The straight white male is the most discriminated person in America.

We are considered by some people in each demographic I listed as "tyrants, slavers, woman abusing, land stealing, villains", etc., because we were. We did a lot of horrible crap, and not all that long ago in society's mind either. But like I pointed out in my last round, the blame for that is not leveled on all white men. Many black people who were around during the civil rights movement remember that most of the freedom riders that fought for civil rights for blacks were actually young white men and women from the north. Black tribesmen did sell fellow black people to slave traders. Every history book I've read (I was a history major in my undergrad) do make mention of this. But it was the British that turned slavery into a white-supremacy issue. The Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, etc., looked at slavery as much more of a business issue, absent of much of the racism that characterized British slavery. It is the British tradition that we have here and why "white men" get blamed here for being what you say. You seem to make the point that the Spanish aren't really white men when you say that Indians would have been conquered by them were it not us, and you're probably right. But the Spanish were white men too. But we come from the British tradition, which eventually turned itself into "manifest destiny" in the mid 1800s. I suppose my point here is that, you shouldn't call an accurate account of history as being hateful. It just is what it is. Like I said in my last round, some Indians might still harbor hatred for white people, but I personally think that the majority of them have moved past it. I come from South Florida, where the Seminoles own and operate a number of casinos that do very well. From my experiences, it seems that they are much more concerned with their businesses and the profit they turn, rather than what white people did to them back in the day. I think you mistake a general hatred for conservative, white people, and particularly men, for a hatred of all straight, white men. Like I said above, women, blacks, hispanics, and most other people (who aren't ardently conservative) like Bill Clinton. Even those who do harbor hatred for white people, like what you say, have few bad things to say about Clinton. Most of the people in the groups we're talking about recognize the distinction between white men who have fought against civil rights for them, and those who fought for it. For example, most black people would remember LBJ fondly while hating George Wallace (at least up until he tearfully apologized to the NAACP before he died). Women love men like Bill Clinton, while hate those who feel as though they should be in the kitchen making us sandwiches, or more reasonably, feel that it is ok that women make only about 80 cents to the dollar that men make. Even among those who do harbor more general hatred for white men, I still contend that most women are too concerned with hating each other than directing their hatred at men, like how I mentioned above. If Obama loses to McCain, it may or may not be considered racism. It depends on what happened in the campaigns. Consider Harold Ford Jr.'s campaign for the Senate in 2006. He was ahead in the polls with only weeks left before the election in Tennessee, of all states, until the RNC ran the "call me" ad. In it, a white woman claims to have met the single Ford at the playboy mansion, and tells Ford to call her while blowing him a kiss, with the insinuation being that Ford is a philandering black man who has sexual relations with white women. Within a week of the ad's first run, Ford had dropped about 10% in the polls and never recovered. There is no other explanation for this precipitous drop besides Republicans appealing to latent southern conservative racism, a "southern strategy" they have relied on since Nixon. Should the same kind of thing happen against Obama, you bet racism would be blamed for the loss, and that would be a correct assessment. This is why this hatred that you speak of still exists, if it does to the extent you say it does. We are the punching bags of history because we made that history, and continue to today. The discrimination against white men is the natural result of the racism amongst white men that still exists today, in addition to the racism that has always existed among those who made American history. But like I said in the last round, that hatred for the white man, while it might be potent, is still concentrated among a very small number of people. They make up a very vocal minority. Consider the number of white men in the country and the latent racism that still exists, as evidenced by that Harold Ford ad. Even though that hatred might be much less vocal, its existence in larger numbers makes the total amount of hatred much more than the vocal minorities. This is true for women, who spend much more of their time being catty among themselves, Indians who are more busy counting their profits from casinos than to live in the past, and blacks who might have more of a grudge against the white man, but only make up a small percentage of the total country. The argument over illegal immigration, unfortunately, does engender some racist tendencies. Those in border states have to deal with the very real problems of the costs associated with illegal immigration, while most other people in the country just flip out because all of the sudden, the person packing their groceries is having trouble speaking english. That latter example, I contend, is much more rooted in racism, considering those same people would not have much of a problem if that grocery bagger was from some European country and was lilly white. Even so, hispanics have much more love for liberal white men, who they don't feel this racism from, as opposed to conservative white men who they see as wanting them out of this country. This is one more reason that your proposition should have been that conservative, white men are more hated than anyone else, not all white men.