From: ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: The perception of reverse racism (Re: Why do Americans
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:41:05 GMT

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

>>Let me assure that racism against majorities does exist.
>>(reverse racism is too PC for me -- besides that it is meaningless, 
>>racism means discrimination on the basis of race -- its opposite is 
>>equal treatment of races, not discrimination against a majority.)
>>
>Ah yes, the perceptions of a mailroom clerk "prove" the existence of
>reverse racism.  Andrew, you need to at least entertain the notion that
>the person's behavior was formed, and malformed, by having to live and
>work in Arizona, where postmodern racism flourishes (see the reaction to
>MLK day as an example.)  I feel sorry for any black person, or any
>liberal white, who has to live in Arizona (in spite of my massive
>respect for Barry Goldwater.)

	Ed, don't be an arrogant fool.  Your dripping skepticism really
	isn't necessary.  Whereas you may not believe in its existance,
	some of us do believe that discrimination vs. majorities does
	exist.  I am an Asian American (Chinese by descent) and I do
	agree that this kind of discrimination exists.  It is not nearly
	as horrible a problem as discrimination vs. minorities, but it
	does exist.

>Your story is shown to be malarkey by its close resemblance to what my
>fourth grade teacher told a classroom of innocent children in
>1959...years before Affirmative Action, years before the Civil Rights
>Act.  This teacher (who was in all respects incompetent and abusive)
>told us that "her friend" had been held back in city government because
>of dem uppity black folks, who had reserved the top jobs for themselves.
>In 1959!!  In other words, your story is just the fantasy of the favored
>group that if it's placed on a par with the historically disfavored
>group, it will automatically be "discriminated against."  It is NOT a
>serious critique of Affirmative Action, for as you see my fourth grade
>teacher's comments predated Affirmative Action.

	The problem is that due to AA, the historically disfavored and
	history favored groups are not on a par.  The historically
	disfavored group is (by virtue of being historically disfavored)
	now the favored group.  Note: I am not saying that this is
	necessarily wrong, just that your above statement is the true
	malarky.  To believe that preferential treatment of any group
	for any reason is discrimination.  According to my Webster's,
	to discriminate is to show unjust favor or disfavor.  Yes, AA
	causes the majority to be discriminated against.  And whereas
	the majority of people who receive assistance from AA are good
	people who needed the chance to get in the door and prove
	themselves, as with any broad group, this group has it's
	freeloaders who know that they aren't going to get fired because
	of AA and behave poorly.  However, there are always people who
	have some advantage (say the Manager or President's child who
	is working in the plant and can't be fired) and abuse it.  This
	doesn't mean that the disgruntled people on the other end don't
	have a gripe.

>Also, in white-collar environments, it is relatively easy to confuse the
>appearance of work and productivity with its reality.  In banks,
>especially (speaking from experience at a much higher level than yours),
>perception is reality to such an extent that you may very well have
>perceived the white individual to be more productive because he did
>not rock the boat, was highly punctual and well-dressed according to
>your standards, and so forth.  Whereas the black guy may have perceived
>himself as performing more onerous tasks.  In other words, in a banking
>environment (with its premium on being "cooperative" and well-groomed,
>perceptions that are closely linked to historically "white"
>perceptions), the black guy started out with a serious handicap whereas
>the white guy, by virtue of his skin alone, started with extra points.

	Hey, as I mentioned, I have been discriminated against in the
	past due to being a "Chink".  But, just because I started out
	at a disadvantage, doesn't change my attitude that I want to
	do well and succeed.  I have seen people who believe that they
	are being unjustly treated, sit and complain, and don't try to
	prove themselves against the beliefs of the discriminators.  This
	is pure laziness.  Even when I've started at a disadvantage, I've
	worked to prove my competence and ability and have managed to
	succeed.

	A person who behaves poorly, is lazy, is counter-productive is
	by their own achievements (or lack thereof) not worth protecting.
	Yes, it would be nice, in an ideal world, to all be treated
	equally, but since that won't happen fully in our lifetimes, we
	need to work with the system and this means that those of us
	that are disadvantaged have to work harder to prove ourselves.
	For every 10 that work to improve this situation by proving
	ourselves, there is 1 (and here I'm being generous in many
	situations) who abuses the AA advantage or shows no appreciation
	for the minority assistance programs who will hurt the cause
	more than the others help.  These are the people who cause the
	problems and are themselves the problem.

>>fit this description as there are blacks -- the difference is that
>>the whites are unemployed more often and for longer periods.

>This is an out and out falsehood, for by any measure, black unemployment
>exceeds white unemployment.  White unemployment is on the increase
>because corporations don't care; they'll use technology to ship the jobs
>where the wages are lowest.  But black unemployment is ratcheting
>upward as well.  I suggest that certain parties, from incompetent
>banking managements to Meestar Bush himself, would prefer us to fight
>each other instead of asking for (1) more jobs, or (2) more unemployment
>assistance and retraining, or (3) more jobs at lower pay, with lower
>prices.  Or better, just not draining ourselves and (in T. S. Eliot's
>words) "mocking ourselves with falsehood" about Affirmative Action, and
>instead engaging in constructive projects to improve our lives.

	I think that what Andrew was trying to point out is that
	if you are in the majority, incompetence is punished, but if
	you are in the minority, incompetence is not necessarily
	punished.  It is a real shame with so many minority members
	who deserve the chance and who have the potential that they
	are passed over for minority members who abuse the system
	and hurt the minority cause.

>Well, we've heard from the guys in the mailroom.  Thanks.

	What makes you any better a judge than he?  This kind of arrogant
	condescension is totally unnecessary.  Just because you work
	higher up does not make you any more informed or better able to
	judge than the mail room clerk.  It just shows that morons can
	get any kind of job these days.

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc