I wrote, in reply to Olga
>> No one denies that racism exists.
>> [Sorry -- I shouldn't exaggerate.
>> Someone somewhere probably does.]
>> But some people call racist the
>> belief that not all groups are
>> exactly equal to all other
>> groups in every way ...
and she replied
> I also call racist the tendency
> of white people not to want to
> take any responsibility for the
> egregious crimes against blacks
> in the USA.
Well, I totally disagree with your
partial definition. I've never
committed any crime against black
people, and absolutely refuse to
take any responsibility for such.
You can't force me to take resp-
onsibility for acts committed by
other people who look like me.
That's really "guilt by association".
> If blacks had had the same opportunities
> as whites, without those generations
> upon generations of families which were
> torn from each other at will (shifted
> about and sold to the highest bidder),
> used as sex slaves, denied education,
> self-determination, dignity and person-
> hood - only to be shunned and excluded
> after the end of slavery for several
> more generations ... if you don't think
> that that may just be one of the
> contributing reasons why "not all
> groups are exactly equal to all other
> groups in every way ..."
But I do believe that it was a
> you're right [presumably about all groups
> being unequal]. But who's responsible for
> this state of affairs?
> And think about this: if whites had
> gone through what blacks had to go
> through for those hundreds of years,
> our "pecking" order may have been
> in reverse order at this stage of
> the game.
There is no doubt about it. Color
of skin can't be magical.
>> One thing you never responded to, Lee, and that was my quip about George W.
>> Bush. Even though I was being sarcastic, it was still a serious question.
>> I read loud and clear that you are opposed to affirmative action. But, you
>> see, we have affirmative action for white people (that's what I meant to
>> imply when I said that George W. Bush is an Affirmative Action Baby
>> ("AAB")). Why aren't you opposed to affirmative action for white people?
>> Did George W. Bush get into the White House on his own merit? Or is he
>> (gasp ... groan ... slap on forehead!) an ... AAB?
Affirmative action, in the case of
education, means including people
of one group at the expense of
people of another group who have
higher scores, simply because
people in the first group have
the wrong skin color, or other
I am opposed to affirmative action for
white people. (E.g., at Berkeley, where
going just by scores, 60% of the students
would be Chinese, even though they are
only 7% of the population.) I am opposed
to affirmative action for any group.
George W. Bush may have been favored
because of his father's influence, and
I think that he may have had other
advantages independent of his ability.
(Please take that sentence literally---
every word counts. Please don't read
any more into it than is there. Thanks.)
But since he was not discriminated for
or against in his admission to college
because of his group (i.e., race, eth-
nicity, or religious background) I don't
see why you would call that affirmative
action. Moreover, "AA" is a policy,
implemented in the U.S. for the first
time in the 1960's. I do not think it
quite correct to say that because Jews
were discriminated against, in the 1920s
for college admission, that there was
a policy of affirmative action in favor
of whites; it's simply true that Jews
were discriminated *against*.
The words "affirmative action" came
from government bureaucrats who came
up with a euphemism for "favoring
people of one particular race at the
expense of other people". It was
later broadened to mean "favoring
people of any race besides caucasian".
So, no, George W. Bush is not an AAB,
despite his many "unfair" advantages.
Thank you for actually quoting the
question that I had omitted to answer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:58 MDT