No one white today owned slaves but most whites today benefitted from the 100 years after slavery.

[MaryL]

What the hell is this "AA" being referred to?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What the hell is this "AA" being referred to?

Affirmative Action.

 

[sakinago]

Redlining and restrictive covenants were nationwide fool. LAWS that ended 50 year ago only ended on paper stupid ass. Things just did not magically stop happening.. There is no "poof we are all equal now". For white people who were kids in the suburbs black could not live in due to these covenants living in houses finance by the FHA loans who are now grown cannot see how that benefitted their white asses. Whites have depended upon government for the entirety of American history idiot.

I am right to blame whites for what has happened. Because whites are the ones who did it.

Now to make this short, you talk about blacks being racists.Start showing laws and policies made by blacks that have denied whites of rights. If you cannot shut the fuck up.

You have such an angry attitude toward white people, I would not blame any white people for reacting negatively to anyone like you, Perhaps you confuse what you perceive as racism what is actually a reaction to a black person's negative behavior. I would not hire nor rent to anyone, regardless of race, with the kind of attitude you have.

This thread is not about your opinion of my attitude based upon you being white and not liking me talking about continuing white racism. This is a thread about policies that have benefitted whites since slavery.

Your pretense that such policies have not completely reversed over the course of the last 50 years, shows that you are intellectually dishonest, and your conclusions are bs.

There has been no complete reversal. The only bs conclusions are yours. And this is why.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT POLCIES MADE BY WHITES!

Teflon Theory of History

The Teflon Theory of American History says that anything that took place over 30 years ago is Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on the present. Or not much. Unless it was something good like the light bulb or the Declaration of Independence. Therefore those who make a big deal of the bad stuff in the past, like slavery, are Living in the Past and need to Get Over It.

For example:

Jim Crow laws were overturned by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore according to Teflon Theory the Jim Crow period is now Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on how White Americans alive today think and act. None whatsoever. Or not much. So racism is pretty much dead.

Instead of Jim Crow’s effect slowly weakening over time like you would expect, Teflon Theory would have you suppose that it just disappeared like magic one afternoon sometime in the late 1960s. Even though many White Americans alive now were alive back in Jim Crow times. Even though many others were brought up and shaped by those who were alive back then: parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, writers, film directors, television producers, news editors and so on.

Few sit on a mountain top to come up with their beliefs all on their own. Instead most people pretty much go along with what everyone else already believes with maybe a few twists here and there. Such beliefs come from the past.

So then why is Teflon Theory believed?

• Because of how American history is taught:
  • American history is taught as dates and people and facts that have little to do with each other. Sometimes the Effects of the the Civil War or Industrialization are studied, for example, but not so for the evil stuff – like how slavery and genocide led to present-day White American wealth, power and racism.
  • American history as taught rarely comes up to the present day. History becomes something in the past, in a book, not something we live in right now.
• Because of the needs of White American self-image:
  • White Americans want to think they are Basically Good and their society is Basically Just. Without Teflon Theory that becomes laughable since it flies in the face of history, common sense and human nature.
  • White Americans avoid honestly facing up to their past because deep down they know it is ugly. Teflon Theory acts as a guard against having to take it seriously.
• Because middle-class whites are protected from the ugly present:
  • Those who live in Apple-pie America rarely see first-hand the injustice that their comfortable lives are built on. And what injustice they do see on occasion, like black ghettos or wars on television fought overseas in their name, they have already learned to not see as injustice. But being protected from the ugly present makes the ugly past seem like another world, like it truly is ancient history with no bearing on the present.

That fact that the policy of AA, and disparate impact theory were made by whites in no way means they are not discrimination in favor of blacks.


Your continued implication that having a white involved means that the white is looking out for white interests is the completely unsupported, by anything other than your constant repetition.


We are not operating in any "teflon" scenario, where the impact of a policy is expected to be immediate. IT HAS BEEN OVER 50 YEARS.

That's a long time for a policy reversal to have effect.

I'm not white and I'm not over 50, how does teflon apply?

 

[MaryL]

Affirmative action. Part of LBJ's great society program. Busing, integration, yeah going back 100 years to the civil war when 62K people died to free slaves. What other sacrifices can be made to clear this shadow? After that, the rest is up to human nature.

 

[Correll]

You have such an angry attitude toward white people, I would not blame any white people for reacting negatively to anyone like you, Perhaps you confuse what you perceive as racism what is actually a reaction to a black person's negative behavior. I would not hire nor rent to anyone, regardless of race, with the kind of attitude you have.

This thread is not about your opinion of my attitude based upon you being white and not liking me talking about continuing white racism. This is a thread about policies that have benefitted whites since slavery.

Your pretense that such policies have not completely reversed over the course of the last 50 years, shows that you are intellectually dishonest, and your conclusions are bs.

There has been no complete reversal. The only bs conclusions are yours. And this is why.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT POLCIES MADE BY WHITES!

Teflon Theory of History

The Teflon Theory of American History says that anything that took place over 30 years ago is Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on the present. Or not much. Unless it was something good like the light bulb or the Declaration of Independence. Therefore those who make a big deal of the bad stuff in the past, like slavery, are Living in the Past and need to Get Over It.

For example:

Jim Crow laws were overturned by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore according to Teflon Theory the Jim Crow period is now Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on how White Americans alive today think and act. None whatsoever. Or not much. So racism is pretty much dead.

Instead of Jim Crow’s effect slowly weakening over time like you would expect, Teflon Theory would have you suppose that it just disappeared like magic one afternoon sometime in the late 1960s. Even though many White Americans alive now were alive back in Jim Crow times. Even though many others were brought up and shaped by those who were alive back then: parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, writers, film directors, television producers, news editors and so on.

Few sit on a mountain top to come up with their beliefs all on their own. Instead most people pretty much go along with what everyone else already believes with maybe a few twists here and there. Such beliefs come from the past.

So then why is Teflon Theory believed?

• Because of how American history is taught:
  • American history is taught as dates and people and facts that have little to do with each other. Sometimes the Effects of the the Civil War or Industrialization are studied, for example, but not so for the evil stuff – like how slavery and genocide led to present-day White American wealth, power and racism.
  • American history as taught rarely comes up to the present day. History becomes something in the past, in a book, not something we live in right now.
• Because of the needs of White American self-image:
  • White Americans want to think they are Basically Good and their society is Basically Just. Without Teflon Theory that becomes laughable since it flies in the face of history, common sense and human nature.
  • White Americans avoid honestly facing up to their past because deep down they know it is ugly. Teflon Theory acts as a guard against having to take it seriously.
• Because middle-class whites are protected from the ugly present:
  • Those who live in Apple-pie America rarely see first-hand the injustice that their comfortable lives are built on. And what injustice they do see on occasion, like black ghettos or wars on television fought overseas in their name, they have already learned to not see as injustice. But being protected from the ugly present makes the ugly past seem like another world, like it truly is ancient history with no bearing on the present.

That fact that the policy of AA, and disparate impact theory were made by whites in no way means they are not discrimination in favor of blacks.


Your continued implication that having a white involved means that the white is looking out for white interests is the completely unsupported, by anything other than your constant repetition.


We are not operating in any "teflon" scenario, where the impact of a policy is expected to be immediate. IT HAS BEEN OVER 50 YEARS.

That's a long time for a policy reversal to have effect.

I'm not white and I'm not over 50, how does teflon apply?

Lefties just say shit like that to create an illusion that they have credibly disagreed with data they don't like.


It doesn't have to MEAN anything, if you hold them to it and grill them as to exactly how what they said is relevant, they will just bring up another bs rationalization for not facing reality.


WHat they will never do, unless forced to, will respond to a hard truth, seriously or honestly.

 

[sakinago]

What the hell is this "AA" being referred to?

Affirmative action

 

[MaryL]

Sorry, trying to respond on a tablet after Excel energy cut my electricity. Damn, paying my bills and cut off at the knees.

 

[Montrovant]

Blacks can be just as racist as whites, but they do not have the power to enforce any such racism that whites have enjoyed. That's clear.

No blacks cannot be just as racist as whites. That's the point of talking about laws and policies. For blacks to be just as racist blacks would have to have done and do the same things whites have done and continue doing. Again, do not get prejudice conflated for racism.

I do not define racism as being the laws or policies put in place. Those policies and laws can be racist, certainly, but racism is believing in the superiority or inferiority of a race or races. Anyone can be racist, regardless of whether they have gained advantages from systemic racism in government or society. I think it is you who is conflating systemic racism with all racism. I completely agree that whites have benefited far more than any others from systemic racism; minorities have had little, if any, such advantage. On an individual basis, however, that is immaterial.

So, yes, blacks can be just as racist as whites, who can be just as racist as Native Americans, who can be just as racist as Asians, etc. etc. Any person can be racist, to the same degree any other person can be racist. In the US, whites have, historically, been the ones to benefit from systemic racism. Those are two different things.

Until about 50 years ago, when the nation put in to place pro-black discrimination, as documented by the effective 230 point bonus in Ivy League Admissions.

Just as there is a difference between racism and systemic racism, there is a difference between systemic racism and pro-black discrimination. Laws or policies which grant advantages to blacks are going to be put in place (or have been put in place) based on the idea they are necessary to balance the disadvantages blacks have struggled with under systemic racism. They are not put in place as a sign the government considers blacks to be superior to whites, which is what systemic racism was about, government policy based on the belief that whites are superior to blacks (or other minorities).

I think that is an important difference. I'm not claiming any justification for policies which benefit one race over others, but the rationale behind policies can have its own effect.

You are quibbling over distinctions that make no difference.

I disagree. A racist policy can have a greater deleterious effect than a discriminatory policy intended to correct a previous wrong, IMO. With the racist policy, not only is there the harm caused by whatever the policy does, there is the damage to the psyches of those affected, who are being told that their government and the society they live in considers them to be lesser human beings.

While that may be a danger with the discriminatory policy intended to correct the effects of the racist policies (a person might feel they are being told they are less because they need a leg up), I think it is less of a danger than with the racist policies.

Even if you consider it relatively unimportant, is there any particular reason you oppose different terminology?

 

[IM2]

No blacks cannot be just as racist as whites. That's the point of talking about laws and policies. For blacks to be just as racist blacks would have to have done and do the same things whites have done and continue doing. Again, do not get prejudice conflated for racism.

I do not define racism as being the laws or policies put in place. Those policies and laws can be racist, certainly, but racism is believing in the superiority or inferiority of a race or races. Anyone can be racist, regardless of whether they have gained advantages from systemic racism in government or society. I think it is you who is conflating systemic racism with all racism. I completely agree that whites have benefited far more than any others from systemic racism; minorities have had little, if any, such advantage. On an individual basis, however, that is immaterial.

So, yes, blacks can be just as racist as whites, who can be just as racist as Native Americans, who can be just as racist as Asians, etc. etc. Any person can be racist, to the same degree any other person can be racist. In the US, whites have, historically, been the ones to benefit from systemic racism. Those are two different things.

Until about 50 years ago, when the nation put in to place pro-black discrimination, as documented by the effective 230 point bonus in Ivy League Admissions.

Just as there is a difference between racism and systemic racism, there is a difference between systemic racism and pro-black discrimination. Laws or policies which grant advantages to blacks are going to be put in place (or have been put in place) based on the idea they are necessary to balance the disadvantages blacks have struggled with under systemic racism. They are not put in place as a sign the government considers blacks to be superior to whites, which is what systemic racism was about, government policy based on the belief that whites are superior to blacks (or other minorities).

I think that is an important difference. I'm not claiming any justification for policies which benefit one race over others, but the rationale behind policies can have its own effect.

You are quibbling over distinctions that make no difference.

I disagree. A racist policy can have a greater deleterious effect than a discriminatory policy intended to correct a previous wrong, IMO. With the racist policy, not only is there the harm caused by whatever the policy does, there is the damage to the psyches of those affected, who are being told that their government and the society they live in considers them to be lesser human beings.

While that may be a danger with the discriminatory policy intended to correct the effects of the racist policies (a person might feel they are being told they are less because they need a leg up), I think it is less of a danger than with the racist policies.

Even if you consider it relatively unimportant, is there any particular reason you oppose different terminology?

There are no discriminatory policies intended to correct a previous wrong. The lie is what whites need to get out of their system. Whites were getting 100 percent of all the chances, so if there is a policy that says others besides whites can the same chance it does not discriminate against whites. Now if you think whites are entitled to 100 percent of everything, then you say these policies discriminate. There is no one getting a leg up because of equal opportunity policy. That is another lie whites have made up. These beliefs are racist and they need to end.

 

[Correll]

No blacks cannot be just as racist as whites. That's the point of talking about laws and policies. For blacks to be just as racist blacks would have to have done and do the same things whites have done and continue doing. Again, do not get prejudice conflated for racism.

I do not define racism as being the laws or policies put in place. Those policies and laws can be racist, certainly, but racism is believing in the superiority or inferiority of a race or races. Anyone can be racist, regardless of whether they have gained advantages from systemic racism in government or society. I think it is you who is conflating systemic racism with all racism. I completely agree that whites have benefited far more than any others from systemic racism; minorities have had little, if any, such advantage. On an individual basis, however, that is immaterial.

So, yes, blacks can be just as racist as whites, who can be just as racist as Native Americans, who can be just as racist as Asians, etc. etc. Any person can be racist, to the same degree any other person can be racist. In the US, whites have, historically, been the ones to benefit from systemic racism. Those are two different things.

Until about 50 years ago, when the nation put in to place pro-black discrimination, as documented by the effective 230 point bonus in Ivy League Admissions.

Just as there is a difference between racism and systemic racism, there is a difference between systemic racism and pro-black discrimination. Laws or policies which grant advantages to blacks are going to be put in place (or have been put in place) based on the idea they are necessary to balance the disadvantages blacks have struggled with under systemic racism. They are not put in place as a sign the government considers blacks to be superior to whites, which is what systemic racism was about, government policy based on the belief that whites are superior to blacks (or other minorities).

I think that is an important difference. I'm not claiming any justification for policies which benefit one race over others, but the rationale behind policies can have its own effect.

You are quibbling over distinctions that make no difference.

I disagree. A racist policy can have a greater deleterious effect than a discriminatory policy intended to correct a previous wrong, IMO. With the racist policy, not only is there the harm caused by whatever the policy does, there is the damage to the psyches of those affected, who are being told that their government and the society they live in considers them to be lesser human beings.

When you tell someone that you are holding them responsible for the crimes of others committed long ago, you are telling them that they are morally inferior. YOu are also telling those you are discriminating in favor of that they are Privileged, in the Medieval sense of the word.

You are setting vast segments of society at odds with each other, greatly harming society in the process.

While that may be a danger with the discriminatory policy intended to correct the effects of the racist policies (a person might feel they are being told they are less because they need a leg up), I think it is less of a danger than with the racist policies.

Tell that to the whites who are the sole demographic with a DECLINING life span.

Even if you consider it relatively unimportant, is there any particular reason you oppose different terminology?

By the very act of debating over the terminology of the the anti-white discrimination in place today, we are muddling the issue and encouraging inaction on an issue that is seriously harming tens of millions of Americans as individuals and the nation as a whole.

 

[Correll]

I do not define racism as being the laws or policies put in place. Those policies and laws can be racist, certainly, but racism is believing in the superiority or inferiority of a race or races. Anyone can be racist, regardless of whether they have gained advantages from systemic racism in government or society. I think it is you who is conflating systemic racism with all racism. I completely agree that whites have benefited far more than any others from systemic racism; minorities have had little, if any, such advantage. On an individual basis, however, that is immaterial.

So, yes, blacks can be just as racist as whites, who can be just as racist as Native Americans, who can be just as racist as Asians, etc. etc. Any person can be racist, to the same degree any other person can be racist. In the US, whites have, historically, been the ones to benefit from systemic racism. Those are two different things.

Until about 50 years ago, when the nation put in to place pro-black discrimination, as documented by the effective 230 point bonus in Ivy League Admissions.

Just as there is a difference between racism and systemic racism, there is a difference between systemic racism and pro-black discrimination. Laws or policies which grant advantages to blacks are going to be put in place (or have been put in place) based on the idea they are necessary to balance the disadvantages blacks have struggled with under systemic racism. They are not put in place as a sign the government considers blacks to be superior to whites, which is what systemic racism was about, government policy based on the belief that whites are superior to blacks (or other minorities).

I think that is an important difference. I'm not claiming any justification for policies which benefit one race over others, but the rationale behind policies can have its own effect.

You are quibbling over distinctions that make no difference.

I disagree. A racist policy can have a greater deleterious effect than a discriminatory policy intended to correct a previous wrong, IMO. With the racist policy, not only is there the harm caused by whatever the policy does, there is the damage to the psyches of those affected, who are being told that their government and the society they live in considers them to be lesser human beings.

While that may be a danger with the discriminatory policy intended to correct the effects of the racist policies (a person might feel they are being told they are less because they need a leg up), I think it is less of a danger than with the racist policies.

Even if you consider it relatively unimportant, is there any particular reason you oppose different terminology?

There are no discriminatory policies intended to correct a previous wrong. The lie is what whites need to get out of their system. Whites were getting 100 percent of all the chances, so if there is a policy that says others besides whites can the same chance it does not discriminate against whites. Now if you think whites are entitled to 100 percent of everything, then you say these policies discriminate. There is no one getting a leg up because of equal opportunity policy. That is another lie whites have made up. These beliefs are racist and they need to end.

I assume you are published? Is this representative of your work?

 

[IM2]

You have such an angry attitude toward white people, I would not blame any white people for reacting negatively to anyone like you, Perhaps you confuse what you perceive as racism what is actually a reaction to a black person's negative behavior. I would not hire nor rent to anyone, regardless of race, with the kind of attitude you have.

This thread is not about your opinion of my attitude based upon you being white and not liking me talking about continuing white racism. This is a thread about policies that have benefitted whites since slavery.

Your pretense that such policies have not completely reversed over the course of the last 50 years, shows that you are intellectually dishonest, and your conclusions are bs.

There has been no complete reversal. The only bs conclusions are yours. And this is why.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT POLCIES MADE BY WHITES!

Teflon Theory of History

The Teflon Theory of American History says that anything that took place over 30 years ago is Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on the present. Or not much. Unless it was something good like the light bulb or the Declaration of Independence. Therefore those who make a big deal of the bad stuff in the past, like slavery, are Living in the Past and need to Get Over It.

For example:

Jim Crow laws were overturned by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore according to Teflon Theory the Jim Crow period is now Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on how White Americans alive today think and act. None whatsoever. Or not much. So racism is pretty much dead.

Instead of Jim Crow’s effect slowly weakening over time like you would expect, Teflon Theory would have you suppose that it just disappeared like magic one afternoon sometime in the late 1960s. Even though many White Americans alive now were alive back in Jim Crow times. Even though many others were brought up and shaped by those who were alive back then: parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, writers, film directors, television producers, news editors and so on.

Few sit on a mountain top to come up with their beliefs all on their own. Instead most people pretty much go along with what everyone else already believes with maybe a few twists here and there. Such beliefs come from the past.

So then why is Teflon Theory believed?

• Because of how American history is taught:
  • American history is taught as dates and people and facts that have little to do with each other. Sometimes the Effects of the the Civil War or Industrialization are studied, for example, but not so for the evil stuff – like how slavery and genocide led to present-day White American wealth, power and racism.
  • American history as taught rarely comes up to the present day. History becomes something in the past, in a book, not something we live in right now.
• Because of the needs of White American self-image:
  • White Americans want to think they are Basically Good and their society is Basically Just. Without Teflon Theory that becomes laughable since it flies in the face of history, common sense and human nature.
  • White Americans avoid honestly facing up to their past because deep down they know it is ugly. Teflon Theory acts as a guard against having to take it seriously.
• Because middle-class whites are protected from the ugly present:
  • Those who live in Apple-pie America rarely see first-hand the injustice that their comfortable lives are built on. And what injustice they do see on occasion, like black ghettos or wars on television fought overseas in their name, they have already learned to not see as injustice. But being protected from the ugly present makes the ugly past seem like another world, like it truly is ancient history with no bearing on the present.

That fact that the policy of AA, and disparate impact theory were made by whites in no way means they are not discrimination in favor of blacks.


Your continued implication that having a white involved means that the white is looking out for white interests is the completely unsupported, by anything other than your constant repetition.


We are not operating in any "teflon" scenario, where the impact of a policy is expected to be immediate. IT HAS BEEN OVER 50 YEARS.

That's a long time for a policy reversal to have effect.

I'm not white and I'm not over 50, how does teflon apply?

Then the Teflon theory of history definitely applies to you.

AA is not discrimination in favor of anyone. And when we talk about Teflon theory, you need to read t it again, because your post is an example of it..

Affirmative action is an equal opportunity policy If you are an Asian, you are part of affirmative action policy. So are whites.

Thus beginneth todays lesson

Whites have made the claim of quotas. Quotas are not required in the policy unless there are specific things going on. Before AA was made a law, it was examined thoroughly for constitutionality and that's why quotas except in certain cases are not allowed. The only time quotas are allowed is if your organization has a documented history of under utilizing minorities which includes ASIANS. In short the only time quotas are required is when a company is still practicing discrimination. So then think about why whites keep taking about wanting quotas to end.

So let me explain this to you Asian conservatives here who have bought into the race bait,

Affirmative Acton says that you will be hired or admitted relative to your population in a particular area. Nationwide, Asians are 5 percent of the population. In Ivy League schools they are about 20 percent of the admitted students. You are not discriminated against when 3-4 times your population is admitted into a college. Asians are not being discriminated against in admissions, and if there is any discrimination going on with Asians it has nothing to do with something that advantages blacks at the expense of Asians. It is white racism in the workplace and on college campuses that happens to every other minority, that denies ASIANS upward mobility just like every other minority group.

Asian Americans Aren’t ‘Basically White’ – Here Are 5 Ways Racism Hurts Us

I am Asian American and I hate teaching Asian American Studies. I’ve been doing it for about 5 years now and I regret to say it’s one of the most harrowing and downright painful experiences I repeatedly endure.

Is it because I hate my own kind? Absolutely not.

It’s because I frequently find that my students say some problematic, frightening, and downright erroneous things to resist seeing themselves as people of color who are oppressed. These include but are not limited to the following:

“No one’s ever been racist toward me.”

“It’s not like we’re Black.”

“We haven’t experienced racism in this country.”

“It’s worse in my home country.”

…or my least favorite and the inspiration for this article,

“We’re basically white.”

Yet while our experiences as Asian Americans differ from other groups, we — like all other people of color in the United States — live with the daily ramifications of white supremacy. And that distinguishes us from white America.

Asian Americans Aren't 'Basically White' – Here Are 5 Ways Racism Hurts Us - Everyday Feminism

So you conservative Asians here talking stupid better understand that you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book, the white method of dividing minority groups, pitting one against the other so they can get what they want.

Thus endedth todays less.

 

[IM2]

I do not define racism as being the laws or policies put in place. Those policies and laws can be racist, certainly, but racism is believing in the superiority or inferiority of a race or races. Anyone can be racist, regardless of whether they have gained advantages from systemic racism in government or society. I think it is you who is conflating systemic racism with all racism. I completely agree that whites have benefited far more than any others from systemic racism; minorities have had little, if any, such advantage. On an individual basis, however, that is immaterial.

So, yes, blacks can be just as racist as whites, who can be just as racist as Native Americans, who can be just as racist as Asians, etc. etc. Any person can be racist, to the same degree any other person can be racist. In the US, whites have, historically, been the ones to benefit from systemic racism. Those are two different things.

Until about 50 years ago, when the nation put in to place pro-black discrimination, as documented by the effective 230 point bonus in Ivy League Admissions.

Just as there is a difference between racism and systemic racism, there is a difference between systemic racism and pro-black discrimination. Laws or policies which grant advantages to blacks are going to be put in place (or have been put in place) based on the idea they are necessary to balance the disadvantages blacks have struggled with under systemic racism. They are not put in place as a sign the government considers blacks to be superior to whites, which is what systemic racism was about, government policy based on the belief that whites are superior to blacks (or other minorities).

I think that is an important difference. I'm not claiming any justification for policies which benefit one race over others, but the rationale behind policies can have its own effect.

You are quibbling over distinctions that make no difference.

I disagree. A racist policy can have a greater deleterious effect than a discriminatory policy intended to correct a previous wrong, IMO. With the racist policy, not only is there the harm caused by whatever the policy does, there is the damage to the psyches of those affected, who are being told that their government and the society they live in considers them to be lesser human beings.

When you tell someone that you are holding them responsible for the crimes of others committed long ago, you are telling them that they are morally inferior. YOu are also telling those you are discriminating in favor of that they are Privileged, in the Medieval sense of the word.

You are setting vast segments of society at odds with each other, greatly harming society in the process.

While that may be a danger with the discriminatory policy intended to correct the effects of the racist policies (a person might feel they are being told they are less because they need a leg up), I think it is less of a danger than with the racist policies.

Tell that to the whites who are the sole demographic with a DECLINING life span.

Even if you consider it relatively unimportant, is there any particular reason you oppose different terminology?

By the very act of debating over the terminology of the the anti-white discrimination in place today, we are muddling the issue and encouraging inaction on an issue that is seriously harming tens of millions of Americans as individuals and the nation as a whole.

No you are being held responsible for continuing the same crimes. There is no anti white discrimination.

 

[IM2]

Until about 50 years ago, when the nation put in to place pro-black discrimination, as documented by the effective 230 point bonus in Ivy League Admissions.

Just as there is a difference between racism and systemic racism, there is a difference between systemic racism and pro-black discrimination. Laws or policies which grant advantages to blacks are going to be put in place (or have been put in place) based on the idea they are necessary to balance the disadvantages blacks have struggled with under systemic racism. They are not put in place as a sign the government considers blacks to be superior to whites, which is what systemic racism was about, government policy based on the belief that whites are superior to blacks (or other minorities).

I think that is an important difference. I'm not claiming any justification for policies which benefit one race over others, but the rationale behind policies can have its own effect.

You are quibbling over distinctions that make no difference.

I disagree. A racist policy can have a greater deleterious effect than a discriminatory policy intended to correct a previous wrong, IMO. With the racist policy, not only is there the harm caused by whatever the policy does, there is the damage to the psyches of those affected, who are being told that their government and the society they live in considers them to be lesser human beings.

While that may be a danger with the discriminatory policy intended to correct the effects of the racist policies (a person might feel they are being told they are less because they need a leg up), I think it is less of a danger than with the racist policies.

Even if you consider it relatively unimportant, is there any particular reason you oppose different terminology?

There are no discriminatory policies intended to correct a previous wrong. The lie is what whites need to get out of their system. Whites were getting 100 percent of all the chances, so if there is a policy that says others besides whites can the same chance it does not discriminate against whites. Now if you think whites are entitled to 100 percent of everything, then you say these policies discriminate. There is no one getting a leg up because of equal opportunity policy. That is another lie whites have made up. These beliefs are racist and they need to end.

I assume you are published? Is this representative of your work?

Don't have to be published to know the facts. If you think hat policies made 50 years ago is anti white discrimination , what I the hell do you call he policies before that? Equality?

 

[Correll]

Until about 50 years ago, when the nation put in to place pro-black discrimination, as documented by the effective 230 point bonus in Ivy League Admissions.

Just as there is a difference between racism and systemic racism, there is a difference between systemic racism and pro-black discrimination. Laws or policies which grant advantages to blacks are going to be put in place (or have been put in place) based on the idea they are necessary to balance the disadvantages blacks have struggled with under systemic racism. They are not put in place as a sign the government considers blacks to be superior to whites, which is what systemic racism was about, government policy based on the belief that whites are superior to blacks (or other minorities).

I think that is an important difference. I'm not claiming any justification for policies which benefit one race over others, but the rationale behind policies can have its own effect.

You are quibbling over distinctions that make no difference.

I disagree. A racist policy can have a greater deleterious effect than a discriminatory policy intended to correct a previous wrong, IMO. With the racist policy, not only is there the harm caused by whatever the policy does, there is the damage to the psyches of those affected, who are being told that their government and the society they live in considers them to be lesser human beings.

When you tell someone that you are holding them responsible for the crimes of others committed long ago, you are telling them that they are morally inferior. YOu are also telling those you are discriminating in favor of that they are Privileged, in the Medieval sense of the word.

You are setting vast segments of society at odds with each other, greatly harming society in the process.

While that may be a danger with the discriminatory policy intended to correct the effects of the racist policies (a person might feel they are being told they are less because they need a leg up), I think it is less of a danger than with the racist policies.

Tell that to the whites who are the sole demographic with a DECLINING life span.

Even if you consider it relatively unimportant, is there any particular reason you oppose different terminology?

By the very act of debating over the terminology of the the anti-white discrimination in place today, we are muddling the issue and encouraging inaction on an issue that is seriously harming tens of millions of Americans as individuals and the nation as a whole.

No you are being held responsible for continuing the same crimes. There is no anti white discrimination.

I have linked to studies showing that those crimes have been reversed and that modern policy is for anti-white discrimination.

Your challenges to my links have been, at best, weak rationalizations fooling no one but yourself.

 

[Correll]

Just as there is a difference between racism and systemic racism, there is a difference between systemic racism and pro-black discrimination. Laws or policies which grant advantages to blacks are going to be put in place (or have been put in place) based on the idea they are necessary to balance the disadvantages blacks have struggled with under systemic racism. They are not put in place as a sign the government considers blacks to be superior to whites, which is what systemic racism was about, government policy based on the belief that whites are superior to blacks (or other minorities).

I think that is an important difference. I'm not claiming any justification for policies which benefit one race over others, but the rationale behind policies can have its own effect.

You are quibbling over distinctions that make no difference.

I disagree. A racist policy can have a greater deleterious effect than a discriminatory policy intended to correct a previous wrong, IMO. With the racist policy, not only is there the harm caused by whatever the policy does, there is the damage to the psyches of those affected, who are being told that their government and the society they live in considers them to be lesser human beings.

While that may be a danger with the discriminatory policy intended to correct the effects of the racist policies (a person might feel they are being told they are less because they need a leg up), I think it is less of a danger than with the racist policies.

Even if you consider it relatively unimportant, is there any particular reason you oppose different terminology?

There are no discriminatory policies intended to correct a previous wrong. The lie is what whites need to get out of their system. Whites were getting 100 percent of all the chances, so if there is a policy that says others besides whites can the same chance it does not discriminate against whites. Now if you think whites are entitled to 100 percent of everything, then you say these policies discriminate. There is no one getting a leg up because of equal opportunity policy. That is another lie whites have made up. These beliefs are racist and they need to end.

I assume you are published? Is this representative of your work?

Don't have to be published to know the facts. If you think hat policies made 50 years ago is anti white discrimination , what I the hell do you call he policies before that? Equality?

Nothing I have posted could reasonable be interpreted as denying the history of anti-black discrimination, pre-1960s.

That you felt a need to misrepresent my position shows that you know that you cannot make a point being dishonest.

 

[sakinago]

This thread is not about your opinion of my attitude based upon you being white and not liking me talking about continuing white racism. This is a thread about policies that have benefitted whites since slavery.

Your pretense that such policies have not completely reversed over the course of the last 50 years, shows that you are intellectually dishonest, and your conclusions are bs.

There has been no complete reversal. The only bs conclusions are yours. And this is why.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT POLCIES MADE BY WHITES!

Teflon Theory of History

The Teflon Theory of American History says that anything that took place over 30 years ago is Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on the present. Or not much. Unless it was something good like the light bulb or the Declaration of Independence. Therefore those who make a big deal of the bad stuff in the past, like slavery, are Living in the Past and need to Get Over It.

For example:

Jim Crow laws were overturned by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore according to Teflon Theory the Jim Crow period is now Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on how White Americans alive today think and act. None whatsoever. Or not much. So racism is pretty much dead.

Instead of Jim Crow’s effect slowly weakening over time like you would expect, Teflon Theory would have you suppose that it just disappeared like magic one afternoon sometime in the late 1960s. Even though many White Americans alive now were alive back in Jim Crow times. Even though many others were brought up and shaped by those who were alive back then: parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, writers, film directors, television producers, news editors and so on.

Few sit on a mountain top to come up with their beliefs all on their own. Instead most people pretty much go along with what everyone else already believes with maybe a few twists here and there. Such beliefs come from the past.

So then why is Teflon Theory believed?

• Because of how American history is taught:
  • American history is taught as dates and people and facts that have little to do with each other. Sometimes the Effects of the the Civil War or Industrialization are studied, for example, but not so for the evil stuff – like how slavery and genocide led to present-day White American wealth, power and racism.
  • American history as taught rarely comes up to the present day. History becomes something in the past, in a book, not something we live in right now.
• Because of the needs of White American self-image:
  • White Americans want to think they are Basically Good and their society is Basically Just. Without Teflon Theory that becomes laughable since it flies in the face of history, common sense and human nature.
  • White Americans avoid honestly facing up to their past because deep down they know it is ugly. Teflon Theory acts as a guard against having to take it seriously.
• Because middle-class whites are protected from the ugly present:
  • Those who live in Apple-pie America rarely see first-hand the injustice that their comfortable lives are built on. And what injustice they do see on occasion, like black ghettos or wars on television fought overseas in their name, they have already learned to not see as injustice. But being protected from the ugly present makes the ugly past seem like another world, like it truly is ancient history with no bearing on the present.

That fact that the policy of AA, and disparate impact theory were made by whites in no way means they are not discrimination in favor of blacks.


Your continued implication that having a white involved means that the white is looking out for white interests is the completely unsupported, by anything other than your constant repetition.


We are not operating in any "teflon" scenario, where the impact of a policy is expected to be immediate. IT HAS BEEN OVER 50 YEARS.

That's a long time for a policy reversal to have effect.

I'm not white and I'm not over 50, how does teflon apply?

Then the Teflon theory of history definitely applies to you.

AA is not discrimination in favor of anyone. And when we talk about Teflon theory, you need to read t it again, because your post is an example of it..

Affirmative action is an equal opportunity policy If you are an Asian, you are part of affirmative action policy. So are whites.

Thus beginneth todays lesson

Whites have made the claim of quotas. Quotas are not required in the policy unless there are specific things going on. Before AA was made a law, it was examined thoroughly for constitutionality and that's why quotas except in certain cases are not allowed. The only time quotas are allowed is if your organization has a documented history of under utilizing minorities which includes ASIANS. In short the only time quotas are required is when a company is still practicing discrimination. So then think about why whites keep taking about wanting quotas to end.

So let me explain this to you Asian conservatives here who have bought into the race bait,

n Ivy League schools they are about 20 percent of the admitted students. You are not discriminated against when 3-4 times your population is admitted into a college. Asians are not being discriminated against in admissions, and if there is any discrimination going on with Asians it has nothing to do with something that advantages blacks at the expense of Asians. It is white racism in the workplace and on college campuses that happens to every other minority, that denies ASIANS upward mobility just like every other minority group.

Asian Americans Aren’t ‘Basically White’ – Here Are 5 Ways Racism Hurts Us

I am Asian American and I hate teaching Asian American Studies. I’ve been doing it for about 5 years now and I regret to say it’s one of the most harrowing and downright painful experiences I repeatedly endure.

Is it because I hate my own kind? Absolutely not.

It’s because I frequently find that my students say some problematic, frightening, and downright erroneous things to resist seeing themselves as people of color who are oppressed. These include but are not limited to the following:

“No one’s ever been racist toward me.”

“It’s not like we’re Black.”

“We haven’t experienced racism in this country.”

“It’s worse in my home country.”

…or my least favorite and the inspiration for this article,

“We’re basically white.”

Yet while our experiences as Asian Americans differ from other groups, we — like all other people of color in the United States — live with the daily ramifications of white supremacy. And that distinguishes us from white America.

Asian Americans Aren't 'Basically White' – Here Are 5 Ways Racism Hurts Us - Everyday Feminism

So you conservative Asians here talking stupid better understand that you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book, the white method of dividing minority groups, pitting one against the other so they can get what they want.

Thus endedth todays less.

You just described a quota.

 

[katsteve2012]

Just as there is a difference between racism and systemic racism, there is a difference between systemic racism and pro-black discrimination. Laws or policies which grant advantages to blacks are going to be put in place (or have been put in place) based on the idea they are necessary to balance the disadvantages blacks have struggled with under systemic racism. They are not put in place as a sign the government considers blacks to be superior to whites, which is what systemic racism was about, government policy based on the belief that whites are superior to blacks (or other minorities).

I think that is an important difference. I'm not claiming any justification for policies which benefit one race over others, but the rationale behind policies can have its own effect.

You are quibbling over distinctions that make no difference.

I disagree. A racist policy can have a greater deleterious effect than a discriminatory policy intended to correct a previous wrong, IMO. With the racist policy, not only is there the harm caused by whatever the policy does, there is the damage to the psyches of those affected, who are being told that their government and the society they live in considers them to be lesser human beings.

While that may be a danger with the discriminatory policy intended to correct the effects of the racist policies (a person might feel they are being told they are less because they need a leg up), I think it is less of a danger than with the racist policies.

Even if you consider it relatively unimportant, is there any particular reason you oppose different terminology?

There are no discriminatory policies intended to correct a previous wrong. The lie is what whites need to get out of their system. Whites were getting 100 percent of all the chances, so if there is a policy that says others besides whites can the same chance it does not discriminate against whites. Now if you think whites are entitled to 100 percent of everything, then you say these policies discriminate. There is no one getting a leg up because of equal opportunity policy. That is another lie whites have made up. These beliefs are racist and they need to end.

I assume you are published? Is this representative of your work?

Don't have to be published to know the facts. If you think hat policies made 50 years ago is anti white discrimination , what I the hell do you call he policies before that? Equality?

Every measurable metric in America proves that there is no anti white discrimination. In the minds of SOME, any favorable outcome for non white citizens is the equivalent of being at the expense of masses of white citizens.

"This perception is fascinating, as it stands in stark contrast to data on almost any outcome that has been assessed. From life expectancy to school discipline to mortgage rejection to police use of force, outcomes for white Americans tend to be — in the aggregate — better than outcomes for black Americans, often substantially so. (While a disturbing uptick in the mortality rate among middle-aged whites has received a great deal of recent media attention, it is worth noting that even after this increase, the rate remains considerably lower than that of blacks.)

Reports on our research have occasionally prompted bizarre emails and phone calls of thanks from individuals grateful for our shining a light on anti-white bias — messages that we have always been surprised to receive, given the actual nature of our data. (A sample message: “The purpose of my email is to acknowledge the facts surrounding your recent findings. I am in agreement with the research because i personally have experienced racism and bigotry toward myself as a white person and i have been a target of racism and bigotry myself.”) Our findings do not indicate a verifiable surge in anti-whiteness in recent years or identify a new victimization of white Americans. Rather, our research reveals a heightened perception among whites that they are increasingly the primary victims of bias in America — a perception that statistics say is wrong.


But in the years since our study, whites’ identification with victim status — a view of themselves as the most persecuted group — has become even more apparent. Look at the reports about white nationalist groups that support the presidential run of Donald Trump, a candidate who has pledged to “make America great again” — presumably a reference to earlier eras when white Americans believe they were not yet targets of discrimination. This perceived victimhood may also undergird the bristling response of those who counter Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality by asserting vocally that “all lives matter,” as though acknowledgment of the travails of one segment of society necessarily leaves less sympathy for the others.


Our research also suggests that among whites, there’s a lingering view that the American Dream is a “fixed pie,” such that the advancement of one group of citizens must come at the expense of all the other groups. Whites told us they see things as a zero-sum game: Any improvements for black Americans, they believe, are likely to come at a direct cost to whites. Black respondents in our surveys, meanwhile, report believing that outcomes for blacks can improve without affecting outcomes for white Americans.

Such discrepancies are not new. A decade ago, psychologist Richard Eibach and colleagues demonstratedthat one source of divergent perceptions of racial progress is that black and white Americans tend to focus on different reference points. Black Americans typically see less progress toward racial equality because they compare the present day with an ideal, yet unrealized society. White Americans perceive more progress because they compare the present with the past.

What is the basis for the persistence of beliefs about anti-white bias? For some whites, the changing — and increasingly less white — demographics of the United States may feel existentially threatening. Indeed, research points to people’s pervasive fear that they will end up on the bottom of the status pile — a fear called “last place aversion.” That may further increase opposition to the gains of other groups: If “they” are moving up in the world, “we” must be moving down. Such fears might be particularly pronounced for a group, like white Americans, that has always been at the top of the racial hierarchy and therefore has the furthest to fall.

Black and white Americans may agree that race relations are approaching a new nadir, but this is just about the only race-related issue on which they see eye to eye. Major fault lines run through that apparent common ground. In calls to end anti-black racism, some see an effort to allow everyone to pursue the American Dream. But others see a threat and a reason to resist."


White people think racism is getting worse. Against white people.

 

[Correll]

You are quibbling over distinctions that make no difference.

I disagree. A racist policy can have a greater deleterious effect than a discriminatory policy intended to correct a previous wrong, IMO. With the racist policy, not only is there the harm caused by whatever the policy does, there is the damage to the psyches of those affected, who are being told that their government and the society they live in considers them to be lesser human beings.

While that may be a danger with the discriminatory policy intended to correct the effects of the racist policies (a person might feel they are being told they are less because they need a leg up), I think it is less of a danger than with the racist policies.

Even if you consider it relatively unimportant, is there any particular reason you oppose different terminology?

There are no discriminatory policies intended to correct a previous wrong. The lie is what whites need to get out of their system. Whites were getting 100 percent of all the chances, so if there is a policy that says others besides whites can the same chance it does not discriminate against whites. Now if you think whites are entitled to 100 percent of everything, then you say these policies discriminate. There is no one getting a leg up because of equal opportunity policy. That is another lie whites have made up. These beliefs are racist and they need to end.

I assume you are published? Is this representative of your work?

Don't have to be published to know the facts. If you think hat policies made 50 years ago is anti white discrimination , what I the hell do you call he policies before that? Equality?

Every measurable metric in America proves that there is no anti white discrimination. In the minds of SOME, any favorable outcome for non white citizens is the ...


....

I stopped reading here.

No metric proves there is no anti white discrimination because there obviously IS.


As I have documented with the 230 point bonus study.

 

[sakinago]

This thread is not about your opinion of my attitude based upon you being white and not liking me talking about continuing white racism. This is a thread about policies that have benefitted whites since slavery.

Your pretense that such policies have not completely reversed over the course of the last 50 years, shows that you are intellectually dishonest, and your conclusions are bs.

There has been no complete reversal. The only bs conclusions are yours. And this is why.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT POLCIES MADE BY WHITES!

Teflon Theory of History

The Teflon Theory of American History says that anything that took place over 30 years ago is Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on the present. Or not much. Unless it was something good like the light bulb or the Declaration of Independence. Therefore those who make a big deal of the bad stuff in the past, like slavery, are Living in the Past and need to Get Over It.

For example:

Jim Crow laws were overturned by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore according to Teflon Theory the Jim Crow period is now Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on how White Americans alive today think and act. None whatsoever. Or not much. So racism is pretty much dead.

Instead of Jim Crow’s effect slowly weakening over time like you would expect, Teflon Theory would have you suppose that it just disappeared like magic one afternoon sometime in the late 1960s. Even though many White Americans alive now were alive back in Jim Crow times. Even though many others were brought up and shaped by those who were alive back then: parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, writers, film directors, television producers, news editors and so on.

Few sit on a mountain top to come up with their beliefs all on their own. Instead most people pretty much go along with what everyone else already believes with maybe a few twists here and there. Such beliefs come from the past.

So then why is Teflon Theory believed?

• Because of how American history is taught:
  • American history is taught as dates and people and facts that have little to do with each other. Sometimes the Effects of the the Civil War or Industrialization are studied, for example, but not so for the evil stuff – like how slavery and genocide led to present-day White American wealth, power and racism.
  • American history as taught rarely comes up to the present day. History becomes something in the past, in a book, not something we live in right now.
• Because of the needs of White American self-image:
  • White Americans want to think they are Basically Good and their society is Basically Just. Without Teflon Theory that becomes laughable since it flies in the face of history, common sense and human nature.
  • White Americans avoid honestly facing up to their past because deep down they know it is ugly. Teflon Theory acts as a guard against having to take it seriously.
• Because middle-class whites are protected from the ugly present:
  • Those who live in Apple-pie America rarely see first-hand the injustice that their comfortable lives are built on. And what injustice they do see on occasion, like black ghettos or wars on television fought overseas in their name, they have already learned to not see as injustice. But being protected from the ugly present makes the ugly past seem like another world, like it truly is ancient history with no bearing on the present.

That fact that the policy of AA, and disparate impact theory were made by whites in no way means they are not discrimination in favor of blacks.


Your continued implication that having a white involved means that the white is looking out for white interests is the completely unsupported, by anything other than your constant repetition.


We are not operating in any "teflon" scenario, where the impact of a policy is expected to be immediate. IT HAS BEEN OVER 50 YEARS.

That's a long time for a policy reversal to have effect.

I'm not white and I'm not over 50, how does teflon apply?

Then the Teflon theory of history definitely applies to you.

AA is not discrimination in favor of anyone. And when we talk about Teflon theory, you need to read t it again, because your post is an example of it..

Affirmative action is an equal opportunity policy If you are an Asian, you are part of affirmative action policy. So are whites.

Thus beginneth todays lesson

Whites have made the claim of quotas. Quotas are not required in the policy unless there are specific things going on. Before AA was made a law, it was examined thoroughly for constitutionality and that's why quotas except in certain cases are not allowed. The only time quotas are allowed is if your organization has a documented history of under utilizing minorities which includes ASIANS. In short the only time quotas are required is when a company is still practicing discrimination. So then think about why whites keep taking about wanting quotas to end.

So let me explain this to you Asian conservatives here who have bought into the race bait,

Affirmative Acton says that you will be hired or admitted relative to your population in a particular area. Nationwide, Asians are 5 percent of the population. In Ivy League schools they are about 20 percent of the admitted students. You are not discriminated against when 3-4 times your population is admitted into a college. Asians are not being discriminated against in admissions, and if there is any discrimination going on with Asians it has nothing to do with something that advantages blacks at the expense of Asians. It is white racism in the workplace and on college campuses that happens to every other minority, that denies ASIANS upward mobility just like every other minority group.

Asian Americans Aren’t ‘Basically White’ – Here Are 5 Ways Racism Hurts Us

I am Asian American and I hate teaching Asian American Studies. I’ve been doing it for about 5 years now and I regret to say it’s one of the most harrowing and downright painful experiences I repeatedly endure.

Is it because I hate my own kind? Absolutely not.

It’s because I frequently find that my students say some problematic, frightening, and downright erroneous things to resist seeing themselves as people of color who are oppressed. These include but are not limited to the following:

“No one’s ever been racist toward me.”

“It’s not like we’re Black.”

“We haven’t experienced racism in this country.”

“It’s worse in my home country.”

…or my least favorite and the inspiration for this article,

“We’re basically white.”

Yet while our experiences as Asian Americans differ from other groups, we — like all other people of color in the United States — live with the daily ramifications of white supremacy. And that distinguishes us from white America.

Asian Americans Aren't 'Basically White' – Here Are 5 Ways Racism Hurts Us - Everyday Feminism

So you conservative Asians here talking stupid better understand that you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book, the white method of dividing minority groups, pitting one against the other so they can get what they want.

Thus endedth todays less.

You just described a quota hahaha. And the discrimination doesn't come from acceptance rate of colleges in general, no one ever made that claim. There are nurmerous colleges that practically accept you if you body is warm. The discrimination comes from Asians having to outperform almost every other race, especially when it comes to more competitive colleges. Would it not be discrimination for a school to require higher standards of blacks more than another race for acceptance? Are you telling me you wouldn't have a problem if schools did that? Go ahed and answer.