From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Institutional racism 
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 08:25:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.121038.1@milori.ccit.arizona.edu> ohall@milori.ccit.arizona.edu writes:
>In article <BzF9LA.CD7@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec15.092141.1@milori.ccit.arizona.edu> ohall@milori.ccit.arizona.edu writes:
>>>In article <BzAvB2.38v@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>>> In less-integrated places (places where mixed marriages are more rare) such
>>>> a relationship would probably attract some attention, but do you really
>>>> think it would get you fired?
 
>>>  Why should they chance it?  
 
>> My point was that the chances of any significant trouble are pretty low
>> in most places.  You might be stared at is you dated an especially handsome
>> man, or one 7 feet tall or one with a skin blemish.  Taking too much offense
>> at such behavior means you are going to miss out on some good potential
>> friends.

>  In most places you say.  Funny how Arizona is the next state over from 
>  California and there seems to be drastic differences between the attitudes
>  of the inhabitants.

What are you talking aobut?  Are you saying that everyone in Arizona is a 
racist?

>  Where are these "most places"?  I thought I lived in America.  What
>  difference should it make what state you live in?

It SHOULDN'T make any difference.  Unfortunately in some places it does make
a little difference.  My point is that if people would stop whipping up
racist sentiments and separatism, this will continue to improve as it has
been for many years now.  If you disagree and want to live in some 
racist enclave apart from other races, then quit harping on it and go live your
life elsewhere.
 
>> Why should you let some bigot tell you how to live YOUR life anyway?  I
>> wouldn't.

> Gee, wish more of the slaves would have taken that attitude while they were in
> slavery. 

Me too.  Eventually, many of them did (those who fought for the union), and
did again (those who demanded civil rights later).  This country has a long
history of supporting such ideas, and not just on the basis of race.

>  I wish more blacks would take that attitude in general.  I don't let bigots
>  dictate my life.  However, they attempt to in more ways than one. 
>  Consequently, I think it's best to split.  With some economic benefits 
>  ofcourse.

What benefits do you get by refusing to deal with white people (the non-racist
ones, I mean)?

>>>  Besides who enjoys being stared at because you 
>>>  are married to one of another race.  This nation is terribly behind.  It
>>>  hurts and it is sick!
 
>> But don't you think things are getting better over time?  What worries me 
>> is that more and more people are abandoning the idea that race isn't
>> important.  Schools are teaching that people of different races think
>> differently, act differently, have different faults, virtues, and reasons
>> for historical guilt.  Such racist ideas cannot help but slow or reverse the
>> progress made since the 1950's.

>  The process is tremendously slow.  It is obvious this nation is headed for
>  another revoulution.  I don't like the idea and I hope no one else does.  
>  However, it seems necassary, but it's no way to live every X number of years.  
A revolution is a change in government.  What would you have the government do
differently than it is currently doing?

>  I hoped the movement of the 60's would have encouraged most citizens to go
>  about the process of integration naturally, but that's not the case, and now
>  it's too late, as far as I'm concerned.  Integration!  It ain't worth
>  fighting for, not here.

But people HAVE integrated considerably!  I don't think we have a color-blind
society yet, but I think it's a lot closer today than it was 20 years ago
and I think it's a worthy goal...one I am working toward.

>> OK then, if that's what you think, why oppose interracial dating/marriage?
 
>  I don't oppose it.  In the eyes of the world or god I don't believe it's 
>  wrong, but in the eyes of America, that's a different story.  

But for MOST Americans, it IS OK!  

By the way, as an advocate of separatism, aren't you saying that it would be
best if there were no interracial relationships?  You are saying just the same
kinds of things as the white bigots are?

>  Merry Christmas America!!!!
>  Happy birthday Mr. Predjudice!!!!

There certainly is racism in this country, but I think that to characterize
the national attitude as racist is wrong.  MOST people people want to be 
fair.  MOST people are either non-racist or trivially so.  Why dwell on the
negative?  Why not just work on trying to clean up the remnants of evil rather
than pronounce them as omnipotent?

>> It takes time for cultural norms to change.  If you know of any ways to
>> accelerate this, I'd be happy to listen, but we DO know ways of making
>> change, and you can see the past progress.  What frustrates me is when I
>> make the case for individual rights and why racial minorities need to be
>> included in that principle, and many minorities argue with me that they 
>> don't WANT equal rights (they want special treatment and favors from the
>> government instead).

>  I have also seen the past and present regression as well!
>  I am all for equal rights.  

I should point out that this sort of thing is exactly what the opponents of 
affirmative action programs predicted would happen, by the way (the regression).

I'm for equal rights too.  Now that that's over, we ought to be able to agree
on a great many further things.

>  I am not for having some national rebellion 
>  everytime rights are being denied.  Like I have stated earlier we could solve
>  this problem permanently by parting.  Had a nice time!!!  Later!

If you want to go live in some racist enclave, quit complaining and go do it.
I give the same suggestion to those Aryan Bortherhood jerks.

>>>> Is it really hell to live near people of other races?  I don't think so.
  
>>>> Would you rather live near people on the basis of their race or on the 
>>>> basis of their ideas?  I'm white, but I don't have any desire to live 
>>>> near Charlie Manson or David Duke.  I would much rather have honest,
>>>> hard-working, tolerant black neighbors than dishonest, lazy white neighbors. 
>>>> It would appear that you would choose differently.  Pretty sad.
  
>>>  Great that you have no problem living next to one of another race, but look
>>>  in your own backyard(Hollywood, L.A.).  It doesn't seem people of all races
>>>  are living together too well.  
 
>> I had looting going on just a couple blocks from my home, and had a chance to
>> see a lot of the action that week last April.  I completely disagree that 
>> the riot was primarily an issue of racial division.  There were plenty of 
>> non-blacks looting those stores, and plenty of blacks who didn't loot at all
>> or burn any buildings.  It was a case of people with no moral conscience
>> robbing others vs. their victims.  This was made worse by the fact that the
>> police refused to even TRY to fight the riot.  To paint all blacks as the
>> perpetrators of these crimes and all of the victims as whites (or koreans)
>> is factually false and is a misanalysis of the whole situation.  I was there.

>  What?  Please!!!  I lived in L.A. for a year.  I spoke to many blacks and
>  there is definitely a race problem.  I even experienced it myself.  

I STILL live here and I lived through the riots.  It appears that you have
accepted some misconceptions about the riots.  (I don't blame you, the
press was quite misleading on several points.

>  Read some
>  of my past postings.  Are you trying to say every time you get groups of
>  people from various minority groups together burning down buildings and 
>  looting, in the U.S., that they are just hoods or immoral?  

My primary point was that this is not what was going on in April.  There 
were plenty of non-blacks looting and burning, and there were plenty of
owners of buildings which were looted and burned who were blacks.  It may
have started out as a racial thing, but it ended up being a free-for-all.

In the case of the LA riots, every person who was out burning and looting 
was an immoral hood.  Every last one, no matter what his race, income, or
neighborhood.

>  History proves
>  otherwise.  I hate to break your bubble, but there were many of people who 
>  weren't rioting, yet supported the rioters.  

Sure.  So what?  There were lots of people (FAR more) who were sickened by the
whole thing.

>  The white collar minorities
>  certainly weren't going to get down in the ghetto and start rioting, but many
>  of them were down.  

I saw plenty of white color minorities (and other minorities, and other whites
and other hispanics...) looting stores and loading the booty into nice new 
BMWs.  I saw this with my own eyes.  Dispite what the media told you, the 
rioting was NOT just in the ghetto, it was NOT just blacks, it was NOT
just white and korean-owned businesses being attacked, and it was not just
poor folks.

>  Many celebrities supported the riot and felt it was
>  justified.  

I know.  They were being incredibly immoral in doing so.  Are you saying that
just because a few celebrities supported these thugs, they were justified
in burning the city and looting it's businesses?  Incredible!

>  I won't mention any names.

There's no need.  I can name them myself.

>  In case you don't understand what's happening.  The action of the L.A.
>  rioters is just a physical expression from the poor minorities which the more
>  wealthy minorities can't express in that manner, thus loosing what they have
>  already.  Yet both feel the same way.

Then what were the white and hispanic looters doing?  How can you presume to
speak for the non-rioting blacks?  NONE of my black friends have expressed
the sentiments you are claiming they have.

>>I think that the neighborhoods are MOSTLY segregated by economics, but I agree
>>that some people prefer to live apart from members of other races.  Those
>>folks are pretty irrational.  Do you want to encourage such behavior?  

>  This is America and they have the right to live where they want.  I just
>  wish Diana Ross didn't have to go through housing discrimination when she 
>  attempted to purchase a home in Conneticut, and her neighbors sun did'nt
>  think she was the maid.
>  If she is experiencing this type of discrimination, just imagine what I
>  experience.

Don't know anything about her particular story, but I certainly don't think
she should experience discrimination either, and neither should you.  You
seem to conclude though, that because everything isn't perfect yet, that 
discrimination ought to be made mandatory (as is the case if we adopt a
segregationist policy as you advocate).  If this is bad, wouldn't it be
worse under your scheme?
  
>> Besides, I live in a pretty nice place here in Hollywood and I have lots of 
>> black neighbors.  Where's the big problem?

>  Nice.  I'm glad you're happy.  You're one in a million.

Actually, I think I am very typical.  It's just that "Blacks and Whites Live
Together Peacefully"  is not really headline-grabbing news.

>> Is re-segregation the solution?  I completely disagree.

>  Too bad so do I.  Disagree that is. 

What you are asking for is to have the "Diana Ross" experience made mandatory
for everyone.  That's a not a solution, it an intense example of the problem!

If you want to live in some racist enclave, please be my guest, just don't
try forcing it on me.

--Brian
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc