>From: "Olga Bourlin" <fauxever@sprynet.com>
>The way some people have chosen to describe "racist" on this list
>is by calling "racist" those people tending to be compassionate
>and trying to figure out solutions to the problems still plaguing
>us all as a result of legally-sanctioned racism of just a
>generation ago (e.g., the inimitable Mike Lorrey has written
>"[But] there are different types of racists as well. Those who
>think that someone needs to meet a lower standard just because of
>their skin color to get the same job or to be accepted into
>college, or someone who thinks that someone who is 7 generations
>separated from their enslaved ancestors deserves 'reparations', is
>themselves a racist"). Ahem, not 7 generations ago, Mikey -
>granted, hundreds of years of "enslaved ancestors" came before 100
>years of de jure segregation, but the latter practice was alive
>and kicking a tad over a generation ago. Not to mention that de
>facto bigotry still exists.
I think your mixing issues here, slavery and its end is a
completely different issue then as you put it "de jure segregation"
is.
Therefore reparations and the need to address involuntary
segregation are seperate issues. What about voluntary segregation?
>I realize that trying to get through to Mr. Lorrey is like trying
>to draw blood from a rock, but it occurred to me that in
>attempting to pose as "colorblind," some people want to have it
>both ways. If a person notices that our society is not
>colorblind, well, that's "racist," you see? Even if our society
>(made up of individuals, many of whom are bigotted) were suddenly
>to become "colorblind" overnight, that still wouldn't take care of
>the sad legacy we've all been left with. But the fact remains our
>society (again, consisting of many bigotted individuals) is not
>"colorblind." The
>people who have accused some of us on this list for being "PC" -
>have designed their own libertarian[?] form of "PC," those clever
>rascals. Cross it, and you-yourself are a "racist," you see! If
>I may make a CL observation, at this point: "...how
>conveeeeeee-nient."
In the attempt to correct past and current issues about race,
otherwise well meaning individuals have created new ones as any
white male can tell you.
Two wrongs don't make a right. ( but three lefts do. ;) )
>So, certainly, if even so much as noticing that we have a "race"
>problem makes us "racist," then we're all "racist." But then that
>boils the word down to utter meaninglessness. Dear me, what a
>conundrum the Mikeys of the world have left for us poor
>bleeding-hearted knee-jerking types. Be concerned about the
>problem of "racism" in our country - what? you say
>you're not colorblind? - then you're a racist! Express a desire
>to help the underprivileged - what? you say you're not
>colorblind? then you must be a racist!
There is current discrimination against white males, which we are
not going to ignore as we address these issues.
>"Colorblind" would work if our society were truly colorblind.
>"Racism" would not need work if our society were not racist. But
>until we are free of "racism," we who are concerned about its
>problems don't have the luxury of being "colorblind." And I
>submit that that's not "racist," in the generally accepted
>understanding of the word.
One of the problems is that we have not agreed on what "racism and
Racist" mean on this list. There are for example those who claim it
has only to do with genetics.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:03 MDT