The Tables have Turned.

Remove all ads!

Here's my two cents:

Growing up in CA I was surrounded by Mexicans all day at school. Walking down the hall I would her phrases like, "Stupid whit boy," or worse insults thrown at me. Now, if I would have retaliated by saying something like, "Stupid wet-back," I would have been jumped by any and all Mexicans nearby, suspended from school; and they would have gotten away with out any punishment.

White people get jumped, mugged and beat up by the cops all the time, and it never makes the news, but if a black guy gets in a brawl with the cops and gets beat up pretty badly, then it's all over the news for days. I'm not saying the cops over did it a bit with Rodney King Jr., I saying he deserved most of what he got.

In CA I was able to take a guided tour of a maximum-security prison...maybe it was just me, but I didn't see many white guys there. We toured the entire prison, and it seemed to me that there was about a 5 to 1 ratio between Mexicans and white...and about a 3 to 1 ratio between blacks and whites. I wonder why that is???

I was always taught that if a race of people doesn't want to be discriminated against, then maybe they shouldn't give us reasons to discriminate against them. Don't get me wrong...I have many friends of different races and I respect them, but when one member of their race gets what coming to him/her, and it causes nationwide riots, then that makes me think less of a race. "Hey, a member of our race got beat for committing a crime....lets all go commit crimes!" ~Stupid, just stupid...

I mean, is our fault that a black man's great, great grandpa was forced into slavery? Why is that enough to give a race their own special "Essence" award show where all you have to do is be black and famous and you get an award? Why are we being punished for something members of my race did over 100 years ago?!?!?

I remember a time when an illegal alien was at my school and he was complaining that no one of my race showed him any respect. Well, if he showed me a green card, or some other form of proving that he was a real citizen, then I would have shown him all the respect he deserved.

I'm probably going to get flamed good for saying this, but if you were in my shoes you would understand where I'm coming from. I’m not trying to offend anyone, but this is the way I see it.

 

@ Sir Dargorn

I believe the point of Laches' cartoon was that there are many white people (especially here in the US) who do complain about being discriminated against for, by comparison, very small events. It wasn't about stubbing toes. That was just a metaphor for comments like "In 1995 smokers are treated like 1938 german jews." People who whine like that deserve to be satired.

I understand that your point was that the kid was a prick, and it had nothing to do with him being black. That's just the easiest and most obvious way to identify him. I agree there is quite a double standard these days. If a black man says he's proud to be black, he's strong. If a white states he's proud to be who he is, he's a racist cracker. It's hypocracy and counterproductive.

This also reminds me of a comment someone made in the "More Tolerance, Please" thread. Someone stated that there's an organization of gay-rights activists who run around screaming in people's faces "We're here! We're queer! Get used to it!" Think of the reaction I'd get if I started a group that ran around saying "We're White! We're Alright! Get used to it!"

 

It has been my experience that political correctness is much more a product of television than it is of real life.

Have you ever worked a job with a lot of black people and puerto ricans? I have. Guess what? Black people have lots and lots of kids. With different mothers and fathers. Puerto ricans watch A LOT of boxing and are some of the meanest wife-beaters around. So we are different. It is great material for jokes.

Underneath it all is a common thread of humanity of course. But we are not all the same. Thank God for that by the way.

Once you get to know someone of a different culture it is usually customary to cement the friendship by pointing out just how stupid or goofy their cultural peculerarities are.

 

You know, if we added up everyone's 2 cents in this matter we'd all be FILTHY STINKING RICH HAHAHAHAAH!!

So here's mine... I have no problem loving or respecting every person that deserves respect, and I don't see why other people can't either. If a person deserves at least respect, if not outright friendliness, then it shouldn't matter what they look like, or perhaps, that the way they look shouldn't afford them more or less. So if I'm in a situation with a white man and a black man and the black man's acting like an *******, I'm not going to give him more respect than the white person. And the opposite is true as well. And hell, you can even make one of the imaginary people a woman and I still wouldn't favour one over the other on more than just their personality. Equality may not exist in any way shape or form, but I think drawing attention to the differences of people are not really helping the fight. Because, as Sir Daragorn and others so aptly pointed out, forcing people to accept that one race or one belief or one gender is BETTER than another, regardless of whether they've been discriminated against for years is going to accomplish one thing... It's going to make the people who aren't being put in the spotlight resentful. And that, as I said, is not helping human relations.

 

I think I have not made myself clear, I do not favour all this silly extreme PCness. Nor do I think people have any right to do anything just because they are of a certain race, gender or sexuality. That it exists just further shows that there are no differences, we are all just as big jerks.

Kitrax, did you stop to wonder why there are such a big proportion of blacks and hispanics in prison? From what you said it can be understood that you think it is genetic, and I dont think you believe that.

My point is that our society is still very discriminating towards minorities and we will ahve to live with that. A backlash of the struggle for equality is that jerks of minorities might go scot free from social idiocies but as Kitrax so friendly pointed out they sure as hell dont go free from criminal idiocies.

It wont stop until it truly doesnt matter whether you are black, white, yellow or red. Or if you are a woman (in all ways that it is possible and logical for equality, as Ragusa pointed out isnt it very logical to have mixed sub crews as long as we have our standards of decency but we could just go alnog and create an all female crew), or you are gay. We have a long way to go until we are there. And as it is we white men that have the power we have the responsibility to change it and we might have to take alot of sheit from various groups but then we better show that we are benevolent and not willingly surpress people.

 

I guess my whole point was in response to the initial posts assertion that:

Such a statement is completely oblivious to the reality of the situation.

For example, blacks earn 67% of what whites do. They score ~75% of what whites do on standardized tests. When blacks are adopted though and raised in another neighborhood that number skyrockets to be on par with whites. As economic advantage increases health problems decrease, crime decreases, etc. etc. etc.

Women doing the same job as men still don't get paid as much on average etc.

The reality is that white males face less adversity, on average, in life than any other group in history... with the exception of maybe white males 80 years ago.

To turn around and then say that there is a growing imbalance in the opposite direction strikes me as preposterous. The complaints are of Indian radio shows, and Black music awards and the injustice of it all meanwhile blacks earn less, are less healthy, have fewer educational opportunities, and are more likely to be victims of crime.

I'm sorry, it sounds divorced from reality.

 

1st of all, let's get one thing straight. I live in Croatia--a country that was, along with Italy, the only willing ally Germany in WW2 had. Now, while none of my ancestors fought for the Fatherland I would still get crusified when I say stuff like: "damn, I wish all these gipsies would get REAL jobs." Everyone would jump at me screaming USTASHA, USTASHA (the word means something along the lines of the one who rises---the name was used by soldiers fighting for the Fatherland in WW2)!!


But it is still a fact that Zagreb (my country's capital city) has a fair number of gipsies living here, and most of them make their living by begging or worse (you can imagine I mean crime). Now, I once got pissed at one gipsie askin' me money after he rang at my doorbell at 8 in the morning so I invited him in the house, gave him a cup of coffe and a smoke and I asked him if he would wash the carpets in my house for 80 kunas (a little more than 10€). He said thanx but no thanx and stormed out of there as if he was a vampire faced with a cross!!!!!!!!!!


Now I'm not saying I hate or think less of anyone, but I am saying that every man/woman regardless of race/religion should (and must) pull his/hers own weight in a modern society. That's all. And if that makes me an axis soldier, so be it. But I am not one.

 

African-Americans and Hispanics are overrepresented in prisons. But they are the backbone of the US-armed-forces. It's a mixed-blessing. Without them, I guess the US-armed-forces would have a huge problem.

http://www.hepm.org/over.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2941523.stm

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030328-9999_1n28hispanic.html

 

You didn't really suppose I wouldn't spot this tempting little debate, did you?

Surprisingly this post isn't going to reach mile's length.

I agree with Sir Dargorn and with Ragusa that minorities have de facto more rights than the majority and that the majority tends to be regarded as dull and boring at best and inferior at worst. In most cases it's media work combined with political plays... These are multiplied ad infinitum by idiots and lesser players eager to score points with relatively large groups of people or just to appear open-minded and pro-whatever. Noticed the obscene amount of straight people at gay pride parades?

Whereas this is the predominant trend and prevailing option, it's not necessarily right. At some stage people stop thinking and hand over their cerebral functions to media and crowd. By doing so they enlarge the crowd by one and here we have a nice vicious circle.

I believe that minorities of any kind should have no more rights of any kind than the majority. All systems of oligarchy, nobility, aristocracy etc were born this way - from protecting the interests of a very small group at the cost of the interest of the whole society. You don't need hereditary titles or bags of gold to create sort of aristocracy. It's enough if some citizens are favoured for sole membership in a non-public group.

I believe that under no circumstances whatsoever should minorities of any kind have more rights than the majority. I even move further and believe that no preferences of any kind should be given. Let marriage serve as an example. Marriage under most systems is formally acknowledged and legally supported relationship between a man and a woman and it's the basis of a family, with children. Where is it written that gay people can't marry? Of course they can't marry a person of the same sex. Hetero people can't either. Love is not about having children? Fine, but there are concubinates and informal relationships also for hetero people who think so. If one isn't founding a family and raising children then there's no need or reason for him to receive the special 'bonuses' following this purpose under law.

Women in the army? Fine. If they meet normal requirements for soldiers, weight, length, strength etc all included. If we demand less from a woman why don't we let in a man who fulfils the same requirements? Same to any other qualifications. Life is not D&D where women and men differ only in looks.

Plus, I also believe that the country majority's, interests should be *especially* protected just because they touch the greatest share of citizens. Some freedom should be given to employers too, especially if they have a fixed policy. Here I would agree with Ragusa. I wouldn't have any problems with a PR specialist wearing a sari pr turban to work, but I don't really want a long-haired male follower of a strange religion/philosophy with pierced nose, eyebrows, tongue etc where people can see him, I'm not hiring anyone who declares worship of Satan and I'm not going to have a shrine to Pink Rabbit in my precious company

 

Hmm, that whole "it's unpatriotic to criticize the President" seems to be brought up more by liberals than conservatives. But yeah, it's been said, and it's total BS IMO. I can't even count how many conservatives attacked Bill Clinton for his 8(great) years of Presidency.

On the topic, reverse discrimination is a big problem. Recently, I believe California passed a bill that says you *must* hire transvestites if they apply to a job at your place of business, or it's (gasp) discrimination. Now, if Georgia had passed a law that said you must hire white heterosexual Christian males, I think Jesse Jackson would have a heart attack, but apparently only the later applies as discrimination.

Here's a little more on what California is up to:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/06-04-2001/vo17no12_california.htm

I suppose no one can resist the urge to brainwash our kids. Maybe giving them a proper education, and letting them decide for themselves would be a better idea.

 

The whole ****ing world's against us, I swear to God.

 

Let me guess, white chirstian male aged 18-30 right? Being the same aged 15 I have to say that while I have'nt had personal experiences with this sort of thing I have seen and heard of it happening. Frankly it seems simpler to treat all people the same weather they be male or female, white or black. You kind of have to wonder about that last part, the reason that someone is not called black is because their skin is'nt completely black but my skin is actually light orange, why are'nt I called coloured or "light orange".

 

I do not live in America Laches so i have no clue about the statistics over there, but i do KNOW that over here in England, refugess get given free housing, benifits and job oppurtunities, of a greater standard than the majority of English citiizens who live nearby.
I KNOW that when i have stayed in London, i have recieved huge amounts of racial abuse from Black and Asian origin gangs.
I KNOW that i have never given out racial abuse to any minority group in any fashion.
I KNOW that i have been witness to Black support groups who build up a community of only black members, under the guise of a 'charity'. Many of these families are much more wealthy than my own.
I KNOW that i have watched award ceromony speeches, interviews etc, where black artists have promoted themselves and their race in a fashion which is purely racist.

This isn't about statistics really, this is about the fact that i am FED UP with being abused because apparently i think i am better than others when in fact the reality is totally opposite. I am quite proud of the fact that i am strong enough not to resort to racism myself.

 

Oh, England isn't that different. From the Guardian:

Another article was talking about that out of 11,000 plus jobs only 2% of academics in England were minority. Other statistics were that you are 3x more likely to be unemployed as a minority...

Now, you said it isn't about statistics. But you didn't stop at saying you've had some bad personal experiences that you gelt were reverse discrimination. You made a very broad assertion that there is a "great imbalance in society" growing in the other direction. This is the unbased and unsupported broad generalization which I addressed.

I'm not saying there aren't instances of reverse discrimination etc but let's keep things in perspective. To go from there being a black awards show to a "great imbalance in society" is a stretch.

My favorite article was about David Blunkett and his proposals to make immigrants "more integrated" into English society. I wonder how popular he is on the other side of the pond? I see where he has garnered the support of Pat Buchanan. If you guys would like Pat to help you work on these issues I think there are a number of Americans who might be willing to part with him for a while, a hardship though it may be. Got a chuckle from that article.

 

I agree with pretty much everything that Laches has already posted, so I won't bore eveyone by covering that ground. I will add this much because Sir Dargorn has raised a valid question about reverse discrimination. The quest for equality should not be confused with the formulation of PCness; they are really two different things, though related through the issue of race and gender.

As Laches has already said, and very well, what needed to be on the issue of equality, IMO the issue of PCness is at the root of the kinds of injustices that Sir Dargorn has experienced and sees in his country and the US. Whereas the notion of equality advances the need to reorient the focus of institutions in society towards achieving equality, PCness seeks to "deconstruct" society and rebuild it after a new model, one that would be free of the "prejudices" of the past. In other words removing the current set of institutions all together as they now exist.

I don't believe that PCness is as much advanced by the media as it is by some of the more radical programs in major universities and colleges. That is not to say that universities are hotbeds of radicalism, for most are nothing of the sort. But certain programs do formulate and then advance PCness aggressivley. I experienced this firsthand in the English program at my university.

How is it that Shakespeare should not be taught because he is really "sexist" at the core. Or how about Dickens? We all know that that author's work is all full of the "Victorian model" of how society should operate. Women are really just commodities in this type of model, and much of our current system is modeled on that particular one. In the PCness world there is always a hidden agenda in most literature written by authors who are products of the institutions that promote such "social injustice."

I love quailty literature. That was the reason I majored in English in the first place. Shakespeare is of course at the center of the Canon of great writers in Western Lit. Next to him is Dante and Chaucer. But Shakespeare just can't be removed because of how society's hidden aganda works through his greatness as a literary artist. A student like myself, in such a program, will mention that the guy just knew how to write better than just about everyone else. So he must be discredited. "Well, he wasn't really that great a writer anyway," I was told. "That's just a part of the facade of society, that he is held up as being such a great writer, but at the truth of it he really wasn't." Really, I was told that by a college English professor.

To be sure there are some valid claims that are advanced as a part of such a program, and not every class was that radical. But enough of them were to make you forget about why you were studying literature in the first place. You would think that a college English program would be the last place that you would have to defend such good writers. But that was what I found myself doing often during my time there.

Things like: The problem with women's equality is the institution of marriage, thus it should be removed and replaced by something that promotes greater equality and social justice. And of course that is a major theme in most fiction. As one writer said: "most stories end with a marriage or a funeral." So we must change the stories that we value if we are to change society. Or at least see them for what they are.

I am only touching on a small part of the agenda that is advanced in some programs. And why are gay men so detested by other men and not so much by women? Because most men see women as inferior anyway, and they detest gay men because they imitate an inferior sex. No real man would want to be like a lowly woman. And of course most men are misogynists at heart as well. They learned to be that way from Shakespeare. Don't you know?

[ July 02, 2003, 00:35: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Good points. Especially the agenda part. The principle of PCness is a general one, having found it's way to the rest of the western world as well. It's mechanism has been used in connection with the war propaganda for the iraq war just as it's used in the more classic field of antidiscrimination. Everything you say is tried to be referrenced to an agenda.

Nothing is innocent anymore. And even when it is, who cares? You can easily intimidate someone by blaming him to be a racist, or not to be a patriot. And anyway, and at least you've done well by arousing his conscience YAY! that he'll never get rid of that stench is another thing easily forgotten, but hey, your cause is just and you're on a roll so why stop after such a lousy roadkill.

Everything you say is tried to be put into an agenda context. Fire a woman! Discrimination! Not hire a woman? Discrimination! Fire a black, asian or hispanic: Racism AND discrimination!

When some nitwit dares to question the wisdom of Bush & Goons Inc. they are on an agenda, they're giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Fox has found war protesters *true* motives unmasking them as unpatriotic communists. And that continues. Don't believe me? Another, more recent example for that method at work in context of urban guerrilla trouble in iraq:

Question our wisdom and you're playing into the hands of the enemy! And you devalue the sacrifice of the soldiers who sacrificed so much to win this war (Like: Iraqi lives?).

After WW-I the nazis spread tale that the jews and commies stabbed the heroic german soldier in the back, undermining the war effort from inside, resulting in the german defeat. That became known as the "Dolchstoßlegende".

So that's what you are too when you dare to ask and question, a treacherous backstabber. Haven't shut up already? If not, it's high time before Ashcroft comes and gets you! In the meanwhile Rush Limbaugh takes care of that Some things are classic, they just work Want to prevent somone disturbing you, kick him in the balls first; he'll be busy then and the next time you perhaps don't even have to kick anymore. That is deterrence.

The first discriminators beeing sentenced to pay millions for compensation deterred others from making the same, costly, mistake. Of course, it didn't change their mindset. PCness is nothing but windowdressing. The first anti-war prominents beeing masscared on Rush Limbaugh and Fox tv were also a deterrent for others not to make the same mistake. Of course, that wasn't how the concept of PCness was devised.
And PCness, coupled with group dynamics is even more powerful. Wonder why anti-war activists got so much hatemail the last year? Or how about the campaign against the Dixie Chicks? It was started by a radio station supporting Bush as it, minor guess, expects this administration to loose anti-trust laws for the media (besides, that's most likely Fox owner Rupert Murdock motive as well ... sweet, patriots for hire.). But hey, they were unpatriotic!

Just why does PCness work? Why is it a weapon so potent? Because it forces you to justify yourself by denouncing you of beeing discriminant or, as in the above case, a backstabbing traitor.
PCness is an attack weapon, as it puts the opponent on the defensive. That's it's key strength. The threat of beeing forced to the defence is the deterrent aspect of PCness. And that's it's secret. It's an intimidation tool.

PS: Fixed the radio station link

[ July 01, 2003, 12:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Isn't it a disturbing thought that there seemingly is nothing, how silly already, that cannot be brought down further by beeing abused?

 

Laches, if the statistics are against me then i will give up my argument. I hope you understand why i am so angry about this. I hate discrimination in any sense and i hate the fact that soem use their colour to gain advantages when doing the same would brand me a racist.

 

Sir Dargorn -- I don't think Laches' argument was against you, at least I did not take it that way. The facts are that true equality has not been achieved yet. But what is different, at least in my view, is that in the world of PCness, you are a racist whether you know it or not, because "racist" institutions have shaped your thinking and way of life. You cannot help but be otherwise, according to PCness. That was the lesson of your encounter: because you were the white guy, you were guilty of being a racist, because almost all white folk are. That is how the PCness system works. Talk about "fairness." Oh, and don't forget, Sir Dargorn, you are supposed to hate women too.

[ July 02, 2003, 01:07: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Well, I guess there are 3. kinds of political correctness

A. The academical one, which Chandos the red described.

B. The rhetorical one, for political use:" Forget that political correctness stuff. Don't fall for the hype. The sun is turning around earth. It alway has been this way and it's obvious when you look at the sky. Don't care for those Copernicus fans and their revisionist view of the world".

C. The rhetorical weapon. So, you don't like me, what I say or what I did ? You only say that, because you are a rascist, a nazi, a communist, a birdwatcher, a fisher, an accountant, a anti-christian, a biker, an anti-semite, a stupid dumbass.