for one, are not uniformly considered sexist or discriminatory.

But we can all agree that hate is the center of all discrimination, be it the banked fires of hate or something more overt. And we must dig this hate out, expose it, show it for what it is. For without this, we are lessened as humans and may even become unwitting supporters of hate.

The litmus test is not numbers, or who is a part of the group experiencing discrimination. It is instead the effect of the hate on the world. Very few began the hate that engulfed Europe, hate of overwhelming, horrendous proportions. Hate had to take part in the fire bombing of Dresden and Koln. And hate had to be present when our country made the decision to destroy the only two cities ever destroyed by the use of nuclear devices.

Hatred of the Jews in Europe was and still is far more widespread than any "civilized" European is able to admit. The "very few" just took advantage of the situation after the first world war and used the Jews as the bait to raise passions.

But we can all agree that hate is the center of all discrimination

Cliff,
I don't agree that it is hate and hate alone that creates any of these atrocities. Fear and ignorance are also huge factors and should be aligned equally alongside hatred.

Thank you for this comment. At first, I thought that this was simply a definitional issue. But then I turned to the definitions of hate crimes.

There are in fact many definitions of "hate" crimes. But the "hate" covered is usually something like the following: "An offense committed against another person, with the specific intent to cause harm to that person due to their race, gender, sexual orientation ..."

Of course, there could not be "fear" and "ignorance" crimes. Further, I cannot believe that "ignorance" qualifies. This is like saying that just because a person has never been in contact with another with a given trait means that they are excused from being responsible for their views, and that these views are not hate. Indeed, I believe that I can make a good argument that hate exists often due to ignorance and fear.

Oh everyone can participate for sure, but it seems more innocuous when you have little power to dominate and oppress. (yes yes it is always wrong whoever does it)

It all depends on the scale, again, it seems to me. The EEOC has been sued successfully multiple times for reverse racism for its preferential promotion of minority employees over better qualified counterparts. Within the halls of the EEOC, the power and privilege is held by those who would prefer to hire and promote minorities, not by those who would prefer to hire and promote white men.

Within the theoretical position I talked about, racism and sexism are intertwined with privilege, power and advantage. In general terms, the social, economic and political power structure is the privilege of middle-class, white men.

That is the stance of the other community I am part of and the basis of its denial of the existence of reverse sexism and racism.

Within ANY grouping of humans there emerges and orthodoxy, that if challenged results in either the bending of the challenger to the orthodoxy or to exclusion. The owners of privilege as you have defined them are the ones that set up the orthodoxy in the first place. This is true whether the grouping is tens of millions of people or ten people.

I am going to use an example here that may offend a few but I mean it in the spirit of illustrating that -isms are not the unique domain of middle class white men.

A friend of mine from the city where I live asked me to go with her to dinner, along with a friend of hers that needed encouragement. The friend, Elizabeth, was a beautiful, tall, willowy brown haired woman of 21 years of age. As we were going to dinner she revealed that she was a lesbian and this was the origin of the "problem". The city, in the south is a mixture of people from all around the country mixed in with deep red state conservatism. She had risked all with her family when she revealed somewhere in her teens that she was a lesbian to her family. As one may expect in a conservative atmosphere, this caused problems.

With the estrangement that this brought (not cutting off but that constant pressure to conform to their orthodoxy) she gravitated to the lesbian community (yes there is one). For years she had her girlfriends and the life that one leads in these kinds of circumstances.

However, when she hit 21 she started wanting something else. She wanted to have relationships with men, find someone to love and love her, get married and have children. She did not reveal this to her family at the time as she knew that of course they would be thrilled to have her back in the orthodoxy but she did not want to deal with that on their terms, but on hers. This was not the problem.

The problem was that her closest friends in the lesbian community were vociferous in their contention that you could either be straight or gay but not that once you switched, you would never go back, as it is natural to be one or the other but not to change once you have made your original choice. This orthodoxy within that group was far stronger than the orthodoxy of her family and basically if she made that choice, they would reject her.

This caused her an incredible amount of pain, and thus the need for comfort from understanding people who did not have a stake either way.

This does not have a happy ending as three days later, she got a motel room, slit her wrists, and died.

I write this as this is ten years later and I still think of her and what her life could have been had there been more understanding by everyone and that it is not just the white male middle class that controls and rejects those that do not agree with their orthodoxy.

I would like everyone to think about Elizabeth today, as she deserves to be remembered. She was an amazing person that I only knew for a few hours and the world should mourn the loss of such people. I don't judge those that rejected her beyond the observation that they were just as rigid in their own belief system, if not more, than her family was in their own.

So, no your friends are wrong and they are perpetrating exactly the thing that they define as the negative trait of the middle class white male, which is an orthodoxy that does not allow for a more nuanced view of how society operates. As someone wise once said, they are in the same business, just on the other side of the street.

An amazing piece Space Guy .... a big yes all the way... That should be a thread on its own

It's not the mere act of discrimination, but the fact that one group has more or is more or can take more than the other, that complicates this matter. Very simply put, if I know I'm in a position of perpetual advantage, what's the cost to me if someone "lesser" than I am faults me for my advantage?

Anyone can get hurt feelings. Not just anyone, in a given socioeconomic and cultural context, can be racially profiled.

if I know I'm in a position of perpetual advantage, [etc.]

There's the bon mot - I think I was trying to say something like this, but you did it so much more succinctly.

Very simply put, if I know I'm in a position of perpetual advantage, what's the cost to me if someone "lesser" than I am faults me for my advantage?

See space guy's story about government contracts. Nobody is at a perpetual advantage.

Don't you link?

Yes people will probably suffer age discrimination, but some will suffer it alongside racial discrimination as well.

Yes placing reverse in front makes no sense, it's simply a tool to say that I can do no wrong only you. The reason is those who are identified as being wrong are those who logically must change, so I think the terminology is created to divide and protect some from working problems out.

How do you feel about hippie jokes?

That's a bit more behavioral though. You choose to be a hippie, you don't really choose to be female.

You choose to be a feminist presumably. I actually don't have any feminist jokes and I don't think I've ever heard one, so I don't care about those. I am trying to think of a punchline to how many feminists does it take to change a light bulb, and completely failing. You will have to pry my hippie jokes out of my cold, dead hand though.

Via Google:

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A1: That's NOT funny!
A2: Sixteen. One to change it, and fifteen to form a support group.
A3: Four. One to change the bulb, and three to write about how the bulb is exploiting the socket.
A4: Two. One to change the bulb, and one to write about how it felt.
A5: Three. One to screw it in, and two to talk about the sexual implications.
A6: Three. One to change the bulb, and two to secretly wish they were the socket.
A7: One to change the light bulb, and one to kick the balls of any man who even tries to volunteer his help.
A8: Just ONE!

Q: How many hippies does it take to change a light bulb?
A1: None. They wait for it to burn out and follow it around the country.
A2: None. They respect it for what it is and wouldn't dream of trying to change it.
A3: One to do it and 1000 more to "share the experience, man".
A4: Hippies know how to change light bulbs?
A5: Three. One to turn the bulb, the other two to go and score some weed.
A6: Doesn't matter. Hippies can't change anything.

You choose to be a feminist presumably.

Oh, that's my bad, I read it like she was talking about jokes towards women in general, not just towards feminists.

I love the A2 answer in the Hippie jokes.

As far as humor goes, it kind of depend on the joke. There are jokes that poke fun at stereotypes (think Dave Chapelle), and there are jokes that only work if you assume stereotypes to be true (think Carlos Mencia). I have no problem with the former, it's the latter that I don't find humorous, not only because they buy into dumb stereotypes, but because it's just a lazy form of humor.

One black kid punches a white kid, it's just kids fighting. But a white kid hits a black kid, the white kid is racist.

Actually, if we look at places like Jena, it's more like when a white kid punches a black kid, it's just kids fighting. When a black kid punches a white kid, it's attempted murder.

Um, welcome to reality? Racism and sexism are extremely prevalent. There's your lesson for today. Stop being "one of those guys" that thinks everything is ok.

Yes the ideal is great, unfortunately the reality is not great.

Yes the ideal is great, unfortunately the reality is not great.

I think that this is where the big disagreement comes from. People that argue against something like affirmative action are usually operating under the ideal - that race shouldn't matter. They are correct. However, those that defend practices such as AA are more looking at it from the reality - race shouldn't matter, but we have not evolved to a society yet where it does not.

And I think that's why conversations like this are so tricky, for the most parts both sides are coming from an honest place. It is just our current perceptions of our culture that differ.

So, if I understand correctly, racism has as much to do with the "power structure" than anything else? I find that somewhat hard to believe, because, from what I've seen, racism is pretty simple in it's ignorence.

I would say racism is simply hating someone because of the color of their skin. Blacks could hate whites for their skin just as much as whites could hate blacks. Asians can hate blacks, whites can hate Asians, Asians can hate white and blacks can hate Asians. Often times it's either because of being in a bigoted family or because something happened to them that makes the person hate everyone of that other person's skin color.

So, if I mistook what you meant, let me know.

Also, I took your racism test and it says I be not a racist. w00t! :D

Racism goes deeper than the "color of [someone's] skin". The convenient divisions you point out serve as evidence for the oversimplified conception of race in America. Serb and Croat, French and English, Roman and Saxon, Japanese and Korean: these divisions are political and artificial, but no less racist because both sides have "white", "yellow", "black" skin. Wars waged over ethnocentric superiority persist throughout history for political reasons using race as justification.

Okay, point taken, but how is that REVERSE racism or sexism?

Hetep and Respect Jared Kardos, I am gland the Harvard racism test did not indicate that you are a racist. Your language, in my judgment, is that of a humanist and your results seem to support that.

I would say racism is simply hating someone because of the color of their skin.

If America's seemingly intractable "race" problem where that simple, it would have been solved a hundred years ago.

So, if I understand correctly, racism has as much to do with the "power structure" than anything else?

If you look at human conflict historically, it is always about power. In the Western worldview this is easer to see because power and money are more of less equivalent. If you want to find out what is going on, don't follow the skin, follow the money.

racism is pretty simple in it's ignorence.

You are only partly right. It took, and still takes today, considerable knowledge to activate and keep racism in place. Yes, the little Pointe headed people, like the local KKK are dangerous haters. But the real danger is the Cultural Terrorists who pull the strings of the culturally illiterate.

Do not be fooled, racism is a "Smart" system, it has to be, for a minority in the world to control billions of people of color worldwide. It was not dumb 15th century whites that attacked Africa under the guise of "civilizing" the natives. These people were cold, calculating anti-humanist, focused on stealing any resource that they could get their hands on, Gold, minerals, land and people. The proof is in the pudding, look around, history recodes that they were very effective in this regard.

If you ask most Americans (Black or White), where is Classical African Civilization, they will not know, this is not an accident or because they are ignorant. If you ask an American where is Egypt, the "educated" Americans will say "The Middle East". If you ask someone living in Egypt, where it is, they will say Africa, this difference in response was created by very smart people.

There is a difference between the Cultural Terrorists (philosopher, professor, teacher, business leader and the low level hater, in the same way that there is a difference in the high-level drug importer and the low level street pusher. You must learn to distinguish the difference. Listen closely, right here on Newsvine, with your cultural health radar on and you will hear them, clear as a bell. They have taken off their sheets, put on suits and are getting smarter all the time. Typically, there is a difference between the anti-humanist on NV and the one on digg.

To see an example of a Cultural Terrorist and a low level hater Click Here. Come back and tell me if you can tell the difference. .