I too have been hearing the notion that those not within a “power majority group” cannot be legitimately accused of racism. Hogwash!

There is a growing tendency in our country for words to be arbitrarily redefined to suit ideologies. If that is the case, then certainly, our understanding of racism certainly has as much creedence as another.

As for power….When one looks at the case in Long Beach, the 30 thugs involved certainly held an enormous amount of raw power over the three girls who were attacked. Simply because a minority group does not have the power to totally assert itself over the majority group does not mean that an individual who engages in race-based rhetoric or action against another does not have the power over another individual.

This notion that one can only be evaluated within the context of a group is hogwash, too.

Yuk. Sorry. >>

Yes….well. Without generalization, all you have is anecdotal data, which also doesn’t carry much weight. Guess that leaves us with nothing to discuss!

I’ll take my ‘gut feeling’ and forty years which tells me that certain ‘gut-feelings’ are all about generalities, no matter what colour the skin, I say such generalizing is the very attitude that pits us against each other as humans. ‘They’, ‘them’, ‘blacks’, ‘whites’.

Yuk. Sorry.

Yes, I lumped all “blacks” and all “whites” together as groups. Yes, there are definitely exceptions and individuality. That said though, the question here is about “white” guilt. Doesn’t that also group all whites together?

And yes, I think blacks as a group want to be accepted by whites as a group. They just want to belong.

>>Isn’t that just a strawman underpinned by a glaring stereotype?>>

I don’t understand that statement. What I said was a generality which attempted to express what I see as blacks saying “you denied us our rights so that we don’t have what you have.”
The fact that their ancestors were once slaves is irrelevant. Would they be better off if they were still in Africa? None of them choose to go back(at least not permanently). In truth, if they hadn’t been shipped as slaves to the USA, they would have been sold as slaves to other places. The real problem is that in their native Africa, they needed certain skills to survive, and in a western culture they needed different skills, which they were entirely lacking. Even in slavery, there was discrimination between the “house blacks” and the “field blacks”…some learned the skills needed to succeed in the

As for you and your sister in law…your cultural standard isn’t determined by the color of your skin – and neither is hers. If you’re American born and raised, you probably attended school from the age of 6 to at least 18 – maybe longer. The culture in which you were raised and schooled determines your culture. Today’s US blacks could fit the culture in the same way if they would go with the program. Many don’t. They don’t because they somehow see “going with the program” as betraying their heritage.
Your SIL – again, I have no idea. She may be ignorant as dirt, or she may have been given educational opportunities roughly equivalent to yours. Probably the latter, but I don’t know.

>>Are you saying that all the ‘whites’ (me for instance) are expected by ‘blacks’ (Lashawn for instance) to become like ‘them’?>>

_Not_ Lashawn. _Not_ many blacks who make their own way with whatever opportunities life grants them. But those who whine about being “dissed”…yes. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want the benefits of white culture without making any changes in their own culture. They say “it’s just because we’re black” when in fact, it’s really because they’re living in a totally different culture of their own. If they’d accept the white culture, I think they’d find that the skin color wouldn’t matter near as much as they think. Do I know that as a fact? Do I have any references? no….just life experience and gut feeling. Take it or leave it, whatever you choose.

Suek, I’m sorry but I don’t undertsand the logic of your argument/assumption.

“Now…blacks want to be fully accepted by whites.”

You make it sound as if ‘black people’ (as a group?) want to be accepted by ‘white people’ (as a group?) Where is this ‘truth’? What happened to the individual?

You then say: “if a black adapts the white cultural standard, he’s rejected by the black group as a “whitey”. But isn’t that the goal? to get what “whitey” has?”

Isn’t that just a strawman underpinned by a glaring stereotype?

For instance, I’m a ‘white’ skinned person. What is my ‘cultural standard?’ My sister in law is of direct Nigerian descent, is she trying to ‘get what I have?’ and I haven’t noticed?

Likewise, when you say:

“It seems to me that blacks expect whites to change their cultural behavior to that of blacks”

Are you saying that all the ‘whites’ (me for instance) are expected by ‘blacks’ (Lashawn for instance) to become like ‘them’?

ARGH! There is NO WAY I’m becoming a woman, and certainly not a political pundit (no offense).

Sheesh.

Interesting comment. One side judges on skin color, but doesn’t consider cultural behavior as relevant. The other group passes on the skin color (you belong) but effectively says “but you’re culturally unacceptable”. “You don’t act(sound?) like we do – therefore you don’t belong.”

Now…blacks want to be fully accepted by whites.

Skin color is not “allowed” be be a factor.

By their own behavior, it seems that cultural behavior _is_ an acceptable discriminating factor.

If a black adapts the white cultural standard, he’s rejected by the black group as a “whitey”. But isn’t that the goal? to get what “whitey” has?

How do we ever overcome this?

It seems to me that blacks expect whites to change their cultural behavior to that of blacks – isn’t that a bit presumptious? It says to me “I want to be equal to you, and I want you to make me equal by you becoming like me”.

Contrast that to where I am now, in Memphis, where race is *the* issue. My friend Michael, whose father retired to Memphis when Michael was 14, says he didn’t experience bigotry until then. “In the army, all that mattered was that my dad was a lt colonel,” Michael says. “But in Memphis, the white kids didn’t like me because I was black and the other black kids thought I was too white.”

Could you place this in context? I’m not sure I understand what your point is.
Personally, I’d love to see some sort of a study on the effect of the military on national integration and the improvement of blacks over the last 40-50 years. The military is the only place in our society where people can be told “you _will_ behave in such and such a way” and there are consequences if you don’t. I wouldn’t say that there’s _no_ prejudice in the military, but it’s pretty minimal. Because of that lack of prejudice, blacks in the military are held to the same standard as whites, and ditto hispanics. “Just do the job” is the way it works. People in the military also learn to be on time(or even early), respect their superiors (as in rank, not as in value) and say “Sir” a lot,(which is a courtesy rather uncommon these days), and are expected to be answerable/responsible for their actions. All of which tend to make them more hireable than the average joe off the streets with the same or more qualifications.
Which tends to make me think that eliminating AA is definitely a good thing for everybody. Just do the job – whatever it is…digging ditches or getting good grades.

Not a farmer, but with farmer leaning tendencies. Not the subject of this blog either, but before you go knocking _all_ subsidies, learn a bit about agriculture. I don’t want to claim that there is absolutely nothing political about various subsidies (tobacco comes to mind) but farming is the source of food – which most people find a necessity! – and it’s a risky business. It’s not good to have a chancey food supply. You can’t just turn it on or off and have the land, equipment and expertise to supply it.
Basically, I disagree with you in that I can see that the government wants to assure that food isn’t in short supply, and does that by subsidies. I also agree with you in that any time the government hands out money, there are going to be people who get it who shouldn’t. That’s the nature of man, unfortunately. There are no perfect systems.

You see, her classes went like this:

The Aztecs were vile and bloodthirsty, but that’s the way their culture was… and we can’t judge them outside the context of their time.

The invading Spaniards were vile and bloodthirsty and furthermore corrupted by the Catholic Church (Inquisition Era)… and their behavior was unforgivable to the point where the 500th Aniversary of Columbus’ landing in the New World was virtually ignored in the US because Columbus was just too evil to commemorate (there should have been celebrations not unlike those of the Bi-Centennial commemmorating the official start of a major historic era!).

When I started figuring out that indigenous cultures were “innocent” and “excusable” because we can’t judge them outside the context of their cultures or times, and European explorers were inexcusably evil and… (insert your favorite Noam Chomsky quote here)… and COULD be judged outside the context of their cultures and times, I had the prof pegged. I answered her exam questions her way and got an A in her courses (unfortunately, I had few choices of profs in prehistoric civs courses… and yes, Meso-American cultures come under the category of “prehistoric” until the Spaniards’ arrival).

However, the lessons I carried away from her courses were far from what the prof expected me to learn. I learned about the double-standard, and that it was pure hokum. From her, I also learned to watch out for similar agenda from other profs.

“White guilt” gone.

And now, with commentaries like the ones I’ve seen here, I’ve further learned that lowered expectations are a form of racism in and of itself. Had I those classes to take over again in my present frame of mind, I’d give that white elitist prof some feedback on “racist attitude” that she would NOT appreciate! LOL!