quote:

---

It is interesting that the people who are most suspicious of "race" issues made public are those who benefit most clearly from the system that keeps America racialized to their own benefit.

---

quote:

---

What is the underlying (maybe even subconscious) fear here? Are we worried that too many nonwhites might "take advantage" of us if we got "too soft" on racial issues? Yeah, I suppose, its not like we've got a history of taking advantage of other people groups or anything....

---

Are you kidding? I applaud the fact of those statistics above that I quoted where minorities are bettering their lives through economic means. Poverty is a form of oppression. As a matter of fact, the people that one would have to worry about "taking advantage" of caucasians would probably be Asians. Most Americans complain about them taking over their companies and buying up everything. Now that's who I'd worry about.

But, no. I don't have a history of taking advantage of other people. As a matter of fact I have been taken advantaged of and have been the brunt of a racist slurs a few times in my life and childhood. Anyhoo...shit happens.

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

quote:

---

Modes: let me ask you a question: what do you believe the responsibility of the victim of racism is, in your view? What should they do? How should they react? How should they live their lives? What should they do with the racism they encounter in their lives? What is their responsibility towards their own lives?

---

quote:

---

To Brandon and Writerdad:
Do you believe that racism still exists in America?
If so, what are you actively doing to counter it?

---

Well I think this is a fair question.

First, I don’t live in America, so there is not much that I can do over there. Aaaand because I live in Canada, my experience over here is different from yours over there. It seems most blacks/ African Americans (and I refer to that particular ethnic group because it is the most vocal concerning racism) over here don’t have the hang ups that they have over there. I think there are various reasons for this. Regardless of those reasons, I think Canada is more of a “melting pot” than the U.S., especially Toronto. As a matter of fact Christianity Today Magazine (CT Mag) had an article on that some years ago.

But over here, it don’t matter if you are black, white, Asian, Ethiopian, or Martian no how. We are all struggling to get by. The biggest race problems we have over here are between Aboriginals and the government and between English speaking Canada and French speaking Canada.

Still, my experience with African Americans over here is quite positive. As a matter of fact, this past year I was asked to sing with a black gaaaaspal choir and lets just say…(cough)…I held my own. My bra-thaaaars were quite impressed. When I lived in Dallas? I sang at a black church there as well. Those people there? They didn’t know what hit ‘em. They didn’t know this white-boy COULD SING!!.

I think they were jealous.

I said all that to say this.

That to the degree that there is segregation between races, there will be tensions of the same proportions.

I lessen that (tension) in my own life personally, by hanging with those (having friends, acquaintances, etc) who are of a different ethnic group or have been the subject of some form of oppression, this includes homosexuals as well. Mine you, I don’t do this all the time? But I certainly will not pass up the opportunity when it presents itself.

Some people have romantic notions about saving the world, messianic tendencies is what I call them. But then they hate their neighbour. Huh.

But there are other non-personal ways in which to fight against injustice. There is the political. Because some problems are politically based. For example, there is such a thing as reverse racism or sexism. People of merit are denied certain jobs or promotions because of unjust quota laws. You can’t even begin to tell what future problems are in store for a society when laws like these are being passed.

For example, the transformation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into a group entitlement law rather than an antidiscrimination law was completed in Johnson v. Transportation Agency; Santa Clara Clara County

In that situation the Agency adopted an Affirmative Action Plan that applied, among other things, to employee promotions. The rationale went like this:

That the “…mere prohibition of discriminatory practices is not enough to remedy the effects of past practices and to permit attainment of an equitable representation of minorities, women and handicapped persons.”

The plan permitted consideration of a person’s membership in one of these groups in making decisions about employment and promotion. The persons to be favoured because of membership in a named group were not persons who had been discriminated against. Nor was there any showing that there had been any discrimination against any persons in the past. Preference for individuals was given simply because the group to which he or she belonged was not “equitably” (read “proportionately”) represented in a job category.

Well, along comes Paul Johnson and Diane Joyce. In order to get a job promotion to the position of road dispatch, one had to score above 70. Johnson tied a scored at 75 (with someone) else and Joyce 73. Johnson was given a second interview by three supes who later recommended him for the promotion.

Joyce. What did she do? She runs off to the Affirmative Action Office which then communicated with the agency’s Affirmative Action Coordinator who in turn recommended that Joyce receive the promotion. Guess what. You got it. She got-the- job.

Nobody claimed the recommendation of Johnson was discriminatory.

Joyce, on the other hand received the promotion because she was female. There had not been a female road dispatcher, and the agency wanted a “balanced” work force. Justice Brennan upheld the preference. He said that it would “effect a gradual improvement in the representation of minorities and women in the Agency’s work force” and that “Such a plan is fully consistent with Title VII, for it embodies the contribution that voluntary employer action can make in eliminating the vestiges of discrimination in the work place.”

So taking sex or ethnicity into account is consistent with the statue because it is contributing to eliminating vestiges of discrimination. But as was said, no discrimination had been shown. The trial court found as a fact that there had been none. As one legal scholar notes, “But these days discrimination in the past is assumed. That assumption is then used to justify actual discrimination in the present.”

Johnson won a promotion because of his merits, then lost it because of his sex.

The statute if you look at it, talks about unlawful employment practice of an employer to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual or otherwise to discriminate against and to limit, segregate or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This could not be plainer.

What happened to Johnson violated the statute. His employer discriminated against him because of his sex.

Many feared that it would allow reverse discrimination and discrimination against whites and males in favour of blacks and females. Senator Hubert Humphrey denied that such discrimination would be legal. But he had to make these assurances to make the statute pass.

Among other things, that activist court had the willingness to undo that contract and award a victory to one side that it could not win democratically. And according to legal scholars that statute will not be repaired by new legislation. To try to bring Title VII back to it’s original meaning would result in a major political war, with the opposition charging hostility to “civil rights,” if not outright sexism and racism.

It doesn’t make any sense or justice at all to sacrifice a white or a male who did not inflict discrimination to advance the interests of a black or a female who did not suffer discrimination. No old injustice is undone, but a new injustice is inflicted.

Now. How has this moved society? What are future problems? It is one of quotas for groups, regardless of individual merit. The goal of the plan was to mirror the racial and sexual composition of the entire county labour force in every individual job category at the agency. Something that would not come about naturally. As Martin Mayers says:

“[N]ondiscrimination became equal opportunity became affirmative action became goals became quotas became ‘equality of outcomes.’”

This progression was/is so powerful that a Court majority could be persuaded to hold that a statute means the opposite of what its words say and proponents promise.

To say that the government may impose quotas does not answer the crucial question of quotas for whom? Johnson attacked the plan because the quotas excluded him. Some future group may choose to attack the government on the ground that his or her group deserved a quota as much as the favoured group and may not be treated differently by government. And believe me. This has already happened.

One American of Slavic descent pointed out that those Slavic groups had lower proportional representation among college students than did blacks. Do you see what is going on here? The extension is hard to resist. It becomes impossible to see why all groups whose proportion in employment, college or what have you falls below its proportion of the population should not benefit from the principle.

There is the problem of an endless number of groups. We may talk as “blacks” or “whites” but there is a great diversity within each of those groups and even within such subgroups as Slavs or Catholics or Jews. Government can’t single out these groups for less favourable treatment, but of course it does just that when it excludes them from the list of groups that get more favourable treatment. As pertaining lawsuits, which could be huge, the courts will have to decide that government can’t give preferences according to sex or ethnicity, or that it can discriminate as it wishes or the courts themselves will have to decide which groups are entitled to preferential quotas and which are not. These latter two options could hardly be more at odds with the promise of the equal protection clause, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Indeed, even America itself.

So, now, let me do this. Let me throw this question at you. Do you believe that racism still exists in America? If so, what are you actively doing to counter it?

I wonder what the most loving thing to do in this situation would be?


Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War







Edited by - BBBCanada on 07/17/2002 6:57:21 PM