[Shinrei]

Ok, affirmative action and history aside, how much institutionalized racism is still is out there? (this is an honest question, because I think the media fails to cover real cases, just as it fails to adequetly cover examples of minorities succeeding).

You can argue that an overwhelming percentage of blacks are poor due to the past circumstances of their race, but I would argue that the problem persists today as more an issue with blacks being an economic underclass, rather than a continuing issue pertaining specifically to skin color. I.E., many blacks are not well off due to historical racism, but they aren't necessarily STILL poor because of the color of their skin.
To put it simply, many are poor because their community has been poor for a long time, but no longer directly because of their skin color.
Similarly, poor white communities are still poor not because of their skin color, but because of the economic situation they are in.

If I am wrong, can anyone illustrate why? (in all seriousness, I dont mind being proven wrong on the internet )

So what are some direct examples of continuation of institutions keeping minorities down (through laws, hiring practices, academic acceptance) do we see today? Sometimes the media portrayal of race in America gives the impression that we haven't gone far past the 1960's. But how then do we explain the black individuals who do things that would have been impossible a few decades ago, like hold high office? Or the current black CEO's of hundreds of corporations (including 3 of America's largest, American Express, Time-Warner and Morgan Stanley?) How much actual discrimination on race, not on economic status, is there these days?

OBVIOUSLY there are plenty of racists left in the world, and of course some of them hold high positions and subsequently will probably not hire a black person, but as we move forward with the younger generations, aren't things getting better, and will continue to get better? Things aren't perfect, but they are better right?

If it is an economic issue, more than race, that's the main reason I go back to my "fair education for all" doctrine.

[Morgoth]

I would argue that allowing the police to use racial profiling in deciding who to check is a kind of racism, and as far as I've understood it, that's legal in at least parts of the US

[Cause]

I just want to point out that america would rather have a black president than a female one. Im amused if no one else is

[Shinrei]

I agree, there is definately a prediliction for police offers, especially in some areas of the US, to racially profile. There is also injustice when it comes to convictions (a case in texas recently comes to mind).

Edited to reply to Cause:

This is another reason why I cant stand the media. They are OBSESSED with race and sex. So much speculation is based off of the black and female aspect that people like me, who are only interested in actual issues, cant watch tv news anymore. Hillary's female, Barack is black. I dont care. What are they SAYING??? If the media cant get over this, how are the American people going to?

For the record, I dont believe that more than a tiny tiny minority of Hillary voters are racist, and more than a tiny tiny minority of Obama voters are sexist.

[Terez]

Cause said:

I just want to point out that america would rather have a black president than a female one. Im amused if no one else is

Our society has progressed a good bit since Hillary became first lady. Unfortunately, she's still got baggage from that era - mainly the she's-a-bitch baggage that she picked up by being an opinionated first lady. Obama is fresh on the scene with no baggage, and I think that helps his case.

Also, keep in mind how close the race was. Then, there's the fact that Obama's a good representative of his race, I think more than Hillary is a good representative of our gender...and the best candidate has won...

[Cause]

I was just making a joke. I know nothing about the race. In fact it makes no sense to me. How they have to compete to be the party canditate and than run against the other party candidate for president. Why its won by state votes and not majority. But I thought it was funny.

As for racial profiling its not so clear cut at all. I worked for a security company. I was in dispatch as shift commander. The company worked off racial profiling. Say what you will for what we did it made sense and worked. I had trouble with it alot, and spent alot of time explaining to some people that yes black people can play soccer in the park, or that 14 year old black kids can walk home from school in your street. Also despite being set up to racially profile we could not say black on the radio and so by company edict used the wonderfull uncrackable code word Bravo.

All that aside however it was a mainly white area 90%. Most crime in south africa wll be commited by two or more black men toghether. Its just the truth. It was company policy therfore to find out why any two or more black men would loiter in the area. And it worked, crime dropped in areas the company opened in by over 50-70% depending.

[stone monkey]

Of course, the elephant in the room is why most street crimes are being committed by black men... The guy who looted your Pension Fund, well that's a different story.

Although it's a slam dunk easy answer. In South Africa, as indeed anywhere else, street crimes are generally committed by poor people. If you're black you're more likely to be poor.

Targetting black males works brilliantly for your clearup figures and provides ammunition to the kind of person who wants to believe that black people are inherently criminal; it doesn't go anywhere towards solving the problem.

[Danyah]

Yes, but problem is, in an all black or all white society, the poor are less tended to be criminal. In unicolor societies, being poor is your own fault. General accepted mythos is that everybody is the same got the same chances to start off, so you don't go robbing your fellow man. Just hide and feel guilty.

But once you're poor and different, it's less a crime to rob the ruling class, since it's them who keep you poor. And then it all starts spiralling.

At the basics, both cases are the same, ruling class keeps lower class poor, either knowingly, either unknowingly, by assuming everybody gets equal chances. Wrong, I work with poor people, it takes generations and a lot of effort to get out of poverty. Turning to crime, or just giving up hope is easier. Downward social mobility is easier, mostly takes just one lifetime.

But now, with a black presidential candidate, I fear it will become easier to say to equal rights activists "Shut up, you guys got the same chances like everybody else". If only he wasn't the 5th black senator in the US ever. Not very representative, is it.

[Cause]

stone monkey;324040 said:

Of course, the elephant in the room is why most street crimes are being committed by black men... The guy who looted your Pension Fund, well that's a different story.

Although it's a slam dunk easy answer. In South Africa, as indeed anywhere else, street crimes are generally committed by poor people. If you're black you're more likely to be poor.

Targetting black males works brilliantly for your clearup figures and provides ammunition to the kind of person who wants to believe that black people are inherently criminal; it doesn't go anywhere towards solving the problem.

No body gets shot, beaten or raped by someone fiddling with your accounts on a computer. We specialised in contact crimes.

And a security company is not going to right the worlds wrong. Its not the goverment and does not have the resources. It seeks only to provide security.

[stone monkey]

Cause;324142 said:

No body gets shot, beaten or raped by someone fiddling with your accounts on a computer. We specialised in contact crimes.

Which is like the joke about the difference between Doctors and Airline Pilots - Doctors only kill in ones...

Corporate criminals ruin thousands of lives in one go. And their motive is greed, all the way.

[Astra]

stone monkey;324148 said:

Corporate criminals ruin thousands of lives in one go. And their motive is greed, all the way.

With all due respect, what the hell does it have to do with racism?

[Obdigore]

stone monkey;324148 said:

Which is like the joke about the difference between Doctors and Airline Pilots - Doctors only kill in ones...

Corporate criminals ruin thousands of lives in one go. And their motive is greed, all the way.

Ha!

I agree, Corporate criminals deserve harsher punishments than they get, but my views on law and punishments are well known and documented on this site.

Racism exists, and is bad. Even if we do, finally, manage to do away with it, there will be 'big-ear-ism' or 'greeneyedism'. Some Humans will always point out differences and use it as a form of discrimination.

I re-read that and decided that it sounds like I support racism. I do not. I don't support people being poor either, but if noone is poor, there can be no rich. Human thoughts on society are flawed, and good luck fixing them in our lifetimes, if ever.

[stone monkey]

Corporate crimes are primarily considered to be "white" crimes; if only because most of the people who get to have the opportunity to commit them are white (Look at the Enron guys) But that's primarily a class issue rather than a race one admittedly; even if, due to the disadvantage of being born black; you're less likely to be in that part of the clas spectrum that commits these crimes.

I would argue that ruining the lives of thousands of people for years to come at one go - and doing it out of sheer greed, not because you find yourself in a position where crime would seem to be the only option that will help you survive - could be considered more "evil" (if you want to use that word) than doing it one at a time.

And before you say that white collar crime never killed anyone; look at the suicides that followed the Enron debacle, or what the tobacco industry was up to...

[Shinrei]

"At the basics, both cases are the same, ruling class keeps lower class poor, either knowingly, either unknowingly, by assuming everybody gets equal chances. Wrong, I work with poor people, it takes generations and a lot of effort to get out of poverty. Turning to crime, or just giving up hope is easier. Downward social mobility is easier, mostly takes just one lifetime."


Yes, but at what point do we stop and realize that the media and liberals are constantly going on about how things are unfair for minorities? We keep pounding the same racial inequality message over and over, and if the bastards in the white house could use this tactic to sell the Iraq war, why can't the liberal agenda be using the same tactic to sell bigger government? Through this indoctrination the minority communities, rather than reach out and take the bull by the horns and go out there and grab the equality I believe exists, they cling to the "we are victims" message because that's just EASIER. Of course they don't want to be poor, but at the same time they're poor they're being told that they can't do anything about it!

I am all for minority communities empowering themselves, and I use the latino community as an example. I don't support unchecked immigration, but I do respect the South and Central Americans who come here, work to support their families, send money back to their country and live increasingly better lives for themselves and their children. They are in many instances escaping horrendous squalor and poverty. They don't come here for our social services, they come her for jobs and opportunity they don't have back in their native land. And like the Chinese before them, who started the 19th century in laundries and on railroad work gangs, who is to say the latin community won't grow in power and become more major players in business and government? Or take my current boss (Japanese) who came to the US as a legal immigrant, worked as a line cook for years and now is a highly successful owner of three restaurants. He didn't necessarily come here for opportunity, opportunity came to him.

Constantly telling the black community they are victims and there's nothing they can do about it and no matter what the cards are stacked against them, most certainly does its part in keeping that community down. As Danyah says, downward social mobility is easier.... especially when supported by the media and official policy.

[Nequam]

I really like your posts, the all seem so...hmm, perfect? I don't know, but you're getting rep.

So are kinda saying that the media has one of the bigger roles of keeping race in the game here?

[Cougar]

Stone Monkey, if I were you mate, I wouldn't bother. There are people on this forum who believe that racial equality is letting black people use the same bathrooms as them.

By pure coincidence I'm watching a documentary about Basil D'Oliveira, hang your heads.

[Shinrei]

Who are these people?

If you think I'm one of them, you haven't read a single word I said.

[Optimus Prime]

Shinrei no Shintai;325048 said:

Who are these people?

If you think I'm one of them, you haven't read a single word I said.

I don't know if we want to open this can of worms, but people like that exist throughout the world, if not the forums.

If you think Racism is no longer a big problem in the world, you're just naive. And by "you're" I mean anyone in general.

[Terez]

Shinrei no Shintai;324360 said:

Constantly telling the black community they are victims and there's nothing they can do about it and no matter what the cards are stacked against them, most certainly does its part in keeping that community down.

I agree with that, but I think that it is the responsibility of the black community to say when it's been long enough. In the meantime, I'm not to worried about AA and all the related stuff. It's there because the system is not equal, so the system has to do its part to make things equal, and it's not the place of the white majority to say when it's been long enough.

I've already heard a great deal of talk from certain prominent members of the black community that AA etc. are degrading to blacks. If those voices make enough noise and get enough support within the black community, then by all means we'll ditch AA. But until then, the system will be in place to help people who are disadvantaged come up into the world. Even after the black community decides it's been long enough, that system will be in place for other groups of people that are arguably disadvantaged.

That may seem like an open-ended invitation to disaster for some of you, but I would disagree. These things are usually discussed with a certain amount of logic when laws are made, and I also have faith that the majority of these disadvantaged minorities are scrupulous people.

[Silencer]

Terez, beside your incorrect point about the white majority not getting to decide things (it IS a democracy after all - rule by the people, based off a majority), I can see what you are saying. However, what some people are trying to say here is that AA does NOT make things equal - it does the very opposite. Think about it, if one person gets favored based off of race, does that make the system equal or biased?
I can understand why AA exists, but surely it should just be a system to make sure that someone is not-not-hired because of their race, rather than making sure that people of a certain race ARE hired because of their race?
Also, leaving the decision of when something is enough to the people being benefited by it does not seem particularly smart to me - how do you draw the line on this? Is it when a vocal minority say it's enough? Is it when a polled majority says it is enough? What if it's never enough because some people are insecure and want a higher chance of a job? What about the people that see racism around every corner? Of course, I don't have any other suggestions....I think polled majority is the best option, but even that seems a bit unlikely to happen.
@Cougar - I would argue that seeing as black people not being able to use the same bathrooms as white people was a major example of racism, fixing this problem is helping to create equality. It's by no means the only example, I'm not saying that having this means racism is gone/racial equality has been achieved necessarily, but you have to admit that if that was still around racism would be considered to still exist as a major thing. Actually that's incredibly hard to word right.......what I mean is that it's one of the most obvious forms of discrimination and is a relic of when racial discrimination was at one of its' peaks.
Racism still exists. It's simple. But I've said it before and I'll say it again - it will continue to exist as long as people acknowledge it as an issue. Racism is only a real issue if people are affected by it, and people let it affect their decisions. Saying one person is one race and another person is something different is not an issue. It's ingrained into almost every person's mind, not to mention most official records of a person - passports, etc.