White kids and black kids.

[brooksieb]

Alot of black kids seem to be getting more attention in school by teachers then white kids? Why i might ask? Because apparently alot of black kids are failing in school? I'm thinking the natural jealousy in children might lead to a backlash in society. And this jealousy could carry on into adulthood, where there will still be companies catering only to black people, while i have nothing against black people creating business for black people... It's all well and good, but when you deny white people or any other people for that matter the right to make businesses and groups for themselves, you might ask yourself.... Does this lead to segregation? i believe so. At the security firm i work at there are groups only catering to black people. Since i am a union representative i can also make groups and have a say into the groups, making a white group will be off limits. Racism is the awnser. Isn't there a irony that we're trying to create bridges between communities while we're ultimately destroying them with race groups, this will lead to backlashes which the govenment will ultimately pay the price if that happens, i'm not against black people since i had black friends from the military, which are still my friends. Thank you for reading.

[hammockboy1]

It's all well and good, but when you deny white people or any other people for that matter the right to make businesses and groups for themselves, you might ask yourself.... Does this lead to segregation?

This is the exact point that I brought up in the white pride thread. Instead of groups, names like '___ pride'.

[firth4eva]

Thank you for reading, not listening

[brooksieb]

Thank you for reading, not listening

Well don't you say the words in your head?, thank you for listening!. i will change it.

[reminisco]

three cheers for the xenophobe thread!

[hammockboy1]

Thank you for reading, not listening

Well don't you say the words in your head?, thank you for listening!. i will change it.

Reading for me is more like listening

[gdeangel]

And this jealousy could carry on into adulthood, where there will still be companies catering only to black people, while i have nothing against black people creating business for black people... It's all well and good, but when you deny white people or any other people for that matter the right to make businesses and groups for themselves, you might ask yourself....

You are not far off from what is going on in current corporate culture (but it's not racisim... its called pandering). What happens is an activist group buys some stock in a major corporation, then they make a shareholder proposal to the board that the company adopt a "diversity policy". Now there already are anti-discrimination laws and equal opportunity requirements, so a company that, for example, disqualifies applicants on the basis of race will already be receiving some not too desirable legal liability. What do these diversity policies usually require, you ask? It can vary, but it usually requires a commitment to ONLY USE COMPANIES THAT HAVE A CERTAIN RACIAL PROFILE FOR ALL THEIR MAJOR CONTRACTS. That means, for example, if you happen to work for a company that has less than x% African American, and your biggest customer adopts one of those policies, you face the decision of either being financially ruined, or hire some people of a particular race. The policy won't mention an particular race, and the theme is always "benefits of diversity", so it sounds good, right? But objectively to me it sounds a lot like discrimination dolled up with rouge and face powder. You might even have a company that hired every qualified African American that applied for a job (i.e., the good guys), and they could still get put out of business if they are not a cetain percentage "diversified". It's like a way of focing affirmative action on the private sector... because the people who are proposing it now have grown up in a system that favors "diversity" at every step from government supported pre-school to colledge and higher professional degrees.

I personally agree with the idea of having a public system that fills gaps like access by an underprivilidged minority. We have that. We have minority bid government contracts. We have government backed loan programs for minority owned small business even. We even have judicial invalidation of electoral districts of a community because there have never been a black city counsel member, but in fact there has never even been a black candidate. But for me the line needs to be drawn at basically extorting private companies into hiring minorities when in fact they do no discriminate in hiring but simply don't have qualified minorities to fill the jobs who are applying. And if that type of overreaching is the product of the affirmative action in higher education that we currently have now, then I think the methods (but perhaps not the existence) of those programs need to be severely corrected. That's just my personal view, but everything I've described here is going on, so you can decide for yourself whether you think it's "racial favoritism", because probably not many people encounter this stuff every day.

[greenoaks]

south africa has that problem now. they have laws there that say a certain % of their national cricket or rugby side must be black. that is why they are so easy to beat - they do not field their best side.

england on the other hand do pick the best players they have regardless of race, they are just not very good at the sports they invented.

[jonesthecurl]

Hmm.
I'm not too sure I'm on the same side as most of the posters here.

I do think that the way the world in general works disadvantages non-whites, non-males, and non-protestants.

I DO think it is necessary to counter this, and we can't do that by relying on the good will and right-on tendencies of those already in power (I suspct that this is where I differ with previous posters).

But some of the attempts to redressthe balance have been counter-productive.

For instance, in the UK the Labour Party attempted to redress the male/female imbalance in members of parliament ("M.P.'s") by introdcing all-women areas - i.e. parts of the country where only women would be allowed to stand for election. This is a patently stupid idea, as was recognised by all the party members in the area where I happened to be at the time, which was selected as a "women-only" area. The protests of all the local party workers, includng all the women, reversed the policy. the (male)MP who was elected is a leading light in the current government .

Yes there should be more female/ethnic/openly gay/whatever people in positions of power. we might need to give them a small advantage in open competitions ( My suggestion in the female MP thing was, give all the female candidates an intial vote of "x" , or multiply their votes by "y" - but if the best candidate happens to be white and male, it makes no sense to completely exclude them.

The same applies, Mutatis Mutandur, to any other advantaged/disadvantaged comptition.

[PLAYER57832]

How about this strange and unique idea--

We are all responsible for our OWN behavior, not other people. We are who we choose to be, not who our parents or grandparents or teachers say we are.

MOst people have some kind of issue, some kind of trouble in life. Some are poor, some have famous parents. Some are talented, some are not. We generally have pretty imperfect teachers, parents and neighbors. MANY have to put up with pretty serious things -- like just getting to school,getting enough to eat, physical abuse, etc.

If you want to complain and blame some teacher for not giving some white kid, some black kid, some brown kid OR purple kid too much or too little attention ... you can keep yourself pretty darned busy. But, in the end, MANY of those kids will pick themselves up and go on to success. Ironically, many will look back on those very negative experiences as just the force that moved them ahead.

I don't justify imperfect behavior, I just call it reality. You either deal with it or you spend your life full of hate... its YOUR choice ... and you have only yourself to blame for the result.

THAT is what I am teaching MY children!

[MeDeFe]

There's only one purple kid.

[dinobot]

The problem is that most people are fucking stupid and elect faggots that put 'discrimination laws' into place.

Hey Americans and Europeans; why the f*ck are you retards?

[btownmeggy]

There's only one purple kid.

[Frigidus]

The problem is that most people are fucking stupid and elect faggots that put 'discrimination laws' into place.

Hey Americans and Europeans; why the f*ck are you retards?

Xtreme religion over here. Europe?

[savant]

Since i am a union representative i can also make groups and have a say into the groups, making a white group will be off limits. Racism is the awnser. Isn't there a irony that we're trying to create bridges between communities while we're ultimately destroying them with race groups, this will lead to backlashes which the govenment will ultimately pay the price if that happens, i'm not against black people since i had black friends from the military, which are still my friends.

isn't it also ironic that being part of a union implies your segregation from the rest of the working populace, designed to negotiate with employers and government over various contract issues including benefits, pension, etc.? and when a mutual agreement cannot be reached, you can collectively cry strike?

bridges between communities will never be fortified (hehe, i related it to CC) as long as we, collectively as a race of humans, have a proneness to and feeble understanding of the concept of "labeling".

[muy_thaiguy]

The problem is that most people are fucking stupid and elect faggots that put 'discrimination laws' into place.

Hey Americans and Europeans; why the f*ck are you retards?

Xtreme religion over here. Europe?

Frightened by successful Capitalism is my guess (note, not an educated guess).

[borox0]

south africa has that problem now. they have laws there that say a certain % of their national cricket or rugby side must be black. that is why they are so easy to beat - they do not field their best side.

They are trying hard to move away from the apartheid which totally segregated everyone eg. on a bus there would be white's seats and there would be black's seats. If they didn't select a race related team with a certain amount of blacks there could be protest from the black community.

[greenoaks]

south africa has that problem now. they have laws there that say a certain % of their national cricket or rugby side must be black. that is why they are so easy to beat - they do not field their best side.

They are trying hard to move away from the apartheid which totally segregated everyone eg. on a bus there would be white's seats and there would be black's seats. If they didn't select a race related team with a certain amount of blacks there could be protest from the black community.

so they got rid of racism and replaced it with ........... racism.

a policy of promoting people on their merits is the true cure for racial discrimination, not more racism.

[borox0]

south africa has that problem now. they have laws there that say a certain % of their national cricket or rugby side must be black. that is why they are so easy to beat - they do not field their best side.

They are trying hard to move away from the apartheid which totally segregated everyone eg. on a bus there would be white's seats and there would be black's seats. If they didn't select a race related team with a certain amount of blacks there could be protest from the black community.

so they got rid of racism and replaced it with ........... racism.

a policy of promoting people on their merits is the true cure for racial discrimination, not more racism.

What they are doing is flawed however having a team in sports that could be better is far preferable to having extreme racism. Even though it is a racially selected side they are still very good, their rugby team won the world cup last year.

[dinobot]

What they are doing is flawed however having a team in sports that could be better is far preferable to having extreme racism. Even though it is a racially selected side they are still very good, their rugby team won the world cup last year.

Having an all white cricket team isn't extremely racist, the only people who'd care about it are fucktarded faggots with nothing else to do (so apparently South Africans).

[icedagger]

. Even though it is a racially selected side they are still very good, their rugby team won the world cup last year.

They only had two black players in the world cup squad. It will be a major blow to them if they have a quota of non-whites they have to select, since rugby is overwhelmingly played by the more wealthy whites there. The problems are at grass roots level, putting a law like that into place will just lower the quality of the team

[greenoaks]

What they are doing is flawed however having a team in sports that could be better is far preferable to having extreme racism. Even though it is a racially selected side they are still very good, their rugby team won the world cup last year.

if it is allowed to continue it will become the culture. extreme racism will only be a short step away.

[PLAYER57832]

What they are doing is flawed however having a team in sports that could be better is far preferable to having extreme racism. Even though it is a racially selected side they are still very good, their rugby team won the world cup last year.

if it is allowed to continue it will become the culture. extreme racism will only be a short step away.

Sorry, been there done that and the sky did NOT fall.

I am not black, but I am a woman who worked for years doing natural resource work for the US Forest Service. Though women were officially integrated years previous, the reality was that it took court action by a couple of brave women in the 1980's to force the issue. Without getting into all the nitty details, the court issued a "consent decree" ... which essentially stated that a qualified woman had to be considered and often hired for each position.

The result was a classic study. Many bosses went out and grabbed the first woman they could find -- the more incompetant, it seemed, the "better". Then stood back, pointed fingers and said "I told you so". Others went out and used it to hire the BEST individuals they could. I admit, I got in by accident of being in the right place at the right time -- and fit neither extreme.

What we had to DEAL with is also a classic. Either we were "too feminine" and unable to "carry our weight" OR we were fully able and "obviously" gay. (strangely that conclusion often followed turn-downs for dates or a male getting chastised for not holding HIS own).

AND they had "plenty of justificaion". Unlike skin color, you can point your finger at anyone and claim they are homosexual (though, come to think of it, there are accusasions of "passing" in the color forum, just fewer can do so). For me, it got bad enough that I almost lost a job JUST because enough idiots believed the accusations. It is impossible to disprove it... have a boyfriend .. your are "bi" or "faking"...etc. And there were even a few TRULY homosexual women to further "justify" their opinions (and a few heterosexual "sluts" ... and a good many of us who just wanted a decent job a bit more interesting than nursing or being a secretary).

It was tough. Ask any woman over 40 who worked in the field at this time and you will likely hear similar stories.

Was the effort fully successful? In biology, yes. In forestry, you have to add in the whole mess of change in timber. The forest service, in general, stopped hiring folks. Women have gradually penetrated, probably "first" in fire fighting/timber, but more and more in the forestry fields. There are plenty who blame spotted owls, fish .. women get mentioned, but generally only as a sub note. Is it perfect? Of course not, but the sky did not fall .... and to the extent that it did, it had little to do with the integration of women.

Now, understand, I FULLY recognize that there is a huge difference between homosexuality and race. There is even a pretty big difference in the male/female issue. Men and women ARE different. BUT the similarity is in how it all occured. And, that the world as we know it did not fall because women joined in all facets of the workforce a few years back. Changed, but did not fall. And, if THAT change can happen, so, too can race integratioin, given a chance.

Will all prejudice disappear? Of course not. But, in the US right now, I would suggest that you are more discriminated against for being fat, for being poor, for being ugly (NOT the same), for not having the most wonderful social skills, etc. than for being a person of ANY color.

I said it before, but it bears repeating.

NO ONE controls who YOU are. You can react ... and thereby let the world dictate how you act. OR you can go your own way, hold your head up, do your best, accept that there are plenty of idiots out there just hoping you will fail, even working very hard to ensure you do .....and work that much harder to prove them wrong.

Ironically, the race issue went more smoothly. The biggest issue there is that there really are fewer folks of color INTERESTED in working in natural resources. (in large part because much more blacks are urban and most of Forest Service folks grew up in the country). To this day, there are far fewer folks of color who enter the natural resource fields. There ARE strong recruitment efforts. Why? Primarily because if folks of color don't appreciate and understand the natural resources ... their votes won't do much for those resources. It is a matter of survival, for all of us.

Again, that is another difference. Rugby could disappear without much changing the world. A little less pleasureable, but survivable. Natural resources are the very root of our survival. Still, the comparison is just. There are far more folks of color out there than whites. If you want rugby to expand, you need to look at a new group of individuals. Folks of color who already exist right beside you are a pretty good market. ..... and make no mistake, "market" is what its REALLY about!

[greenoaks]

i am sure the white farmers of zimbabwe share your belief that the sky has not fallen in.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, a good argument in support of what I wrote! When you focus on race, revenge and blame... extremists are happy to leap in and take advantage.

The problems in Zimbabwe are due to a president who tried to overnight change the farming system without any real knowledge about it, robbed his people and suppresses violently any and all opposition ... like despots of all colors have always done.

The problems are not race, BUT the fact that he was allowed to rise to power and to successfully blame whites for the troubles of his country (at least initially) IS directly the result of the years and years of oppression -- so that someone was able to rise up, promise the moon and be heard. .. whether he actually made sense or not.