From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: alt.discrimination = alt.caucasian whining
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 08:57:55 GMT

In article <93008.070837KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Jan07.114650.26259@anomaly.sbs.com>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.com
>(Michael P. Deignan) says:
>>dowdy@tochtli.biochem.nwu.edu (Dowdy Jackson) writes:

>>>The fact is that whites are STILL
>>>discriminating against blacks.

>>...and blacks still discriminate against whites.

>    This is interesting.  Some Blacks may be prejudiced against whites, no
>question about that, but discrimination?  

Sure...they can choose to discriminate when chosing what businesses to 
patronize, what school to send their kids to, whom to choose as friends,
what neighborhood they live in...I could go on all day.

>You are going to have to give
>specifics with Blacks discriminating against whites.  In order to discriminate
>one has to have control over something.  

Incredible!  Do you think that no blacks have control of anything?  Their 
time, their money, their interest.  You seem to have this idea that black
people are helpless or something.  Now, of course, if there is a lot of
racial discrimination, it will tend to have direct effects which fall more
heavily on members of minority groups, but that doesn't mean it's not
discrimination or that it isn't bad.

>What do Blacks control enough to
>discriminate?  You are going to have to give specifics.

They control a tremendous number of businesses, personal incomes, and the like.
Or were you under the impression that all blacks are penniless beggars?

>>>    I really don't care what you think because it won't change the fact that
>>>whites hate blacks and blacks hate whites because of the horrid way in
>>>which they are treated by whites.

>>People in life are constantly treated poorly by others, based on some
>>physical characteristic. Too short, too fat, too ugly. Black/white is
>>merely another physical characteristic which individuals use to group
>>and classify.

>>As long as you demand special treatment because of your physical
>>characteristic, then you will build more resentment from other groups,
>>just as the ugly person who demanded special 'rights' simply because
>>s/he was too ugly to get a date, or the fat person constantly demanded
>>and received special treatment simply because s/he is fat.

>     No one is asking for special treatment, but we are asking for a "level
>playing field".  

I'm sorry, but a great many people are asking for special treatment.

>Because of the institutionalized discrimination that was (and
>still is) in this country, Blacks have not been able to compete fairly.  Until
>the playing field is level, somethings are going to have to be as they now are.
>It is the white man 

"The white man"?  Who might that be?  Are you saying that all whites have
acted this way?  Or are you saying that it is only whites who have such ideas?
(There are plenty of blacks and other minorities who are serious racists.)
This seems to imply that somehow their whiteness is related to the crimes
and that therefore all white people are to be held responsible for those 
actions somehow.  I completely reject that.  Immorality is a matter of
individual choice and action.  Just because someone is related to a
person of poor moral character that doesn't confer any guilt.  Neither does
looking similar to such a person.

>who discriminated on the basis of a physical characteristic
>for so long that things are the way they are.  Place the finger pointing in the
>right direction.

And what direction is that?  At the individual racists or at all white people?

>Educational attainment shouldn't, in a democracy, depend on your socioeconomic
>status.  Sure the rich will always have their private schools, and I see
>absolutely nothing wrong with that, but public education IN ALL AREAS of the
>country should be properly financed.  This all fits into the same equation.

In other words, "the rich" should pay for the schooling of their own children
as well as that of everyone else.  How nice.  How fair.  How "democratic".
By the way, how do you conclude that democracy implies that people ought
not to have to pay for their own education?  it sounds to me as though you
have confused "democracy" with "socialism".

>>Until blacks can learn to be judged on their own merit against similar
>>white competitors with receiving "special" treatment simply for their
>>skin color, I'm afraid that they will also build resentment and
>>discrimination from others. You cannot legislate away people's
>>discriminatory tendencies.

>    I think we can learn that, we aren't all idiots like you think.  Until
>whites give us a fair and even playing field, then some concessions are going
>to have to made.  

What do you mean "concessions"?  Concessions of what?  By whom?  For what 
purpose.

>And you are telling me that whites don't receive "special
>treatment" (look at the tax codes sometime).  

Not that I am aware of.  What's in the tax code for the benefit of whites?
The forms I fill out don't even ask my race.  Maybe you are filling out
out the wrong forms.

>No, you cannot legislate away
>people's discriminatory tendencies, but you sure as hell can make it illegal
>to discriminate.  

More or less true, but wasn't that done long ago?

>Discrimination is anti-democratic.  

Is it?  Actually, it can be quite democratic (one of the reasons I'm not in
favor of the idea of a purely democratic governemnt).  Democratic governemnts,
quite often violate the rights of minorities.  That's why I think that
constitutional republics are far superior.

>If you think we should
>let people discriminate because it is human nature to discriminate, then you
>have problems.  

I think that "discrimination" in general is fine.  It is discrimination based
on race that I am opposed to.  Perhaps that's what you were talking about.
Despite the fact that I think racial discrimination is evil, I respect
individual freedom enough to allow people to make mistakes of this kind.  It's
too bad you don't.

>And as a Black person, whose people do not discriminate because
>we don't own enough of America to discriminate, we would lose out even worse
>in such a situation.  

True, you would loose out more than others.  

It is completely false to maintain that you and other blacks cannot engage
in discrimination.  Blacks own a LOT of property.  They spend a LOT of
money.  They also constitute a big part of the population.  If I apply
for a job with Spike lee and he tells me to get my "white ass out of here",
he's discriminating against me in favor of someone else.  If I own a 
store and black patrons stay away because they'd prefer to shop at a
black-owned store, I am being discriminated against.  If I am rejected as
a boyfriend by a black girl I am attracted to on the basis of my race,
I am being discriminated against (although in this case, such rejection
would mean I wasn't missing out on much).

--Brian

Xref: sparky alt.discrimination:5559 soc.culture.african.american:13793