From: galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,soc.culture.asian.american,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: 1 white male among new San Jose firemen of 22
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:00:48 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

> In article <yBLgoB2w164w@netlink.cts.com> galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) 
> >mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
> 
> >> >The idea is not -- repeat, *NOT* -- to have whites experience the
> >> >pains of racism simply because they are white. It never was. The
> >> >idea was/is to let the victimizer (TRANSLATION: those whites who
> >> >hold racist attitudes and engage in racist conduct) walk in the shoes
> >> >of the victim (TRANSLATION: the non-whites on the receiving end of
> >> >such attitudes and conduct) in the hope that the victimizer will
> >> >awaken to the evil s/he is doing...and desist.
> 
> >> Greg, how do you intend to distinguish between racist and non-racist
> >> whites for this purpose?  Seems to me like this is a really pathetic
> >> rationalization of racism.  Maybe we should beat up Blacks because
> >> Blacks have a higher crim rate than Whites.  The ideas is not --
> >> repeat, *NOT* -- to have blacks experience the pains of crime simply
> >> because they are black. It never was.  The idea was/is to let the
> >> victimizer (TRANSLATION: those blacks who commit crimes) walk in the
> >> shoes of the victim (TRANSLATION: the non-blacks on the receiving end
> >> of such conduct) in the hope that the victimizer will awaken to the
> >> evil s/he is doing...and desist.
> 
> >What's pathetic, Michael, is your attempted analogy...
> 
> Actually, Greg, I think you must have found it rather telling.
> Otherwise you would not have found it necessary to delete the part of
> the post describing the original situation.

Actually, Michael, I deleted it because I didn't see fit to waste time
or space on it.
> 
> >On the other hand, I wouldn't have much problem with black criminal
> >suspects experiencing some of the emotional trauma they inflict on 
> >their victims -- especially given the fact that the overwhelming
> >majority of their victims are black, anyway.
> 
> Fine, but given that the policy in question - discrimination against
> whites - does not single out racsists - why should we single our
> criminals when we do a policy against Blacks?

 The whole point was and is to single out racists, Michael. You're not 
paying attention.
> 
> >Although
> >I don't think I'd have much trouble identifying racists who were
> >eligible for it. In fact, that's the only aspect of it that *is*
> >workable. 
> 
> Really?  So how do you do it?  Anyone whose political views you don't
> like?  Anyone who votes for David Duke?  Jesse Helms?  Pat Buchanan?
> George Bush?
> 
> >> >It is about finding a way to induce certain people to desist from
> >> Which people?  How do you plan to identify them?
> 
> I repeat the question.

Well, Michael, I might start with the person who leaves pictures of burning 
crosses and KKK's in my mailbox at work. I might add to the list the 
landlords over the years who told me they have apartment rady to rent when I 
telephoned them, only to tell me scant minutes minutes later (after seeing
me for the first time), that those places were already rented...and *then*
telling a white friend who followed immediately behind me that the same
apartment was, indeed, available. I might throw in the management of the
companies that paid me less than whites with less experience, less training 
and doing a lesser job.
 
And for old time's sake, I just might add the high school teacher who
used to spend the bulk of his teaching time in my predominantly black high  
school telling us that we were all "good for nothing," that the boys would 
all grow up to be drug addicts, burglars and pimps, and the girls would
grow up to be alcoholics, welfare mothers and whores.

If you care to quibble with any of those, go right ahead.

Note, though, that none of those examples are cited solely because of their
ethnicity, or their neighborhood of residence, or their income level, or
their political affiliation.  There is, however, a common thread for all
of them -- discriminatory or even downright abusive behavior, with race
as the criterion for their choice of victims.
 
In a perfect world, those are the people who would be my candidates to
spend some time in my shoes. 

But of course, were this a perfect world, this entire discussion would be
be moot, because racism would not exist in the first place.

Frankly, Michael, it gives me no joy to hear that qualified whites lose
out on certain jobs. I don't think anyone ever viewed AA as some sort
of cure-all for this country's racial woes. But AA, with all its
headaches, is but a symptom of the original problem -- racism.
eliminate that, and the need for such flawed attempts at short-
term remedial solutions no longer exists.
 
Unfortunately, too many people would rather focus on the evils of
AA, or the evils of welfare, etcetera ad nauseum, then try to attack
the root of those evils. That being the case, we figure to be having
this discussion for a long time.
G.

--
Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
San Diego Union-Tribune         (619) 293-1270 (voice)
P.O. Box 191                    (619) 293-2333 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92112-4106        galan@netlink.cts.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky ca.politics:6138 talk.politics.guns:18329