a color blind society?
 

i hear the term 'color blind society' thrown around a lot by someone on my school's pipeline (an uber-neocon) whenever affirmative action and other entitlement programs come up. i got to noticing that i really seem to only to hear that phrase from conservatives, people who are anti-affirmative action.

my question is this:

what is a color blind society and why do we want it?

i really don't understand that so i'd like to hear your opinions on this.

Sounds like they're using it as a feel-good term to justify eliminating social welfare programs.

And it's a nice idea. Sure, it'd be great if society was color-blind. Only problem is: it's not. You can't alter a dozen generations of institutitutional racism by pretending race doesn't exist.

I think this is exactly what it is... Let's pretend things are all equal so that we can cut spending on these programs that don't help "us".

quick excerpt from a paper i wrote...

colorblind people are those who do not see racial differences, even when race is being constructed and deployed to repress people. They will blame minority group members for focusing on the hurts of the past, and for not participating in the supposedly discrimination free present.

basically, it's a technical term to describe something very negative. the study i based that paper on (Burkard and Knox, 2004), saw that if a color blind pyschologist was given a situation where a freshman was having problems fitting in, they more frequently blamed the person for wrongly perceiving racial discriminatiopn. if the freshman was white? the colorblind shrinks were more likely to tell the patient that the other students were responsible. Exact same wording, exact same letter. And these people knew that they were participating in some kind of study. Even that level of self awareness and training was not enough to counter the problems of being tone deaf to racial issues.

Racism and other forms of discrimination are subltle, hard to deconstruct, and trying to take shortcuts, or just declare premature victory....it doesn't work.

A color blind society is one where the only people who benefit from racial discrimination are white people.

I don't believe that "color-blind society" means anything. It suggests an unfocused ideal, without specifying any benefit. Moreover, in the phrase, color is inferred to be a negative thing (something to which we need to be "blind"), which is ridiculous in and of itself.

The assumption is apparently that darker people (of "color) receive disproportionate benefits due to their "color". Lighter-skinned people should therefore resent and eradicate those benefits.

Of course, race, religion, and class issues are blithely ignored when one focuses on color.

Oh, please. :rolleyes: Last I checked, "white" is also a color and so would be something that idealists wishing for a color-blind society would want to be blind of. It is a simple term, not one that needs to be dissected for secret hidden neo-nazi racist agenda.

Using a term like "colour-blind" misses the point entirely. People are not racisits just because the society they hate (fear) is a different colour. All that matters is there is a DIFFERENCE.

No matter how small or insignificant that difference is, humans will find it, and make up an excuse to hate a group for it. It's simple human nature.

Look at the Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda... both groups are black and yet find reason to murder each other based or race distinctions that 99% of people cannot even see.

I always thought the term "color-blind society" was a good thing until I read this thread. So I did a few google searches and found that the term is used by some to justify eliminating affirmative action type programs. But it is also used by others to praise the ideals of Martin Luther King.

The Meaning of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday, By Coretta Scott King
In the following article the writer uses the term "color-blind" to emphasize integration vs. desegregation.
Martin Luther King’s Vision

Yes, white is a color, and there is still no explanation in this thread why anyone would want to be blind to white and other colors sociologically. Just closing your metaphorical eyes to the problem doesn't erase the problem and the circumstances underlying it. Is it also desirable to have a religion-blind society? I think the suggestion of having a "color-blind" society clearly implies an ideal. Please explain it!

I like the King quotes very much. I think the relevant point here is what "color-blind" implied to a black civil-rights leader 40 years ago, and what the term means to "uber-neocons" that hannukah harry refers to. The directions of the phrases are very different, aren't they?

Yeah, I guess so. I was in high school when King gave most of his speeches. Maybe I'm old fashioned but no one since has been able to match the quality of his words and the ideals he expressed.

"Color-blind" is just a fancy way of saying that all races are treated equally. The issue that many liberals have with the concept is that it completely fails to address the issue of past race discrimination. This accusation is entirely true, but those that level it are missing a crucial point.

Affirmative action and other programs of that ilk are reverse discrimination programs, explicitly. They look at the "color" of an applicant or candidate and treat that person differently based on racial considerations. In modern times, this is done under the guise of helping races that have been systematically discriminated against.

So why would having a color-blind admissions process (at a college, for example) be preferable to undoing centuries of racial hatred through Affirmative Action?

The simple answer is that nothing, not even AA, is able to counter racism. I'll elaborate: the people who design an AA program must decide the amount of disadvantage members of Race A are exposed to. Then, this same handicap is applied (non-numerically now) to each applicant of that race. The obvious problem is that not all members of a particular race are equally discriminated against.

The goal of AA (ideally) should be providing fairness to individual members of a race, rather than trying to lift up a race as a whole. Thus, the AA approach is excessively blunt. A case example:

John is white. Steve is black. David is black.

John is from West Virginia. His family is extremely poor. His high school was of very low quality. Steve is from Southern California. His family is middle class. He attended a high-quality private high school. David is from Sierra Leon. His family is upper class. He attended a high-quality private high school in Sierra Leon.

John is treated exactly the same way as all the wealthier, better educated white applicants because, speaking in general terms, white people are wealthier than black people.

Steve receives the same handicap as the black students who grew up in the inner city attending failing schools because, speaking in general terms, black children live in poor, urban areas and have poor educational opportunities.

David receives the same handicap as the black students who grew up in the inner city attending failing schools because, speaking in general terms, black children live in poor, urban areas and have poor educational opportunities.

John receives no advantage based on his circumstances because it is just assumed that, as a white person, he doesn't need or deserve an advantage.

Steve receives a handicap despite the fact that he is as well educated and as wealthy as his white peers. Racism has not played a major role in his life, but the fact that he is black is enough for him to receive special treatment.

David receives a handicap despite the fact that he is from a country where black people are in the vast majority. His background is far more privileged than the majority of his white peers. On top of that, he has not suffered from anti-black racism because he was raised in a black society. Nonetheless, the AA program rewards him with a handicap.

So you see, AA targets race as the cause of non-competitiveness in school admissions (and other things). But in reality, race is just a factor that is correllated with the actual causes of the non-competitiveness:
1. school quality
2. familial wealth
3. wealth of neighboring families
4. access to reading materials...

...the list goes on.

Color-blindness is attractive because it bans "reverse-racism" as an acceptible policy choice. I think we all can agree that, in an ideal world, AA would not exist: it is a rather distasteful means to the end of racial equality. The time has come for us to take a step back and consider whether we would be better served by directly confronting the factors that make students unable to succeed rather than pretending that being black automatically makes you hopelessly unable to compete with your white peers.

Yep, depends on who says it, and their applications. I think distinction is related to questions of social / civil liberties (we should all have them) or socio-economic distinctions (they exist). So I'm all about a society where we can all pee together in harmony at the trough at the football game; I'm not about a society where pretending that generational issues of poverty/discrimination etc aren't at least tied to race.

I'm not liberal, but the problem with this "Color-blind" society idea is that it doesn't address current discrimination (along with the lingering effects of past discrimination). It baffles me how many people seem to assume that racism is something that you only read about in history books. Racism (and it's aftereffects) linger to this very day. You can see evidence of it in any black community.

And by the government treating people differently based on color you continue this racism.

An acceptable and desirable version of "colorblind", to me, is this:

Responding to racial injustice justly and not racially.

One obvious consequence being an anti-affirmative action stance.

I don't have a lot of time to say what others have said, but a few points:

In the same way justice is supposed to be blind, so should we be (color)blind sociologically. If there is current discrimination, then by definition we aren't. It doesn't matter if that discrimination is the traditional kind against minorities or the sociably fashonable kind against white men; it's still discrimination.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, how anyone can defend one type of discrimination to "correct" past discrimination boggles the mind and defies logic.

Since MLK was quoted in here, I encourage people to google and research what he had to say about affirmative action. He was supportive of it, is your clue.

-- http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm25.htm

-- http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html

I quoted a couple of King references in answer to the original poster's question as to why some people use the term "color-blind" and to show that it is not always a bad term when it refers to the goal of an integrated society.

I was in no way attempting to use his words in an effort to support anti AA sentiment, although I suspect if he was alive today he would be disappointed with both the pro and con advocates.

smooth...thanks for posting that. it's a smart piece, and one that needs to be heard.

I would expand that to say: racism is indeed very much alive and heavily present everywhere and not just confined to the black community - it is everywhere, in all our communities (black people do not have a monopoly on being victims of racism, it's everywhere).

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/12/fir...ion=cnn_latest

So much for "heros" or the "bravest".

Well here's a decidedly more liberal guy who buys into that concept.

We complain and complain that when we see a black person the first thing we think of is the color of their skin, yet we then have federally mandated programs that REQUIRE employers to consider the color of applicant's skin in order to meet racial quotas.

Besides, fixing a wrong (judging people based on the color of their skin) is never justifiably corrected by using the same wrong.

Let's remember MLK did not say he had a dream about a society where the government forced people to hire minorities regardless of qualifications. He said he had a dream that people would be judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. We must have a colorblind society in order to realize that dream.




You need to check the definition of colorblind. A colorblind person can still see. He won't ignore things that have colors. He just can't tell the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN the colors. In other words, it doesn't matter to him if something is red or green, it's all equal in his eyes. Doesn't sound like a bad concept to me. . . .




And on a side note, I'm really sick of people saying stuff like "yeah I was down in that neighborhood where all the black people live. . . I'm not racist or anything, I'm just saying. . . " Yes, if you make statements like that, you ARE racist.

Of course not, but I have the most direct knowledge of racism against blacks. It's also the most institutionally ingrained in America.

As for AA being discrimination against white men, I say tough. As far as I see things, it's better than the alternate (assuming that equality is something desired). Elimintating discrimination is impossible, so the best we can do is make sure that it's effects are lessened.

And personally, I find white people complaining about racism in America ridiculous, absurd, and offensive. This is a country build upon whites taking advantage of others, and now because they see something that might shift the imbalance, they get worried and start complaining (because it's not like AA programs have greatly uplifted blacks or other minorities here).

alansmithee, you find non-discrimination to be ridiculous, absurd and offensive? Whats wrong with having a society built on fair and just treatment where ability rather than race or religion?

Surely affirmitive action is wrong because it is discrimination just because its against a different group of people doesn't make it right.

I'm not complaining about shifting the imbalance. I'm complaining about imbalancing it the other way, and I'm complaining about businesses not being allowed to always choose the best-qualified candidate for a job.

If a black and a white guy apply for a job and the white guy is a little more qualified, but the business hasn't met its AA quota, guess who gets hired? That's bad for business and it's bad for the concept of racial harmony.

If a white guy finds out he lost out on a job because of the color of his skin, he's gonna be every bit as pissed off as the black guy would be. That pissed off attitude is NOT going to result in him embracing diversity.

Plus, AA is just plain damn insulting to minorities. What it says is "You're black and that means you're incapable of getting jobs by yourself, so we're gonna force businesses to give them to you."

That may have been necessary decades ago, but it's not only unnecessary today, it's downright inflamatory.

AA will work if minorities just want a small percentage of the jobs out there and don't care about race relations. But it's gonna fail for three reasons.

1) Eventually whites are going to be a minority because of the number of immigrants. This is already happening in several citites. What happens then? Let's say we have a mix in a city that's, for simplicity sake, 40% white, 60% black. Let's take the most generous AA quota that I'm aware of which requires 25% of a businesses upper management to be black. See the problem here? Theoretically there should be more than 25% of the staff being non-white, but under AA the business can get away with a minority control of a majority population. South Africa tried that and it didn't work very well.

2) Whether you agree with it or not, AA is causing a great deal of rage amongst the white male population. This rage is not conducive to good racial relations, and eventually it's gonna boil over and cause major social problems.

3) AA is inherently flawed. By FORCING diversity on a business you almost guarantee that the business will meet the letter of the law and no more. i.e. "well this black guy is more qualified than the white guy but I've already met that goddamn AA quota and I'll be damned if I go any farther."


It is possible for different races to coexist without constantly thinking about their differences, but it requires steps from both sides. We have to educate the whites that still believe blacks are inferior (their numbers are dwindling rapidly btw) and we also have to stop with the constant cries of racism every time something happens that we don't like.

That stir up over the black and white looter photos during the Gulf Coast flooding is a great example. You'll recall that one was from the AP, the other from the AFP, yet because the black guy was called a looter and the white guy was called a finder, never mind that it was done by two seperate reporters working for two seperate news agencies and uploading their caption to two seperate newswires, people howled that it was racist. I saw it appearing everywhere. Comedy shows, NPR broadcasts, TV, here, and each time you had people who were only too happy to call it racism even though it clearly was not. You can only do crap like that for so long before someone tells you to shut the hell up and stops listening, even when your cries of racism are accurate.

A few months ago we ran a story on my station about a black guy who had killed his daughter with a shotgun. We ran a 40 second story saying he'd been convicted. We got tons of letters telling us we were racist because we hadn't run any stories about white guys being convicted of blowing their kids away with shotguns. Never mind the fact that there werent' any white guys who had done that for us to report on, we're still racist.

It's crap like that that begins to piss people off, and that is not the way to go about furthering racial relations.

If we could just get past this stupid concept that race matters at all, our society would be a lot better off, and that's where the AA apologists who say "well that won't happen so we're going to force people to think about skin color" are creating a self fulfilling prophecy. It's NOT gonna happen as long as you force people to think about skin color. AA embodies the concept that "people suck too much to ever make strides toward real equality, so we're just gonna lock the situation down at the atrocious level it is now and never let it improve."

Appallingly stupid if you ask me.

Advantages of Colorblindness:

1. There is no need to terminate it. AA is clearly a temporary program, albeit one that nobody knows when to stop.

2. It isn't racist or reverse racist, so institutions that practice it would not be committing acts of preferential racism themselves.

3. It gives minority applicants the respect they deserve instead of assuming that every single black person is an idiot.

4. It makes white people happy that they are not discriminated against.

If AA was truly about rectifying past discrimination, Asians would receive it. However, because Asian (college) applicants are competitive with white students, they receive no help. Is the motto of AA, "If your race was historically discriminated against and can't seem to bring itself back into competitiveness with white applicants, we will help you. But if you've managed to overcome discrimination and become competitive, we're not giving you anything."?

The designers of AA programs are only human: they make mistakes, they do the wrong thing. Let's do the right thing and take the power of racism out of their hands: let's make race a non-factor.

What are you talking about?
Asians do receive affirmative action benefits. All minorities do...the single largest beneficiaries of AA are white women.

The most vocal opponents of AA are white men, yet they are still the dominant group in all segments of our society.

AA isn't tied down to the idea that "every single black person is an idiot". It's also been motivated, often solely, by the idea that there still exist employers who discriminate on the basis of color. I know this to be true, though I've no idea of the extent. It certainly isn't broadcasted anymore.

I agree with your basic point, though. I think #2 is the most important point of yours.

that's interesting. i'm curious to see if that can be quantified... and if so, what the data actually is.

Assuming a nice big happy world, where bunnies and squirrels lives. Bunnies, way back when, did some mean things. They enslaved the squirrels, and came up with a whole bunch of clap trap science, stereotypes, and ideas to help them cope with that. They actually started to believe that squirrels weren't smart, or able to be trusted.

Fastforward a bit. Squirrls and bunnies are now on equal legal footing. (I'm using a hypothetical, in part because i don't believe that statement to be true in the real world.) They can get jobs, buy homes, etc. But none of them are really in the good old bunnies network. On top of that, becuase bunnies are not used to seeing them succeed, they often assume (and sometimes based on those old, self-justifying ideas the bunnies came up) that squirrels just don't succeed. Some squirrels even beleive this, and under social pressure disidentify with school. The pressure of trying to disprove a sterotype that carries so much weight is distracting and emotionally draining. And so bunnies go on hiring bunnies....

No actual small furry creatures were harmed in this thought experiment. Do not attempt to recreate the history of modern racism with your pets.

Does this sound like a self-righting system? One that will with time, even itself out? Your assertion #2 assumes that the workplace, the school, and other forums of opportunity would be equal opportunity if left to their own devices. Pyschological study of modern racism doesn't bear that out. Most people (regardless of race, ironically) still have some levels of cognitive or affective racism...ideas or emotions that serve as barriers to those percieved as outsiders. Short of dealing with that legacy of institutional slavery...i don't know how you can claim that the system could be self-correcting.

to say that we'll make it a non-factor is unrealistic. it's not something that can be easily made a non-factor. i live in the south, and i can honestly say that there's no amount of "ok, we're going to have a color-blind society" that would make it actually happen here. there's not a lot to be done, short of AA programs, that would make many of the businesses in the area i live hire black people. and even then, the hope of them seeing black people as equals is something that i doubt i'll see happen within my lifetime. so to eliminate these programs, though i disagree with a lot of the ideology behind them, would do nothing more than allow this racism that's not going away in many areas of the country to prevent people from getting jobs.

until society truly is color-blind, which may be many generations from now, race is going to be a factor.

is AA an idea that's inherently flawed? sure... but until someone comes up with something better, it's what we've got, and i think there's at least some merit to it

Where did I say I find non-discrimination ridiculous, absurd and offensive? I said I found white's complaining about racism to be those things. Because they are fine with racism as long as they're the beneficiaries, but if anyone else might get any benefit from their race, whites want to throw a fit. And there is nothing wrong with a society based upon ability and fair and just treatment of it's members without race or religion being involved. Unfortunately, in America we have a society built upon racism and whiteocracy.

Tough. Chances are that white guy didn't care much about diversity in the first place. And there's hundreds of places more than willing to hire qualified white people. The same cannot be said for blacks. I don't care about racial harmony. That's a pipe dream. I care about making sure that if a black person fail, it's because of their lack of ability/effort/whatever and not because they are black.

How is it unnecessary now? The economic inequalities between blacks and whites aren't much different now than they were in the 1960's.

In this example, if a business is happy only hiring 25% blacks to meet a quota (and if they are willing to practice minority control of a major population) that's probably 25% more blacks then they would hire without a AA program.

Of course it's causing rage. Where before being white was enough to ensure that you had an advantage, now it might also be a detriment in certain situations.

The majority of whites have never been worried about "good race relations". Good race relations to most whites is tipping your shoeshine boy around hollidays. Good race relations will never be present as long as the concept of "race" exists. And there's already a bigger social problem, in that a black male is more likely to be in prison than in college.

Again, that's essentially your first point. If a business is going to do this, it's most likely that they wouldn't have hired ANY blacks in the first place. This is a reason why AA is needed.


I think you would be supprised to find that the numbers of people who think blacks to be innately inferior isn't dwindling anywhere near the level you believe. And I agree that there is alot of misuse of the cry of racism. Like when whites complain about AA, that is a misuse of the cry of racism.

Again, it doesn't require steps from both sides, it requires the side with the power to change. Those in the inferior position aren't there by choice.


Oh, how the white man's burden weighs heavily upon his sholders. He must simultaneously control the savages, while being assaulted by their nonsense. Makes you yearn for the days when the problems could be solved with a tree and some rope, doesn't it :rolleyes: .

I've never said AA created a situation where skin color wasn't looked at. But without AA, you will have a situation where skin color won't be looked at, because whites will all be in their nice suburbs and go to their nice jobs in thier nice cars, and the blacks will all be in ghettos and continue in a downward economic spiral. There's you "colorblind" society. Whites will get past the race issue by making sure they never come into contact with blacks (this can be seen currently, as the latter half of the 1900's whites increasingly migrated away from cities toward suburbs as blacks moved into the cities).

Again, whites don't complain about AA because it creates unfairness, they complain because they are no longer the sole benificiary of unfairness.

I would like to add something to this example (which I think is very good). The other problem that has emerged from previous discrimination and cultural destruction carried out by "bunnies" against "squirrels" is that after being continuously denied free access to things required to succeed in bunny society (education, literacy, proper speech) the squirrels have largely developed their own culture that decries these things as bad rather than face being constantly not allowed to do them by bunnies. So now, reading or doing well at school is seen as a "bunny" thing in many squirrel areas, and those who do either are shunned in both the bunny and squirrel areas. So essentially, failure has been ingrained into the squirrel culture. That won't be changed without drastic measures.

I'm a little disconcerted that you feel that you are in a position to decide that black culture will have to be modified for the good of black people in general. Maybe they prefer to have different values than white people. If education isn't a priority in certain predominantly black inner-city environs, why should we feel compelled to enforce a different cultural value system on them?

I'd be mad if someone criticized my cultural values in this manner...

Two reasons:

1. My point was not valuing education wasn't something necessarily inherent, but something that came from white America denying education opportunities repeadedly to blacks. Remember, many black people literally DIED to attempt to learn, so saying that they don't want education inherently is foolish.

2. Since blacks have to live in a western society, for them to function they have to at least have a certain compatibility with western culture. And having a culture that dismissed education isn't compatible with western culture whatsoever. For those who don't have some amazing innate talent (sports, music, etc.), education is time and time again the best way of improving your lot. Especially with more and more jobs that require unskilled labor being shipped overseas.

I really don't understand your response whatsoever. It should be evident that education is the key toward elevating any group of people. Honestly, your post, coupled with your earlier criticisms of AA, makes me think that you want to see blacks held in a position of inferiority, and are just attempting to use terms that don't get you instantly branded a racist. "Prefer to have different values than white people" my ass. Yeah, all blacks love living in their ghettos and living in poverty. Wonderful values :rolleyes: .

Well see you proved my point there. AA is not interested in getting the races to get along, which would be a much better goal than the one it currently has, which is to force discrimination.

It's only a pipe dream if no one's willing to do what it takes to accomplish it.





Crap. Pure, unadulterated crap. In the 60's you wouldn't see too many black lawyers or doctors or teachers. You'd see black janitors and waiters and porters. Things have improved, immensely. Sure they still have a long way to go but AA is only going to slow that process. You have to get the races to have mutual respect for each other before you can expect them to want to deal with each other. AA does NOT encourage respect.





Aside from your math error (I'm assuming you really meant 100% more blacks) your point is ludicrous. You're now advocating that when blacks outnumber whites the quota system be used to make sure blacks DON'T get their fair share of jobs. You're proving that AA is a broken concept.





Let's try that logic again. It's causing rage because race is being used to deny a more highly qualified candidate the opportunity for the job. And really, it doesn't matter WHY it's causing rage. The mere FACT that it is causing rage is enough that we should try and change things. Racial rage is never a good thing.



What decade are you from anyway? Did you hear the Beatles broke up? It's very obvious that this is a clearly racist statement.



Uh, yeah, that's exactly what I've been saying. That's what a colorblind society is - a society where the concept of race does not exist.


Really. More than 50% of all black men are in jail? That's fascinating. Care to back that one up with a source?





To the first sentence, prove it. To the bit about misusing racism. . . I'd be interested in knowing your definition of racism.



That's the chickenshit way out. It does require steps from both sides. For one thing the "inferior position" has to work to change the attitude of the side with the power. Sitting there with your hand out yelling "gimme everything I want because you were mean to my ancestors" is NOT going to work.






Again, exceedingly racist. Thanks for continuing to make my arguments look more rational than yours.





Then you address those problems as they arise. If a more qualified black guy gets passed over for a job in favor of a less qualified white guy, then you go after the employer in question with everything you've got. Huge fines, etc etc etc. Make it VERY unprofitible to hire based on race. That way we're not forcing businesses to hire underqualified individuals just so they meet an asinie quota, but we're taking care of the race issue just the same.



Total crap. You're going into this assuming all white people hate the blacks, all white people want to avoid the blacks all the time, and all white people want to oppress the blacks. That's not only racist, it's also total horseshit.




Again with the racist claptrap. Stop painting all whites with the same brush. That's called racism, and it's not acceptible in today's society.




(edit - - typo patrol)

alansmithee you say that basically its white men complaining, however this seems rather racist in itself.

Two people apply for the same job, one has the qualifications you asked for, the other one is clearly superior to the first guy. Who do you hire?

If the first is black? If the first is a woman? If the first is a black disabled woman? My answer would probably be the second guy irrespective of who/what the first person is because the second person is better than the first.

Now I know that I have been discriminated against in both jobs and scholarships, I know because I have spoken with the interviewers and heck even been involved in the interview process when you are told that we need to hire women/men/others etc to fill quotas, its not funny and I don't want to participate in it. People should be picked on skill and ability rather than any thing external, some of the best guys in Electronics I know are white males(is it pc to say South African?), others are asian females (or is it pc to say Chinese now?) however the best person should get that job, if its a toss up between the two candidates then things like filling quotas should perhaps be considered as there is no other way to distinguish between the candidates but starting on the wrong foot is well wrong to start.

I'm just going to take this moment to recognize one of the few times in this life that we find ourselves in agreement. Cheers. :thumbsup:

You're very right to bring out the problems of the cultures of resistance. They serve both to create shelter from the storm, and insulation against assimilation. White america loves to nod along with Cosby when he points the second part out, but forgets that they had everything to do with helping the first part be necessary.

Oftentimes, people are against affirmative action simply because they do not understand it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...affirm.htm#how

Affirmative action is NOT about QUOTAS nor is it about hiring UNQUALIFIED minorities.

It is about giving QUALIFIED minorities (women, ethnic minorities) CONSIDERATION in the hiring or admission process when most likely they otherwise wouldn't have.

So if Joe White Guy didn't get hired, it was because he wasn't QUALIFIED, not because some "dumb negro" 'stole his job'.

In regards to racial harmony, well, that's a whole 'nother animal.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-onlin...19772830.shtml

So yeah, racism clearly still exists, at all levels.

This one is especially abhorrent: How can I trust a fireman ever again? Any wonder why the minorities had so little faith in police or govt. in New Orleans?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/12/fir...ion=cnn_latest

That's the problem, many white's aren't more qualified because of anything they did, they are qualified because of a system where whites have an inherent economic advantage. It would be like a 100yd dash where you start 30yds ahead because you're white, then complain if they try to let the black guy catch up. You aren't necessarily faster, you just started out farther ahead.

Just wanted to quote this just in case anyone missed it. I was going to try to point out that quota's aren't used much at all in AA programs, but figured it would get ignored. And also, even if AA were about quotas it doesn't changes anything.

Unless, of course, the employee wasn't racist in his hiring practices and the 'special consideration' given to black candidates gave them an edge in what would've otherwise been decided by merit.

Then he could've very well been more qualified that whoever got hired. And denied because of race.

That's a good point, but unfortunately, very difficult to discern. But that's also assuming that non-white male applicants are NOT qualified or unmerited which in and of itself, is indicative of institutionalized racism whether intentional or not. Also, if an employer wasn't racist in his hiring practices, then why would he need to give consideration. Remember, consideration means for those that are qualified.

For example, if I am denied employment at a black restaurant, is it because I'm not black or is it because I'm not a competitive applicant (relative to the pool)?

That's part of the problem, it all gets blurred. Kind of like legacy admissions or getting hired through the buddy system. I think lots of people get hired because they are a friend or they know someone etc, not because they are the most qualified (government comes to mind, especially federal govt.).

I made no such assumption.

It is difficult to discern. But I happen to be against "guilty until proven innocent", which is what I see as the consequence of AA for this particular concern.

It's my understanding that AA doesn't discern between racist and nonracist employers. They don't test for case-specific racism before applying AA.

The answer, then: he would need to if he was ordered to.

Which again is not always true, my family is not that well off, I attended a school in a deprived area however I came out with top grades and attend a good university because I worked hard for my grades and what I achieved. I will admit that starting 30 yards ahead is an advantage however it can be overcome easily and successfully by applying yourself to things.

Assuming however that I and a Minority got the same grades, etc then apply for a job, the interview (assuming we should assume that the interview goes 100% right for both people) then surely the result should basically be the toss of a coin?

Also the analogy is flawed, Some white men started 30yds ahead, however we removed the majority of the advantage making people equal and giving them the opportunity to perform well, some people still have the advantages that money brings however its a fairly level playing field (so your average whites/blacks are startign at 0, your poor blacks/whites 5 yds behind and your rich 10yds ahead)... still an advantage but managable without programs to ensure that one group is favoured.

This is ridiculous. So people who face discrimination and inequality should just "apply theirselves to things"? I can't take this serious at all.

Nope, the minority should get the job. Chances are, he/she worked harder than you, because he/she was able to get to the same circumstances (grades, abilities, skills) despite having the disadvantage of being a minority group.

For one, where was the advantage removed? This is one of the biggest myths (and greatest failures) of the civil rights movements of the 50's-70's. Many people think that some magic wand was waved that instantly erased all of the racism in the country, as well as eliminating the lingering effects of past racism. This did not happen, all that happened was the most egregious examples have been somewhat abated.

Also, my analogy is near-perfect. Even assuming that the advantages break solely along economic class lines (which is wrong anyway, because a poor white guy can still put on a suit and nobody would innately see he was poor. A minority couldn't do the same quick transformation), there is still a problem because a disproportionate amount of those who are poor are black.

And as for programs that supposedly "ensure one group is favoured", all they do is try to apply some balance to a system that automatically favours white males. Again, it boils down to the fact that white males are upset because they are no longer automatically entitled to better opportuntites because of their race and sex. There are now programs in place that at least partially help to eliminate this inequality.

The SES disadvantage isn't based merely on how you are perceived by others: the more important factor to consider is the effect it has on educational opportunities and reading materials. The fact that black people are disproportionately poor is not a problem. The problem is that this fact is used to justify race-based reverse-discrimination in order to counteract a socioeconomic disadvantage. If being poor makes it harder to get accepted into college, for example, then poor white people and poor black people should be helped out equally.

In a colorblind society, racism could not be perpetuated under the guise of helping the poor, for example. Instead of looking at someone's skin color to determine whether or not they are in need of assistence, each candidate could be looked at individually. I can't even convey how wrong it is to assume that all candidates of Race X need the same handicap. Black people are individuals. White people are individuals.

Another advantage of a colorblind society that I have not yet mentioned is the effect on minority perceptions of their own capabilities. Imagine how you would feel if people had said to you all your life, "Your race has been discriminated against in this country for centuries. Because you are a member of that race and have yourself been a target of discrimination, you are not able to compete on a level playing field with white applicants. You deserve special treatment to counteract the evils that have happened to others of your race. Remember that time the store owner in the mall ignored you? Remember that time when your classmate called you a nigger? Remember that time your great-great-great grandfather was lynched by the KKK? Because those things happened, you are incapable of getting into a good college without getting extra points for being a member of a minority race. Fortunately, affirmative action is here to help you."

Once young people buy into this kind of logic, they have every incentive to blame any setbacks or problems they have on their race. Their heritage becomes a curse, a thing to be ashamed of. It doesn't take long to realize that minority races are given handicaps because they are pittied. And one does not receive pity from equals or subordinates.

This attitude is what I perceive to be part of the problem in regards to why some of us argue for affirmative action programs. Many young people alive today had grandparents who were abused and lynched. The rest of the Black people alive today either directly experienced abuse or their parents did...it's not ancient history.

So how does saddling all future generations with the sins of our fathers in regard to job openings and college admissions make up for this abuse?

Again, this is totally wrong. You want to ignore race as an issue in socioeconomic status because doing so helps keep blacks down. You say it's not a problem that there are disproportionately more poor blacks than whites? The only reason someone could think this is if A. they feel blacks to be innately inferior or B. they want to maintain a race-based lower class. Either viewpoint isn't based on any true notion of "fairness", but on keeping the status quo of whites gaining an advantage from their race. And if that's your position, there's really no reason for further discussion.

No, in a "colorblind" society, racism is perpetuated under the guise of blacks not being as "qualified". And your idea of looking at people individually is naive and ridiculous. You can't implement public policy on a one-on-one basis. I will agree that not all blacks are in need of AA, but because a couple don't need it doesn't invalidate the program.

Again, you try to take on the role of sympathizer, but what you type makes it abundantly clear that it's not the case. You are still assuming that racism is something that is in the history books, and not an ongoing thing. It wouldn't have been my great-great-great grandfather lynched by the KKK, it would've been my GRANDFATHER. And I'm only 24. Racism didn't die with the dinosaurs. You say that young people would blame setbacks on their race, but you want to ignore any racism in society in favor of making sure that whites maintain their current favored status.

Being 1/2 Irish I owe the British 1/2 an asskicking, and its not ancient history either.

What the hell does a past injustice have to do with AA?

Smooth is saying that injustice isn't something that only exists in the past. He's saying that racism and injustice are an ongoing thing. Racism didn't end yet.

And you need to stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist. Where do you get off interpreting people's motives for them? How do you know he's trying to keep the blacks down? Simple answer? You don't know that, and to assume that is racist in and of itself. Knock it off.





Your definition of colorblind is vastly different from the rest of the world's. You would perhaps gain more respect for your arguments if you at least used the same dictionery as the rest of us.

Yes, we can tell you think that since you insist on painting all white people as minority-suppressing racist monsters.


You want your cake and eat it too. Either AA is a program meant to help those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged or it is not. On the one hand you say it is because of all the socioeconomically poor blacks. On the other hand you say that a poor white guy shouldn't get the same benefit simply because he is white and someone who looked like him 200 years ago had slaves. Then you tell us that even if the black guy is not poor and doesn't need any help, he should get it anyway. Your position on this is either not well thought out or, more likely, drawn solidly along racist lines.





No one is saying there is not a problem with racism in this country. We are saying it's not as big as it used to be (and unless you can dig up proof of multiple lynchings PER DAY in addition to multiple other abuses that no longer happen, you can't refute that). And we are saying that if we want the racial relations to improve then people have to learn to disregard skin color differences - something you are not willing to do. And that means that you are happilly stepping in line with the others who wish to perpetuate racism.



I'm sorry for your grandfather, but I did not kill him. Nor did anyone else here. We will not take the blame for his murder. That's as stupid as it would be if I found out your grandfather killed my grandmother and then demanded reparations from YOU. YOU are not responsible for what your ancestors did, just as I am not responsible for what MY ancestors did. I refuse to be punished for a crime that I did not commit.

Again a racist statement. Your racism is quite apparent by now, we do not need more examples. Until you learn to see people as individuals rather than the Great White Evil, you will never be able to approach a discussion of this nature with any hint of rationality.

I'm not calling everyone who disagrees with me racist. I'm interpreting motives by what someone says, the same as you (and everyone else) does. I don't know he's trying to keep blacks down, but based on his replies that's the most logical conclusion. And your hypocricy in this secion is truly stunning.

No, my definition of colorblind is different than that of people who think racism is something in the past. It's also different fron the definition of people who don't think that racial equality is something to be strived for.

A sensible person would understand that my statement was in context to government programs.

And as for painting all white people as "minority-suppressing racist monsters", all I can say is that I really know white people well, so this is false. I even have a white friend, so obviously I'm fully capable on talking about white people as a whole and understanding their motivations.



Here you are totally wrong. Not only do you give a false dillema, but you give the wrong dillema. AA is not meant to help those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, it's meant to help eliminate inequalities in the socioeconomic system that arrise from race or sex. The reason a poor white guy shoudn't get the same benefit from AA as a minority/woman is because the problem being addressed by AA is an inequality in oportunity between white males and minorities/women, and not inequalities in opportunity between socioeconomic classes. You are trying to combine two separate issues into one. Maybe if you would actually try understanding the issue at hand you would better see the point of AA. Because currently it doesn't seem you understand either the purpose of AA or the problems it seeks to correct.

Race relations has nothing to do with AA. AA is built to address economic imbalances between white males and minorites and women, and institutional racism/sexism. That is all. Race relations is another separate issue. And you don't want people to disregard skin color, you want minorites to disregard skin color. What this comes off as is saying that minorities need to shut up and wait while whites get around to truly wanting equality. And while minorities wait for the whitocracy to come around to a true colorblind society, they sink further into poverty. Although from your point of view, I should be grateful to white people because I'm not on a plantation picking cotton, or being lynched now right?

I will gladly disregard skin color when doing so doesn't relegate those of my skin color to a lower place in society. Disregarding skin color is a problem with those who hold the power (whites) and not those who suffer from the imbalance.




I'm sorry for your grandfather, but I did not kill him. Nor did anyone else here. We will not take the blame for his murder. That's as stupid as it would be if I found out your grandfather killed my grandmother and then demanded reparations from YOU. YOU are not responsible for what your ancestors did, just as I am not responsible for what MY ancestors did. I refuse to be punished for a crime that I did not commit.



Again a racist statement. Your racism is quite apparent by now, we do not need more examples. Until you learn to see people as individuals rather than the Great White Evil, you will never be able to approach a discussion of this nature with any hint of rationality.[/QUOTE]

While the goal of AA to level the playing field may be a noble one, I'm afraid the cure may be worse than the illness. Causing additional animosity between the races/sexes does not help us to build an integrated society where people are judged on the basis of their ability and character.

If AA was limited (expanded) to addressing inequalities in opportunity between socioeconomic classes it would not be nearly as controversial. If the class (wealth) difference in our country was addressed by AA, surely a great number of minorities and women would benefit, after all the lower classes are probably made up of those most discriminated against. The wealthy of any race/sex, etc.. do not need the government's assistance.

The government can set an example by enforcing laws against discrimination without showing preference to one group or another. Mothers and fathers should teach their children to judge people on their merits and to ignore race/sex when determining people's abilities. We have to get to the point where we understand that we are all humans and all in this together.

A poor white man/woman has a lot more in common with a poor minority man/woman than either has with the wealthy of any race/sex.

Looks like a lively bravado in here. Fantastic. Now that the question of "what does a color blind society" mean has morphed into a discussion of the merits of affirmative action, I thought the old "Search" function might be kind of cool. Not to stifle current "discussion," but the the following might be germane:

1. This

and that

and some of this

and maybe some of this

Oh hell, get all hogwild - this used to work, but i'm an idiot. fair enough. do a search on affirmative action. stuff pops up.


I don't really know what to comment on - there's so much going on in this thread. I will say that if you fight fire with fire, that's fine - but recognize you're not actually putting out the flames.

Hahahahaa!! "hogwild".... from "pigglet".. get it? Hahahaha...ahem ...uh...erm

Nevermind (thanks pigglet, love that pggystyle!)

P.S. - the hogwild link doesn't work

Yes, you are. Whenever someone disagrees with you here you accuse them of trying to suppress the blacks or put whites in a position of power, or in some other way accuse them of being racist. Based on his replies, the most logical conclusion is that he wants equality. Equality does not equal putting the blacks down.




Look. It's really very simple. A color blind society is one in which race does not matter. Note that I did not say that it is one in which race does not matter as long as you're white. You've been adding that last part, but that's not how we define it. I'm not out to oppress blacks or anyone else. My goal is a society where people finally stop pissing around acting as though skin pigmentation makes any difference in the worth of a person. We're not gonna achieve that as long as we force people to discriminate based on skin pigmentation, which IS what AA does.




I assume you're trying to be ironic here, but it's not working - you're shooting yourself in the foot. And if you're not being ironic, then you just shot yourself in both feet.







Oh ok. I get it now. So you're saying that only POOR black people should benefit from affirmative action. If they came from a home where, say, dad was a doctor making $400k per year, they shouldn't recieve any special consideration as far as minority hiring goes. Because see the RICH black applicant is not socioeconomically disadvantaged.

Of course, if that were REALLY how AA works, don't you think "parent's income" would be an item on the pre-employment questionaire?

It's not I that needs to study affirmative action here. . . .


Plus, AA does have something to do with race relations. It's pissing a lot of people off, which is hurting race relations. You can stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes all you want, but the ugly truth will still be out there, and that is that AA is fostering racial hatred.


No, that's what you WANT me to want because then it would further your cause. Unfortunately for you, I don't want only minorities to disregard skin color, I want EVERYONE to disregard skin color.

No, what it's saying is that you need to stop using racist terminology. Stop bitching about the whitocracy. Even if you were correct that there was one, you certainly wouldn't gain any ground by pissing the "whitocracy" off by sitting there calling them names.

But I for one am tired of being lumped in with the evil white guys. It is not I who have been hurling racist insults left and right in this thread, it is you.

I never said that. You seem to be having an awfully good time putting racist words in my mouth. Seems to me you need to have a little diversity training yourself so that you realize that not all white people are KKK members, and not all white people feel as though you owe us something for not enslaving you. Sheesh.



Again, you are trying to shove 100% of the problem onto one group without shouldering any of the work that needs to be done to address the problem yourself. I know that you feel the white population owes you everything because some of our ancient ancestors enslaved some of your ancient ancestors (not mine, btw - my ancestors immigrated here long after the emancipation proclamation, so I really fail to see how you can possibly lay the blame for slavery at my feet.) No one's arguing that the whites enslaved the blacks. No one's arguing that it was an atrocious thing to do. But now we are at a point where you need to sit down and decide whether or not you really want good race relations. Because if you do, you also need to take steps to meet that goal. You cannot expect us to do it all because we cannot change your apparent attitude that all whites are out to get you.

Now, if decent relations among the races aren't important to you, then by all means keep doing what you're doing, because following your ideas pretty much guarantees that they'll never get any better.

The problem is it's NOT equality. There are present imbalances that won't go away by people sticking their heads in the sand. As the OP was saying, the "color blind" society is only really trotted out now to attack AA. But these people never address what to do about the current imbalances, they just attack AA. They never want to address the racism that is ingrained into many places across the country, it's just attack AA.


Again, you say you want a society "where people finally stop pissing around acting as though skin pigmentation makes any difference in the worth of a person". But from what you (and many others) seem to say, the only thing holding this back is AA. The "color blind" society idea is never brought out when there IS racism, but only when attacking AA. We won't achieve a true color blind society as long as people who are in economically powerful positions continue to discriminate and as long as minorities are second class citizens.

How am I shooting myself in the foot?

You're missing my point. I said economic imbalance and institutional racism/sexism. That has nothing to do with the wealth of individual applicants (or their parent's wealth). The rich black applicant might not be disadvantaged, but there is still the chance for institutional racism (or even economic imbalance).

I fully understand that it angers alot of people. Were the roles reversed, I'd probably be angry myself. I'm also sure that freeing the slaves fostered racial hatred and pissed alot of people off. As did giving women and minorities the vote, desegregating schools, and numerous other government action/legislaton which tried to address racism/sexism. It's just I value an equal chance for minorites over the contentment of the general white populace.

I don't really want you to want anything. But there's no other logical conclusion than what I initially said. Because the only time this "color blind" nonsence seems to be brought up is when AA comes up, not when issues of real discrimination come up. And I have yet to see anyone suggest something better than AA for addressing institutional racism/sexism and economic imbalance between white males and women/minorities.

For one, I've not used one piece of racist terminology. It seems you are hypersensitive to anything that might not make white people look the best. And as for being lumped in with the "evil white guys", I never once mentioned evil. As i've said, were the positions reversed I'd probably feel much the same way. And again, you can't point out a single racist insult that I've posted, so harping on that is useless.


I realize not all white people are KKK members. I also realize that many white people think that a magic wand was waved in the 70's that eliminated racism.What the civil rights movement has done is make "racism" something to be avoid being called, not something to avoid BEING. I also know that many white people who claim to not be racist can say things like this:

And not all whites feel owed something for ending slavery, but many think that was enough. Which is false.

You are totally wrong. I'm not trying to shove 100% of the problem onto any group. I just recognize that it isn't black people who are keeping themselves in poverty. And that is where the "color blind" society nonsense comes into play. First, many whites seem to think (like you obviously do) that every racial problem origninates from slavery (and "ancient ancestors" is overstating the time since slavery, they weren't neanderthals being enslaved, it was only 150 yrs ago). The effects of racism aren't as bad as during slavery, but they are still here, and aren't so much the exception as the norm. Also, I DON'T think the white population owes me everything, but I do think that blacks are owed a fair chance. I actually EXPECT little from whites. And I agree with much of what Cosby says (who is often attacked by many so-called black leaders) about self reliance. Because I know that even with AA, for a black person to achieve anything lasting, it's not good enough to be as good as a white person, you have to try to be better. And as for "good race relations", that seems to be a euphamism for "blacks shutting up". Because personally, I'd rather have bad "race relations" and see blacks have a better position in society than have good "race relations" and continue a spiral into poverty.

No, my ideas help ensure that black people have a chance at elevating themselves. Race relations aren't something that I see as ever being much better than they are now, so steps have to be taken to ensure that those without the power aren't totally at the mercy of those holding the power. And this is threatening to many people in power.

This thread has:

1. completely diverged from the original topic
2. been filled with hateful racist language by alansmithee

For these reasons, I will not post another contribution to it. It would probably be prudent to shut the thread down before anything worse is said.

i have been performing my ambivalence about this forum by checking in from time to time, looking to see the general state of discourse in here...normally, i have been finding it really really easy to simply move on to something else, but politicophile's post is so thoroughly absurd that it seemed to me to require a response.

first, as seems usual in these degenerate times, the real conflict in this thread is over control of terms and, by extension, the frame within which debate can happen. so the question "what is a color blind society" is not one that makes sense posed in the abstract--the question seems to me more "what does the contemporary right mean when it uses this term...."--and what it means is pretty straighforward: the right prefers to pretend that racism, and more problematically class divisions (which intertwine with good old american racism in often very ugly ways--witness nola) is no longer a going concern--from this ridiculous assumption follows the question of whether affirmative action can be seen as a relic of the bad old days the functions of which have gone from attempting to address the history and ongoing consequences of a racist society to replicating the problem it purports to address, but this time at the expense of--well who?---well, petit bourgeois white men as it turns out....

now in the inverted world that conservatives inhabit, the last clause would in itself be racist. this is the correlate of politicophile's post above. from ANY viewpoint not constructed on its knees before the televisual pulpit of the right, that claim is wholly absurd--but let's put that aside for a minute and think about it, shall we?

it often looks like the contemporary right has a particular axe to grind across this debate--the sense of victimization that befell lots of petit bourgeois whites during Reconstruction. contemporary conservativism replicates this response, and with it the whole set of arguments from the "state's rights" crowd of the 1870s-1880s and beyond. of course, i suspect that conservatives would prefer not to think about this history, following the same "logic" as ustwo's post above (which, sadly, seems about par for the course): history? what history? what me worry? why is the past binding on me?


so from two directions in as many sentences, you get a logic that converges on what the real point of conservative opposition to aa is: a sense of being-victimized by attempts to redress the foul history of the united states when it comes to racism: begin with genocide (the native american population) add slavery, close the cover and grind: there you have it, a lovely american history milkshake that you too can drink in the privacy of your own home.
so the motor of the right's usage of the term "color-blind society" is a sense of being-victimized. the specific class interest that this sense of being-victimized speaks to is that of the white petit bourgeois. the object of this sense of victimization: federal level attempts to redress racism. the specific target: affirmative action. the argument: usually some weak admission of the previous need for such legislation followed by a hollow claim to have triumphed over it--and at this point, much of what i would say dovetails with alansmithee's posts above.
the goal: a "colorblind society"--which means?--a society in which there is no federal-level effort to redress racism, in which this history, its present, its future are all pushed to the local level, where the implications of all this can be ignored, all in the interest of..well what? i have never understood this step: to wrap your head around what the right is saying, you have to buy into an entirely revisionist history of race relations in america. if you reject that history--and there is every reason to reject it, beginning with the ridiculous nature of its most basic claims---so i am not sure that there really is a goal behind the right's opposition to aa taken on its own terms--but i can say what i think its the motor for the arguments themselves: channelling economic anxiety on the part of a social group particularly vulnerable to changes in overall economic organization onto a red herring, a fake issue--the function of which has nothing to do with the content of conservative "arguments" but rather is about articulating and cementing a relationship--the right as defender of petit bourgeois interests.

politicophile, above, outlines a sense of conservative outrage, primarily because he lost control of the frame of reference and so cannot control the debate. conservative arguments against aa presuppose control of the frame of reference, because the claims against aa floated by the right are not arguments based on either history or an understanding of the present--they are a mobilization of signifiers that affirm an identity of interests between the contemporary right and their anxiety-filled, debt-bubble riding petit bourgreois constituency. outside the rights own frame of reference, their claims against aa are nonsense.

but rather than acknowledge that, you get another, all-too-typical move: a second-order claim to victimization: you do not respect my attempts to control this debate, therefore you are a racist. just shows what the draining of meaning is about, in the hands of the contemporary right.

i do not agree with everything alansmithee posted above, have not seen anything approaching an adequate refutation of his basic claims about the relationship of class and racism in the history of the united states, nothing approaching a coherent response to the thumbnail sketch of what aa was and was not about: what i do see is alot of facile coded nonsense from the right.

sad thing is that it appears that, like many many debates, this started off ok then dove straight into this kind of nonsense. because i have been thinking about tfp in general, i link this to, for example, the conservative disprespecting of host in another thread---the one person who systematically tries to take seriously the idea that conservatives can and should be countered with information--and you get a really unpleasant image of the politics forum: self-referential, self-confirming, a space for "debate" amongst folk who have too little time and dont really want to be pushed outside their already given frame of reference--there is nothing at stake here in debate. maybe this is a function of messageboard culture in general--patterns of usage that have people stuffing the occaisional political post into a crammed day of whatever one has to do to get over in a deteriorating empire....

there is nothing at stake here because nothing can be...i can't figure out why i do this any more. i would not be surprised to find the same reponse with host. i suspect that there is a cadre here that really would prefer to turn this forum into a conservative circle jerk, a space where the empty claims of the right can be floated without reference to an external world that refutes them at every turn. look at nola and tell me that there is no class stratification in america, and no intertwining of racism with class in america. this alone should pulverize anything the right has to say about racism as a thing of the past. there are many such circle jerk spaces out there--anmd i suspect there will be more and more of them as the therapeutic requirements for conservatives grow more pronounced.

if that is the way this is going here, you can have it.
i have other things to do.