Originally Posted by roachboy

but i really don't see the "double standard" in this.

that's one of the main arguments that's run through the thread--you maintain it is, others disagree, you ignore the criticisms and act as though the characterization makes sense.
i don't think it does make sense and the post i put up a few days ago about the different weights attached to "african-american" and "white" in the states was *about* this characterization and it's logic.

that this judge cleared the court of all but african-americans ENACTS the particular ways in which the category african-american (or a substitute) functions culturally in the states.
that's it.

"white" (or a substitute) simply doesn't have the same range of possible uses.

its not a double standard--it's a use of language that reflects differing historical experiences in the states.

you might not like it--hell, who really likes the fact that the present is shaped by the past when that past is as ugly as that of the history of racism in america?---but that doesn't change what this is.


you'd prefer, it seems, to see in the rejection of your characterization of this as an example of a double standard something more or other than what it is--that i don't understand, but i suppose it's your prerogative--you seem to think, though, that rejecting your characterization is a defense of double-standards or "division" or "hatred" of "negativity" or whatever--and that makes no sense to me.

you just picked a bad example: it's a mistake.
everyone does something similar at one point or another.