Race and Racial Interaction, in America and beyond

[Noj]

Rooster Ties, thanks for taking the time to address this with me. I hope I don't come across badly, this is a touchy topic.

It was my thinking that if we collectively abandoned these cultural identities and were only proud of our own individual accomplishments then we would be closer to judging everyone by their individual merits.

I certainly am not blind to the way white racism created the black power movement. Surely a reaction of that sort is necessary in the face of such oppression.

Every person is an individual, yet we categorize each other mercilessly.

If cultural pride doesn't say "we're better than everyone else," what does it say? Why "proud?" Without intending to it is still exclusive.

[Rooster_Ties]

I both agree with you, Noj, and disagree too - in different ways...

To the extent that cultural pride in one's ethnic heritage (sometimes) can resemble something more like the "I'm better than you are!!" nature that fans of pro and college sports often demonstrate... I agree, totally. IMHO, pride in one's own 'group' (however that group is defined) can certainly take on an unpleasant tone, at times.

But, much of pride in one's cultural heritage is often wrapped up in foods, music(!), decorations, dance, folk-art, folklore, and shared history. I think it's hard not to appreciate to the collective culture of dozens and hundred's of years of tradition within a particular cultural community (sometimes even thousands of years). And I don't think that celebrating these sorts of things necessarily reduces the value of other cultures not being celebrated. (Meaning a Cinco de Mayo street festival isn't an expression of the lack of worth of Japanese culture, for instance, or the lack of worth of any other non-Mexican culture.)

But, getting back to my sports analogy, I'm totally with you, Noj, in one respect. Extreme pride in one's self because of some loosely defined association (as in the simple case of rabid sports fans of a particular team), is often pretty ugly (IMHO). And the same thing goes with someone thinking that they're really 'bad', with lots of attitude about it -- simply because they're Black, or Chicano, or a German 'skin-head', or a Cubs fan, or any of 1000 other examples that you can probably find in most cultures (or sub-cultures).

I guess it all depends on the intent behind the expression of pride in one's self, when that pride stems from something other than individual achievements.

(PS: And no, Noj, I don't think you're coming across 'badly'. I think this is turning into a good discussion!!)

Edited May 12, 2003 by Rooster_Ties

[Noj]

"I guess it all depends on the intent behind the expression of pride in one's self, when that pride stems from something other than individual achievements."

That was the jist of what I was getting at. "Intent" has a lot to do with it.

"...foods, music(!), decorations, dance, folk-art, folklore, and shared history..."

It is important to recognize that history is entirely "shared history," which goes hand in hand with having the right "intentions." Also, these items you list represent perfect paths leading everyone to relate to each other. With the right intent one appreciates the flavors of foreign foods, the intricacy of foreign dances, the aesthetics of foreign folk art, etc.

A side note from my ever-random brain: Women are the real antidote to racism. I've seen sexy ones from all corners of the world! :rsmile: :rsmile:

[catesta]

I was raised with a high sense of my ethnic heritage, and I would not have wanted it any other way.

I am very proud of that.

The older generations of my family only married other Italians. I think one of the main reasons for this was because of the neighborhoods they lived in were like an extension of the old country.

This is not the case today.

To be in touch with our history (if possible) is a good thing. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in being Irish, German, Italian, Mexican, Jamaican, Asian, or whatever you may be.

In most cases ethnic festivals or holidays are shared and celebrated by all kinds, not just that particular group.

People need to find the middle ground. I share my ethnicity with my friends, and they all seem to love the fact that I do. My wife is Mexican and loves having the experience of her families culture as well as mine.

The key is keeping it all in perspective. I can feel a special connection to one group of people, but still want to connect with and experience the dynamics of all the others.

[Noj]

The key is keeping it all in perspective. I can feel a special connection to one group of people, but still want to connect with and experience the dynamics of all the others.

I think your statement best summarizes the good intentions we were discussing.

[Jazzmoose]

Rooster Ties, thanks for taking the time to address this with me. I hope I don't come across badly, this is a touchy topic.

I agree, it is touchy. But I'm sure glad Rooster Ties started it; this is the kind of discussion I hoped to see on these political threads rather than our usual "you bonehead" type back-and-forths.

[Rooster_Ties]

Thanks for the kind words, Jazzmoose. I too wish I could find more conversation-space like this, both on-line, and in the 'real world' too. And actually, that was kinda what this thread was all about in the first place --- about me trying to find ways to have conversations like this (or constructive conversations (and opportunities for such conversations) of some sort, any sort really) with people of different races.

Some good news - Just today I discovered that there's a monthly (or maybe it's every other week) breakfast-meeting between members of our church (which is 90% White, 7% "other, non-Black", and 3% Black -- I'm guessing at those stats, but you get the idea) and members of an "all-Black" church that's also here in Kansas City. Time to get on the horn and find out when the next meetin' is, and get my tail down there to it.

Does anybody else here on the Organissimo board live in a 'hypersegregated' city?? - meaning a city where the living/neighborhood paterns are divided very strongly by race?? Kansas City is like that, and I remember St. Louis (where I grew up) as being like that too (although to a slightly lesser degree). I'm sure I'm not the only one here in this boat, but I seem to be the only one in this kind of situation who's contributing to this thread.

If anybody's reading this thread, and not contributing - please consider joining in. I know this isn't nearly as much 'fun' as most of the other political threads, but I would appreciate some other perspectives on this topic. Thanks!!

Edited May 13, 2003 by Rooster_Ties

[connoisseur series500]

Born in Mandeville, which is a rather pleasant hilly town; but that was only because it was the nearest hospital to where I lived.

Her parents live in Mandeville.

Ethnically, I am 50% Italian, and the remainder a Celtic-Saxon mix, and my birth there is just happenstance. I am a British and American dual citizen.

Still, All Jamaicans are my brothers and sisters!

Jamaicans are a wonderful mix of races. The Spanish held the island originally, and many Spanish Jews were sent there (or moved there) as a result of the Inquisition. Cromwell sent a force to capture French Hispaniola; the General of the marines and the Admiral of the fleet quarreled incessantly. They found their target to be too well fortified, and they sailed off to Jamaica to take it as a consolation prize.

The Africans came, and I quote from a source not necessarily targetted at Jamaica specifically..."from Angola and the Congo; from Dahomey, Lagos, Old Calabar and the Bonny River; from the Central Niger and Hausaland; from Portuguese Guinea and the Gaboon." These are varied cultures with proud histories. The English didn't mix as well with the Africans as the French did in their colonies, but the inevitable mixing occured; and as in America, most of the Jamaicans are of mixed blood. There are even a lot of Chinese-Jamaicans.

There is also a group of people of African heritage who escaped slavery into the hills while the Spanish were being defeated. They are called "Maroons," and they retained autonomy throughout British rule. They even captured and returned runaway slaves. These people are still there and remain somewhat separate from other Jamaicans. There are lots of books written about them, and I even own some of them, but haven't yet read them. Unfortunately, I don't know much about them, except for this funny story:

A colored Jamaican friend of my father, who later became the Agricultural Minister for the Bahamas related that he was once driving up in the hills in Maroon country in Jamaica on some agricultural mission. The roads aren't very good and there were deep puddles in the road after frequent rains. He drove up in his land rover and accidentally splashed two muscular Maroons carrying machetes with his tires as he turned a treacherous corner.

One of the Maroons turned to the other and said (I am unable to accurately imitate the lingo:) "Wha, me na tell you; dem white rass: dem no FUCKING GOOD!!"

Bear in mind, that the fellow in the land rover would be considered by Americans as black.

A curious difference between the Caribbean and America: In the Caribbean if you have some white blood, then you are considered white. In America, if you have just a little Negro blood, you are black!

Edited May 13, 2003 by connoisseur series500

[catesta]

Ethnically, I am 50% Italian,

I knew you had something going for you.

[Rooster_Ties]

Since I was adopted, and since I don't know anything about my biological parents (nothing at all), I've occasionally wondered if I had any African American blood in me. If it did, it would have to be a very, very, tiny, tiny, tiny bit - cuz I look as typically 'white' as anyone I know.

But even if I don't have any Black blood in me, I do know that my biological parents never married (my 'mother' was an unwed teenage mother), and so the odds are very good that one or both of them has since gone on and gotten married, and probably had one or more children. AND, it's not beyond all possibility that one of them married someone who was Black, and had one or more bi-racial children.

Which means that I could have a half-brother who's half a 'Brother'!!!

[Noj]

Does anybody else here on the Organissimo board live in a 'hypersegregated' city?? - meaning a city where the living/neighborhood paterns are divided very strongly by race?? Kansas City is like that, and I remember St. Louis (where I grew up) as being like that too (although to a slightly lesser degree). I'm sure I'm not the only one here in this boat, but I seem to be the only one in this kind of situation who's contributing to this thread.

LA has neighborhoods that are mostly populated by a certain ethnicity. My city Burbank used to be nearly all white. Glendale has many Armenians. Alhambra, Asian. Inglewood, black. San Fernando, Hispanic. There are Russian areas, Jewish areas, Korean areas, etc. So, yeah, I think I do live in a hyper-segregated city.

Funny, I think some of the most diverse neighborhoods in LA are the richest ones. I have met very wealthy people out here of all ethnicities--there is some hope in that. This also lends credibility to a belief I have that there are few exceptional individuals who make things happen for themselves, and there are many unexceptional people who do not. Race cannot impede the success of the very determined, the very gifted, the very intelligent...

It is the gray matter that matters, know what I mean? :rsmile:

[connoisseur series500]

It is the gray matter that matters, know what I mean? :rsmile:

It's more than just gray matter. There are many highly intelligent underachievers. It is also motivation and a lack of; it is hunger and drive and coming from a good upbringing. It is also luck: did you grow up with good friends?

I am generally against laws which offer advantages to the disadvantaged. I am opposed to affirmative action, for example. To me these laws just foster a culture of underachievement. We should have a social safety net for sure, but we should not encourage low standards.

[Noj]

It is the gray matter that matters, know what I mean? :rsmile:

...It is also luck: did you grow up with good friends?

I am generally against laws which offer advantages to the disadvantaged. I am opposed to affirmative action, for example. To me these laws just foster a culture of underachievement. We should have a social safety net for sure, but we should not encourage low standards.

It's not what you know, it's who you know. So true! And no one gets anywhere without motivation, you're right.

Instead of affirmative action I would support measures to raise the bar of education and accelerate learning in public schools. I think our children will perform at the level we set the bar. They're sponges, they just need to more to soak up and proper motivation. I would also support measures which would raise the bar on what is expected of teachers. I think curriculum should be FAR more challenging and LESS repetitive.

[connoisseur series500]

Agree, Noj.

By the way, you misinterpreted what I meant by growing up with good friends. I meant that you don't grow up with a bad crowd which leads you into a life of crime or whatever; but actually, your interpretation is valid as well. Adds extra depth to the statment.

[Chuck Nessa]

I’m not sure we’ll ever see a color blind society – at least in the US. I have a bunch of rambling reflections to buttress this, so bear with me.

I’m a typical white american. My father was half Norwegian, half Irish. My “Irish” grandmother had black kinky hair and olive skin – descended from the Spanish and Moorish survivors of the destruction of the Spanish armada, legend says. Anyway, my grandfather was disowned because he married a Catholic.

My mother is from English stock, but her father was one quarter Cherokee (or Sioux). He was know as “Indian Charlie”.

Born on a farm in central Iowa in 1944, we were considered Norwegian like the majority of our neighbors. The surrounding towns had population totals from 100 to 15,000. I remember in junior high, we had a basketball game in a town about 30 north. A fight broke out. The general consensus was “well, they’re all Germans, what do you expect?”. There were “Swedish towns”, “German towns”, etc. I remember a local real estate agent who’s name was always preceded by “that Frenchman”. He was never just Rex Purviance. One of the local grocery stores was owned by someone with the first name “that Jew”.

No tv in my early years, so I remember being confused when I first saw an African American. No one in my experience looked like that. A bald headed, "shoe shine boy" on the capitol steps in Des Moines was my first Negro. I vaguely remember my father explaining the situation, but don’t have any memory of what he said. I was probably 5 or 6 at the time. Then a big lesson was delivered the Summer before eighth grade. I was attending school in Randall, a town of about 100 people. The school district was a K-12 deal, all in one building, not counting the gymnasium. There were 18 in my class, and we were the largest one. Such a small district had trouble attracting teachers and had to hire Mr Robert Graves in 1957. He was to coach and teach social studies. In a small district like that, coaching meant all sports the school participated in - baseball, girls softball, boys and girls basketball and dual gender track. This was a local scandal which built to a fevered pitch when someone (rumored to be our neighbor Milo Hovick) dumped brown dye in the local swimming pool. I remember local gossip about the difficulty Mr. Graves and his wife had trying to rent a home. They wound up in an apartment above Holm Hardware in Story City, but someone said Torb Holm would do anything for money. My parents never said a word about any of this but I remember riding in the car with my mom to Story City, to invite Mr and Mrs Graves to our house for dinner. They accepted, and other than saying something about the Graves' having a tough time, my parents never mentioned it again, that I recall.

I grew to love jazz in high school, and when I went to the University of Iowa I got involved in the civil rights movement. I was preparing to leave, with a busload of others, for a week in Mississippi to register black voters, when we got word of the murders of James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew

Goodman. The organizers cancelled the trip.

Two or three years later I moved to Chicago and started making records.

Twenty years ago, we moved out of Chicago to our current abode, to finish raising the kids in a small town. We thought it would be good for them to get away, from what we saw, as bad influences. The town we moved to Whitehall, Michigan. The White River separates our town from Montague. Both towns combined have a total population under 10,000. The surrounding townships are densely populated. The area is supported by big manufacturing plants and tourism. Lots of beaches, sand dunes and boating. Any way – we bought a house and met the neighbors. About a month after moving, the guy across the street put up a “for sale” sign in his yard. When we asked him about it, he said he missed Montague. The guy was moving 2 miles away, to feel at home.

Maybe more later. Forgive the ramble.

[Jazzmoose]

I am generally against laws which offer advantages to the disadvantaged. I am opposed to affirmative action, for example. To me these laws just foster a culture of underachievement. We should have a social safety net for sure, but we should not encourage low standards.

I'm curious as to what this means. I personally support affirmative action and feel that it was a good thing. I also think giving the disadvantaged a helping hand is a good thing; why would it not be? As for fostering a culture of underacheivement, that just seems absurd to me.

I think the basic difference you and I have on this issue is that you see the individual as responsible for everything. Sort of a social Darwinism as it were. I feel otherwise. When I see a culture that penalizes African-Americans in so many ways, I find it hard to understand why the one corrective action that we've tried to come up with is attacked so vehemently. I find it odd (and this is NOT directed at you personally!) that so many who are against Affirmative Action talk about the evil of basing decisions on race when they were just fine with basing decisions on race when the decision was to exclude African-Americans from the American dream...

[Jazzmoose]

Maybe more later. Forgive the ramble.

Forgive it? I'd rather hear more!

[connoisseur series500]

I am generally against laws which offer advantages to the disadvantaged.  I am opposed to affirmative action, for example. To me these laws just foster a culture of underachievement.  We should have a social safety net for sure, but we should not encourage low standards.

I'm curious as to what this means. I personally support affirmative action and feel that it was a good thing. I also think giving the disadvantaged a helping hand is a good thing; why would it not be? As for fostering a culture of underacheivement, that just seems absurd to me.

I think the basic difference you and I have on this issue is that you see the individual as responsible for everything. Sort of a social Darwinism as it were. I feel otherwise. When I see a culture that penalizes African-Americans in so many ways, I find it hard to understand why the one corrective action that we've tried to come up with is attacked so vehemently. I find it odd (and this is NOT directed at you personally!) that so many who are against Affirmative Action talk about the evil of basing decisions on race when they were just fine with basing decisions on race when the decision was to exclude African-Americans from the American dream...

I'll try and elucidate things for you here, Moose, even though I'm bushed from work.

Affirmative action is nothing but reverse racism. I oppose it for two main reasons: first, it is a racist law which promotes inequality, and exclusionism. It doesn't matter if it is promulgated with good intentions. It is exclusionary and that's "not what America is about," as Bush would say. The second reason for opposing it is more difficult to express. Many people in America believe in fostering a climate of low expectations in order to "benefit" African-Americans. This is really an evil thing to do, even if it is again done with the best intentions.

You claim that blacks are excluded from the American dream based on their race. I respond that they are not. And they definitely have the legal protections. That last thing I want to see is some kind of legal backing for an unequal and racist policy such as Affirmative Action. Now that's scary, and sends the wrong message. To me it as scary as the legal sanctioning of murder, which is what the death penalty is about. To me, the laws must defend equal opportunity and equal rights. That such things don't exist on a social basis, well, there's some work to do there; but don't seek legal sanction for privileged status for any race or sex.

You know it is funny: look at all the great American black jazz musicians who created a music that will endure; and look at how it was all created during the time of Jim Crow and an atmosphere where it was definitely difficult for blacks to experience the American dream. Now look at the music coming from the Affirmative Action generations: does it really compare? I'm not trying to sound elitist or anything, but Noj is basically correct: people will succeed, especially if they have the legal protections which black Americans do have. That much of the population is not succeeding is perhaps due to social restrictions. White America is partly to blame and Black America is partly to blame. The fault lies on both sides--not just on the side of White America. Their schools are often inferior to those that white kids attend; and they tend not to inherit money from their parents/grandparents like white Americans are more likely to do. This hurts for sure. But they have to deal with issues such as the collapse of the nuclear family, and a general disinterest in education.

Check out how West Indian or African immigrants perform when they enter this country. You will see highly motivated and highly successful people. And yes, they are as black as black Americans are. The difference has to do with attitude and a belief in the value of education and maintaining a nuclear family. We can throw all the entitlements and Affirmative Action programs at these underachievers and I don't think we benefit them much materially. The best way for them to succeed is for them to achieve things under the aegis of full legal protection.

Hmm, you Affirmative Actioners: maybe every college sports team should offer a certain amount of scholarships for white athletes in order to address the current imbalance. Is this statement nonsense? Of course it is; so is A-Action in my opinion.

Hope this makes sense.

[connoisseur series500]

I’m not sure we’ll ever see a color blind society – at least in the US. I have a bunch of rambling reflections to buttress this, so bear with me.

I’m a typical white american. My father was half Norwegian, half Irish. My “Irish” grandmother had black kinky hair and olive skin – descended from the Spanish and Moorish survivors of the destruction of the Spanish armada, legend says. Anyway, my grandfather was disowned because he married a Catholic.

My mother is from English stock, but her father was one quarter Cherokee (or Sioux). He was know as “Indian Charlie”.

Born on a farm in central Iowa in 1944, we were considered Norwegian like the majority of our neighbors. The surrounding towns had population totals from 100 to 15,000. I remember in junior high, we had a basketball game in a town about 30 north. A fight broke out. The general consensus was “well, they’re all Germans, what do you expect?”. There were “Swedish towns”, “German towns”, etc. I remember a local real estate agent who’s name was always preceded by “that Frenchman”. He was never just Rex Purviance. One of the local grocery stores was owned by someone with the first name “that Jew”.

No tv in my early years, so I remember being confused when I first saw an African American. No one in my experience looked like that. A bald headed, "shoe shine boy" on the capitol steps in Des Moines was my first Negro. I vaguely remember my father explaining the situation, but don’t have any memory of what he said. I was probably 5 or 6 at the time. Then a big lesson was delivered the Summer before eighth grade. I was attending school in Randall, a town of about 100 people. The school district was a K-12 deal, all in one building, not counting the gymnasium. There were 18 in my class, and we were the largest one. Such a small district had trouble attracting teachers and had to hire Mr Robert Graves in 1957. He was to coach and teach social studies. In a small district like that, coaching meant all sports the school participated in - baseball, girls softball, boys and girls basketball and dual gender track. This was a local scandal which built to a fevered pitch when someone (rumored to be our neighbor Milo Hovick) dumped brown dye in the local swimming pool. I remember local gossip about the difficulty Mr. Graves and his wife had trying to rent a home. They wound up in an apartment above Holm Hardware in Story City, but someone said Torb Holm would do anything for money. My parents never said a word about any of this but I remember riding in the car with my mom to Story City, to invite Mr and Mrs Graves to our house for dinner. They accepted, and other than saying something about the Graves' having a tough time, my parents never mentioned it again, that I recall.

I grew to love jazz in high school, and when I went to the University of Iowa I got involved in the civil rights movement. I was preparing to leave, with a busload of others, for a week in Mississippi to register black voters, when we got word of the murders of James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew

Goodman. The organizers cancelled the trip.

Two or three years later I moved to Chicago and started making records.

Twenty years ago, we moved out of Chicago to our current abode, to finish raising the kids in a small town. We thought it would be good for them to get away, from what we saw, as bad influences. The town we moved to Whitehall, Michigan. The White River separates our town from Montague. Both towns combined have a total population under 10,000. The surrounding townships are densely populated. The area is supported by big manufacturing plants and tourism. Lots of beaches, sand dunes and boating. Any way – we bought a house and met the neighbors. About a month after moving, the guy across the street put up a “for sale” sign in his yard. When we asked him about it, he said he missed Montague. The guy was moving 2 miles away, to feel at home.

Maybe more later. Forgive the ramble.

Appreciate the story, Chuck. Well written too.

[pryan]

Maybe more later. Forgive the ramble.

Forgive it? I'd rather hear more!

Me too; ramble away, Chuck.

[Rooster_Ties]

Thanks, Chuck, for sharing your thoughts on this topic - I appreciate it. And do feel free to ramble away!!

[Jazzmoose]

[Connoiseur, I see nothing in your argument that convinces me. At the risk of reminding everyone of Greg (the horror!) let me go through this point by point...

1) Affirmative Action is nothing but reverse racism: Null point. The term "reverse racism" is simply a buzz word, an "advertising jingle" for the right as it were. The reverse of racism is no racism. If you think it's a racist law, please say so.

2) It is a racist law that promotes inequality: Wrong. What we have NOW is inequality. Affirmative Action seeks to correct this inequality. Whether it is successful or fails, we can debate, but saying that a law correcting inequality promotes inequality is ludicrous. As far as it's being a racist law, I can see the argument to a degree: it is a law that deals with race, and therefore could be construed as racist, but certainly no more than the constitutional ammendment ending slavery.

3) It is exclusionary: Wrong. It is most definitely NOT exclusionary. It is designed to include those who in the past HAVE been excluded. Again, the success or failure of Affirmative Action in meeting these goals can be debated, but calling it exclusionary simply makes no sense.

4) It is "not what America is all about": I agree with this to a degree, it is not what America is all about in the practical sense. However, it is very much what America is all about in the theoretical sense of everyone having an equal shot at the American Dream, and everyone being treated equally.

5)You claim that blacks are excluded from the American dream based on their race. I respond that they are not: Okay, heres the core of our difference. If you could convince me of this one, the rest of your argument would be a given. If I could convince you of the opposite, perhaps you could see my point. Unfortunately, that's probably not going to happen. I guarantee you won't convince me of your side, because I've studied American history in general and African-American history in particular too much to not realize that the culture of the United States has been designed from day one to insure that African-Americans as a group will fail to reach equality with whites. Frankly, it sounds as if you are arguing that racism does not exist, or at least is not effective. It's one of those arguments that just causes me to stare wide-eyed in disbelief.

6)And they definitely have the legal protections: Perhaps, but these legal protections are always weak, and they can always be worked around. The real solution to racism will never be a legal one, society itself must change.

7)That last thing I want to see is some kind of legal backing for an unequal and racist policy such as Affirmative Action. Now that's scary, and sends the wrong message. To me it as scary as the legal sanctioning of murder, which is what the death penalty is about. To me, the laws must defend equal opportunity and equal rights. That such things don't exist on a social basis, well, there's some work to do there; but don't seek legal sanction for privileged status for any race or sex: Whoa. This is the same old racist right wing argument I've been hearing for years. The bottom line is that American laws, and the society that created them, are already racist! What scares me is your inability to see this. Yes, the laws must defend equal opportunity and equal rights. That's what Affirmative Action does! The playing field was not level before Affirmative Action. You speak as though Affirmative Action granted a privileged status for African-Americans. This is so incredibly naive I can't believe anyone would seriously write it. Do you really think trading places with African-Americans would benefit whites in any way, economically or otherwise?

The basic problem I have with your arguments, and I've certainly heard them all before, is that they make a obviously faulty assumption that equality in America exists. Therefore, there is no need for these programs, and using them would be racist. The thing I find offensive about these arguments is that they are used quite often by racists who were perfectly happy with quotas, exclusionary laws and guidelines, etc., as long as the system was set up to benefit only whites.

There's one more bit of faulty logic that seems to be accepted as gospel truth by the right: Affirmative Action gives benefits to those who don't deserve them. Wrong. What Affirmative Action does is guarantee that people who are excluded from the benefits of society purely on the basis of their skin color are included. This "promotion of underachievers" argument is effective only because it is simplistic, NOT because it is accurate.

As for your examples of music, there's really nothing I can respond with. Whether you realize it or not, the white majority in this country has never appreciated the contributions of African-American artists at the time those contributions are made. In addition, the artists remembered as great decades later when the majority does accept the work are not always the artists popular at the time the music was made (of course, this goes for all popular music, not just that from African-Americans.). This argument of yours is a great argument about the inherent racism in our society, but not much else.

Unfortunately, as I said earlier, we are never going to agree on this one.

[Jazzmoose]

Sorry about the "italics" gone mad in the above post; I just don't have time to fix them right now...

[Noj]

What I find interesting with the Affirmative Action thing is that it actually is addressing race. Couldn't a program be enacted which helps people on a strictly financial basis? The most deserving people of the lowest tax bracket? Why do we need to address it racially, when it could be addressed financially?

Edited May 15, 2003 by Noj

[Rooster_Ties]

I have mixed feelings, both pro and con, about Affirmative Action. Noj, I think your point about financial background (which really means "class", in some sense) has some potential worth exploring.

And, in many ways, I think some kinds of racism are driven as much (or more) by "class"-predjudice, as much as actual "race"-predjudice.

Or, I guess another way of saying it is this: I think there would be (perhaps) less racism in this country if all races were equally represented across all economic levels. There would still be "class"-ism, sure, and there will always be people who don't like people of different races simply because they're different, and often represent some sort of threat (real, or imagined). But, I think quite a few (white) people dislike minorities, simply because in their city or part of the country, most or nearly all of the minorities they encounter, belong to a lower class than they do.