Is there anti White racism in the media?

[jay gw]

Here's an interesting question posed by someone on a BBC board:

Why are the French riots reported as being caused by an unfair system and those people really had no choice, and these riots are by a bunch of racist, hateful White people? I havent heard one person say 'We have to get to the root cause'. A bit of a double standard.

____
Wow. That's a very interesting question. Why is it when Arab and African French people (and immigrants) riot and burn 9000 cars they're victims of discrimination and have the right to do that and everyone should feel really guilty how badly off they are........but when Whites riot in Australia they're evil racists and should be ashamed and hunted down and arrested?

Who else sees a problem with this?

A few points:

* no the cars that were burned in France were not indiscriminately burned. The cars were owned by mostly native French people.
* no there's no substantive difference between attacking systematically a group's property and attacking a few of them on the street, although legally they are considered different.

Very interesting how the media makes one riot appear one way but another riot appear completely differently. I wonder why the impression is given when one group riots is that they're "victims" but the impression is given when the other group riots that they're "ignorant hateful racists"?

[Ed]

Blacks are liberal pets in the US. To be cared for and excused for peeing on the floor.

Any more questions?

[Tmy]

I havent seen any coverage on these riots. Is that proof that the media is pro white? Since they run riots by minorities on TV news 24/7.


And since when does the majority riot? Usually riots are brought up by a sub group that feels powerless in every other avenue.

By the way, how do you know the white Frech cars were targeted?

[Tmy]

I just went to BBC.com. I found the story, but it wasnt even the main headline. Looks like the white controled press is downplaying the white riots. So much for your "anti-white" theory.

[jay gw]

Here's why the "White racist" explanation presented by the media and even Australian politicians is dubious:

AUSTRALIANS BY ANCESTRY
Total population: 21 million

Australian: 6.7m (38.7%)
English: 6.4m (36.5%)
Irish: 1.9m (11%)
Italian: 800,000 (4.6%)
German: 742,000 (4.3%)
Chinese: 557,000 (3.2%)
Greek: 376,000 (2.2%)
Dutch: 269,000 (1.5%)
Lebanese: 162,000 (0.9%)
Indian: 157,000
Vietnamese: 157,000 (0.9%)

If Australia has an ongoing problem with racism why haven't all the other ethnic groups complained about it? Is there something preventing them from speaking out?

[DoubtingStephen]

Burning a French car is a lesser crime in the first place, since it is only a matter of time until a French car spontaneously combusts anyway.

I wonder if spontaneous French car combustion is a paranormal event?

But back to the thread at hand, the press in what country anti-white? It certainly does not seem that way in the USA. When I read a report of a crime in the local press, they do not say that the criminal was a white person if that is the case, neither do they say a criminal was black if that is the case. My local press seems to try to avoid reporting on the race of an alleged criminal.

[Tmy]

Burning a French car is a lesser crime in the first place, since it is only a matter of time until a French car spontaneously combusts anyway.

I wonder if spontaneous French car combustion is a paranormal event?

But back to the thread at hand, the press in what country anti-white? It certainly does not seem that way in the USA. When I read a report of a crime in the local press, they do not say that the criminal was a white person if that is the case, neither do they say a criminal was black if that is the case. My local press seems to try to avoid reporting on the race of an alleged criminal.

Really? Ive noticed that when they describe a criminal on the loose, they only mention his race when she is non white.

Someone should do a study.

(ps. Notice how I said "she." How dare we assume its always a guy!)

[Whoracle]

"My local press seems to try to avoid reporting on the race of an alleged criminal."



My local media has lead me to believe there is no such thing as a white criminal. In so cal its an endless parade of mexican and blacks shown as criminals.

[gtc]

I just went to BBC.com. I found the story, but it wasnt even the main headline. Looks like the white controled press is downplaying the white riots. So much for your "anti-white" theory.

I'm not sure where you live Tmy, but the riots are in Australia and the BBC is a British website. I think the lack of coverage due to the riots occurring in a different country is quite different to any racism.

[Zep]

Here's why the "White racist" explanation presented by the media and even Australian politicians is dubious:

AUSTRALIANS BY ANCESTRY
Total population: 21 million

Australian: 6.7m (38.7%)
English: 6.4m (36.5%)
Irish: 1.9m (11%)
Italian: 800,000 (4.6%)
German: 742,000 (4.3%)
Chinese: 557,000 (3.2%)
Greek: 376,000 (2.2%)
Dutch: 269,000 (1.5%)
Lebanese: 162,000 (0.9%)
Indian: 157,000
Vietnamese: 157,000 (0.9%)

If Australia has an ongoing problem with racism why haven't all the other ethnic groups complained about it? Is there something preventing them from speaking out?


Yes, Jay - we have a law that says that no-one but us white Angos can complain about anything, and especially about racism. We are not even allowed say the word. This is a really beautiful place, and we don't want it ruined with wogs and chinks and towel-heads complaining, OK? They should be happy enough to be here in the first place, doing the menial work for no pay that we assign them.

Sheesh... What. An. IDIOT! :rolleyes:

You truly epitomise the saying: The reason some people get lost in thought is that they have never been there before.

[Chaos]

Blacks are liberal pets in the US. To be cared for and excused for peeing on the floor.

Any more questions?

You mean, more so than Christian fundamentalist nutcases are conservative pets in the US?

[Euromutt]

Very interesting how the media makes one riot appear one way but another riot appear completely differently.Well, it's just an off-the-wall idea, but maybe it's because they are different. Identifying different motivations underpinning different instances of civil unrest does not imply condoning either instance.

The rioting in France was a question of socio-economic status more than anything else, witness the fact that Portuguese immigrants and even some ethnic French joined in the rioting. The Australian riots are obviously the result of inter-ethnic tension.

the cars that were burned in France were not indiscriminately burned. The cars were owned by mostly native French people.Or maybe they were indiscriminately burned, and it's just that the bulk of people in France who (can afford to) own a car (or have a company vehicle) happen to be ethnic French, not in the least place because they form the majority of the population.

[Marc L]

I haven't really noticed an anti-white racist view in the US media. Of course, I don't often watch the news, so I have an extremely small sample group to judge.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a pro-minority bias out there. I don't think it stems from actual racism (ie, whites are bad), but from a feeling of guilt. What I mean is that until relatively recently, people openly discriminated against non-whites in the US. Now, I think, we've gone to the opposite extreme out of guilt, by (like the original poster said), making non-whites look like victims instead of criminals (in cases where they commit crimes), or blaming black poverty on the whites.

My big soapbox issue:

We need to stop focusing on what makes us different. People keep saying, "blacks are victims, so they need extra help" rather than saying, "All humans are created equal, so don't treat one group different from another." The more we focus on differences, the more we notice our differences, and thus, in my opinion create bigger rifts and a feeling of resentment.

People need to be treated as people, regardless of their ethnicity, economic situation or whatever, with no special extra consideration. (The exception is those with obvious special needs, like the handicapped for example). If we do this, I think we'll find that racism will wane and eventually die out.

Marc

[jay gw]

People need to be treated as people, regardless of their ethnicity, economic situation or whatever, with no special extra consideration.

What about groups that were kept back because of color/gender? They don't deserve extras?

Well, it's just an off-the-wall idea, but maybe it's because they are different. Identifying different motivations underpinning different instances of civil unrest does not imply condoning either instance.

Then how does the media determine the causes of the two riots as they're reporting them?

[DavidJames]

Then how does the media determine the causes of the two riots as they're reporting them?It would be extremely helpful, maybe essential, if you actually provided a source for this claim.

[Tmy]

I'm not sure where you live Tmy, but the riots are in Australia and the BBC is a British website. I think the lack of coverage due to the riots occurring in a different country is quite different to any racism.

Im in the states.

The French riots were also in "a different country" bu there was all sorts of news coverage on that.

I havent seen any coverage of the Aussie riot. IS the media surpressing the story cause its whites rioting?

[gtc]

Tmy,

There hasn't been much to televise and since the weekend, most of the criminal activity has been directed at whites and christians.

The main violence was on Sunday when a crowd gathered to protest the beating up of two lifesavers. They got drunk and and a large proportion started attacking people of middle eastern appearance. That is now dated news, obviously, but there was an editorial cartoon in the Globe and Mail.

Since then, the violence has been spread out and carried out by mobile groups mainly in cars. So it has been much harder to film.

Indeed, the lack of coverage since Sunday actually works against the media supression hypothesis as the attacks have been largely in retaliation against the original riot. At least four churches have also been attacked, despite the fact that most of the Christians in these areas are not white.

Finally, I can assure you that the riots recieved enormous coverage in Australia.

[Mycroft]

Im in the states.

The French riots were also in "a different country" bu there was all sorts of news coverage on that.

I havent seen any coverage of the Aussie riot. IS the media surpressing the story cause its whites rioting?

It seemed to me the US media took a long time in picking up on the French riots. Give it some time.

[Jon_in_london]

Burning a French car is a lesser crime in the first place, since it is only a matter of time until a French car spontaneously combusts anyway.

I wonder if spontaneous French car combustion is a paranormal event?


I object! Some of us drive French cars and next to German cars, they are the best there is.

My Pug 306 will give carrots to any US car of a similar class.

[Jon_in_london]

There is a legitimate issue here- at least from my point of view.

A few weeks ago there was a trial where a couple of white men where found guilty of murdering a black kid with an ice axe. At around the same time, a couple of Asian men were found guilty of kicking a white kid to death. The former was front page headlines on every newspaper while the latter barely warranted a column on bbc.co.uk. Why?

Why is it that whenever there is a riot, it is always the white people who are to blame? In the recent riots here involving Asians and Blacks, the blame somehow got shifted to whites who were no doubt oppressing the black and asian people!

We have a media mindset that states that rascism is a nasty thing that white people do to black people and that it happens all the time. If you spend decades telling a group of people that they are despicable rascists, they may just start to believe you one day.

[Marc L]

[QUOTE=jay gw;1324754]What about groups that were kept back because of color/gender? They don't deserve extras?

QUOTE]

In my opinon, that just worsens the problem. It then discriminates against the groups that weren't kept back, and is demeaning (IMO) the groups that were kept back by saying 'You're not good enough to succeed on your own merits, so we'll help you because we feel sorry for you.'

For instance, I'm in the Navy. Someday, I'd like to make Chief Petty Officer (a senior enlisted rank, for you land lubbers). Now, imagine I was an expert in my job, well respected, and deserving of advancement. But there's a quota-we have to promote so many non-white Chief Petty Officers, so, you're stuck. Ie, we're not going to promote you because of your skin color. What does that tell me? As a normal human, I'm liable to start feeling resentful of non-whites. Further, I'm likely to let my performance start slipping, because it's obvious (to me at that point) I'm not going to get promoted due to my skin color.

On the flip side, imagine I were black. Again, expert in the job, deserving of advancement, etc. I get promoted. Now, how can I be certain that I got the advancement because I deserved it, and not just because I'm black and they needed to promote a certain amount of black people? What does that do to my pride?

The solution (IMO), is to treat everyone equally. Yes, it's simplistic, and obviously unrealistic in most (if not all) cases. If a black man and a white man (or woman in either case) is up for a job or a promotion, they should both be judged on their merits. Can they do the job? Who has more experience, better training, etc? The decision shouldn't be made based on either racism/sexism or on a sense of guilt because there was racism in the past.

Treating racism/sexism with more racism/sexism doesn't solve the problem. At most, it just makes it look like something's being done.

Marc

[Zep]

Marc, I'm under the distinct impression that the US military (it IS the US Navy, isn't it?) definitely does promote on merit and qualification alone, with no race-based selection criteria at all. Is that so?

[Jon_in_london]

On the flip side, imagine I were black. Again, expert in the job, deserving of advancement, etc. I get promoted. Now, how can I be certain that I got the advancement because I deserved it, and not just because I'm black and they needed to promote a certain amount of black people? What does that do to my pride?

I happen to know quite well several persons who benefitted greatly from affirmative action. They made "the grade" around 5 years before the accepted average.

None of them have any doubts about why they made the grade. They all know it was because of their own abilility and had nothing to do with AA.

Furthermore, they are all sure that AA has not seriously disadvantaged their white male colleagues..........

Conclusion? Draw your own.

[Marc L]

Marc, I'm under the distinct impression that the US military (it IS the US Navy, isn't it?) definitely does promote on merit and qualification alone, with no race-based selection criteria at all. Is that so?

Yep, Navy. As far as I've seen, for the most part, yes. Officially the US Navy promotes solely on merit and qualification. I can think of three non-white Chief Petty Officers and higher who would definitely give you a solid kick to the hindquarters were you to suggest that they were only promoted due to their skin color and not their merits.

For the lowest enlisted ranks (E1-E3, or Seaman Recruit through Seaman), advancement is automatic, so long as your supervisor recommends you. It's very rare in my (admittedly, very little experience) that a supervisor doesn't recommend someone.

Non-commisioned officers (E4-E6, or Petty Officer Third Class through Petty Officer First Class) are advanced based on exam scores and evaluations (as well as the amount of time they've been in that job). The scores are tabulated by people who 99% of the time don't know the people they're judging, so racism is a bit impossible.

Senior non-coms (E7-E9, or Chief Petty Officer through Master Chief Petty Officer) are advanced by exam and by a board. I don't know the details of it, so I can't say much about it. Again, from my small amount of experience, the vast majority of Chiefs and higher seem to have earned their title, as opposed to being granted because of race or gender.

Is that to say that for the evaluations and boards there's never discrimination involved? People are human. Humans err, sometimes. Fortunately, for the most part, (again, in my small amount of experience), it doesn't seem to affect things badly.

Marc

[Marc L]

I happen to know quite well several persons who benefitted greatly from affirmative action. They made "the grade" around 5 years before the accepted average.

None of them have any doubts about why they made the grade. They all know it was because of their own abilility and had nothing to do with AA.


Aren't you contradicting yourself? If they benefitted from affirmative action, then they weren't advanced due to their ability-they were advanced because there was a quota that had to be met. If they were advanced solely on their ability, then they didn't benefit from affirmative action. If anything, they benefitted from the people who promoted them having a colorblind attitude.


Furthermore, they are all sure that AA has not seriously disadvantaged their white male colleagues..........


Yes, but how do their white male colleagues feel? Please don't take this as an attempt to disparage your friends, but their opinion on how others feel doesn't matter in this case. After all, they're the ones gaining the advantage. During the days of segregation, I'm sure some white people didn't think blacks were seriously disadvantaged by having to use separate (substandard) water fountains, or give up their seats on buses. And I notice the qualifier 'seriously' in there. Does that mean their white colleagues have been somewhat disadvantaged? If so, again, how does that make them (the white colleagues) feel?

[jay gw]

Does that mean their white colleagues have been somewhat disadvantaged? If so, again, how does that make them (the white colleagues) feel?
What's wrong with disadvantaging White people to the point where they should be if they hadn't benefited from racist laws?

[slingblade]

This isn't a simple issue. That should be obvious. There's really no way a few people, trying to approach this with at least an attempt at critical thinking, are going to answer any of these questions with a few cites, or a couple of pithy quotes, or even a page-long post.

Even though I'm aware of the laughter and snide quips this will generate, I'm just this stupid, so I'll say it:

I'm 46, and two years ago I took a sociology course called White Identities. Yes, it was a college class. Yes, I know that incites immediate derision in many.

Try to control yourselves.

I could answer some of the questions posted here, but bear in mind it took me an entire semester to absorb and comprehend this information, to check it out for myself, to do the reading and the test-taking, and the essay writing. There's no way I can convey, in a few posts, everything I learned. And it was hard, at first! Some of the concepts made me furious! And I consider myself unprejudiced.

I didn't know a damned thing about prejudice until I took this course.

So, bearing in mind that this is a huge subject, I'd like to say a little bit about it.

The issue isn't that some weepy liberal apologists think blacks are victims and need our help. I know a lot of people do believe that's true, but they don't really get it either. They mean well, but...no, they don't get it.

Look at it this way: black culture in this country was centered from its beginning in slavery. They lived this way, generationally, for centuries. They learned it, lived it, absorbed it. Then it ended. But that fact didn't mean it was over, culturally. It took blacks another 150 years, and many deaths, to achieve legal equality, and at first, that was spotty.

But during that 150 years, the culture of slavery was still being passed on to each generation. Remember Steppin Fetchit? Amos n' Andy? Jim Crow Laws, One-Drop laws? Remember how free black men in the early 1900s still had to step off the sidewalk and into the street if a white person came near? Remember a little five-year old girl in the '50s having to be escorted into her white and newly segregated school by four white men? Remember Julia in the '60s and what a big deal it was for a black woman to be the star of a TV show? That wasn't a hundred years ago, folks. Remember the black man who was dragged to death behind a truck, in Texas? That wasn't fifty years ago. In some ways, the culture of slavery is still present in America, and until enough time has passed and enough things have changed, that culture is not yet dead. That is why it is still pertinent, all these years later. It isn't completely gone. Most whites, and especially those whose families have been in America at least 100 years or longer, simply cannot understand this, beacause it never has and never will be their culture. They are not feeling the effects of it passed down, often unconsciously, from generation to generation. Period. What whites do still get passed down to them, if their families have been here long enough, is a culture of ownership, and this too is unconscious in most cases.

It takes a long, long time to transition from one overriding cultural norm to its opposite. And in the process, racism is changing. It's gone "underground," in a sense. (This is one of those things that took me a long time to understand
--I do not expect this one post to do it for all of you. I'm just asking you to think about it.) Overt, in-your-face racism still happens, but it is no longer the real problem. The problem is the racism that lies in our systems and institutions.

Affirmative Action tried to address this, but it isn't the answer; it's ineffective, in the same way as is putting a band-aid on a suppurating wound. The wound is infected, and until you get at the cause, you can't heal it with stop-gap measures. AA can't make up for 18 years of inadequate education, or poverty, or a broken family, or all three at once. It did help many people succeed where the system might otherwise have overlooked them, but it also was used to hire inadequate people to "fill quotas," and well, that pretty much ruined the positive effect. I'm not in the camp that thinks intelligent, highly-qualified white people "lost" jobs because of AA, because more doors are open to highly-qualified whites in every field. There simply weren't that many doors open to blacks, period, when AA was enacted. Whites may not have gotten the jobs they wanted, but they had other chances, good chances, at other jobs that blacks just didn't have back then.

Okay, the country is different now, and it's not as hard for qualified blacks to get good jobs. So AA has done it's job, and now it should go. (IMO) But the process isn't done, by any means.

How many people in this thread were born before 1970? Because all those born after that date haven't really seen a lot of overt racism, and don't, can't, really understand just how bad race relations used to be. Because of that, many folks think racism is "over."

I read a recent interview in which a white teacher said of her poorly performing black students: "Well, what can you expect? They come from a culture that doesn't value education."

???

As I recall, blacks fought and even died for the right to read and write. How is that coming from a culture that doesn't value education?

People in this very thread have made other sweeping generalizations about blacks and black culture, even though we should all know better about sweeping generalizations. Yet, we can still make them, as if they're relevant or meaningful. Whiteness still occupies the dominant discourse in America. Whites still have an inherent societal power they didn't ask for, but can't refuse. Genders still have this power paradigm. The upper-class very obviously occupies this power paradigm, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

But as long as we can still see an entire people grouped largely by skin color alone as either "crazy, disfunctional criminals" or "poor, mistreated victims," we aren't really seeing the people at all. And they can't be "equal."

And that's what I wanted to say. Get out the knives and forks now. I'm done.

[Whoracle]

Top story on the 10 o'clock news in so cal is a murder in Beverly Hills and the suspect is a black man. Yeah they hate whitey.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, Jay - we have a law that says that no-one but us white Angos can complain about anything, and especially about racism. We are not even allowed say the word. This is a really beautiful place, and we don't want it ruined with wogs and chinks and towel-heads complaining, OK? They should be happy enough to be here in the first place, doing the menial work for no pay that we assign them.
Do you seriously think that's what he's saying?

Well, it's just an off-the-wall idea, but maybe it's because they are different. Identifying different motivations underpinning different instances of civil unrest does not imply condoning either instance.But the question is why the motivatiions are not discussed when the perpetrators are white. Both in this case, and in others. Why do nonwhites seem to not ask "why do they hate us?"

Remember the black man who was dragged to death behind a truck, in Texas?And how many white people have been killed by blacks?

I'm not in the camp that thinks intelligent, highly-qualified white people "lost" jobs because of AA, because more doors are open to highly-qualified whites in every field. I'm not in the camp that thinks that single-argument comparatives are an honest form of argument.

Whites may not have gotten the jobs they wanted, but they had other chances, good chances, at other jobs that blacks just didn't have back then.So there are no unemployed white people?

As I recall, blacks fought and even died for the right to read and write. How is that coming from a culture that doesn't value education?But you just finished telling us that they come from a culture of slavery. Doesn't look like you have a coherent position.

People in this very thread have made other sweeping generalizations about blacks and black culture, even though we should all know better about sweeping generalizations.Isn't that what you're doing? Blacks have this culture. Whites have this.

[LW]

Aren't you contradicting yourself? If they benefitted from affirmative action, then they weren't advanced due to their ability-they were advanced because there was a quota that had to be met. If they were advanced solely on their ability, then they didn't benefit from affirmative action.

I think that Jon was saying that: "they were promoted because of the affirmative action but they themselves are completely certain that it was because of their abilities".

[slingblade]

So there are no unemployed white people?

Strawman. I never said that; you did.

But you just finished telling us that they come from a culture of slavery. Doesn't look like you have a coherent position.

Slavery laws said blacks could be killed for learning to read or write. Literacy is power. So blacks fought and died for the right to be literate because they valued, as whites do, that power discourse. How does that contradict itself?

Isn't that what you're doing? Blacks have this culture. Whites have this.

Nope, because my comments use qualifiers, like "some," "most," "many," etc.

ETA: But the question is why the motivatiions are not discussed when the perpetrators are white. Both in this case, and in others. Why do nonwhites seem to not ask "why do they hate us?"

Whiteness in America doesn't occupy the same power discourse as being non-white tends to occupy. And many non-whites have been asking for centuries "why do they hate us?" When blacks were being lynched in the south, there were many surviving family members that asked that question.

[LW]

Slavery laws said blacks could be killed for learning to read or write.

Now I'm genuely curious. Do you have a source for the text of that law?

[Marc L]

What's wrong with disadvantaging White people to the point where they should be if they hadn't benefited from racist laws?

Well, let's take that to the ridiculous extreme then, and enslave all the white people. That certainly even things out, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

Not to be cliche, but two wrongs don't make a right. If it's wrong to disadvantage one group because of their skin color, then it's just as wrong to disadvantage another group because of their skin color.

Beyond that, consider who it is you'd be disadantaging. I was born in 1974. Like someone else said, I grew up after Jim Crow and Segregation were legally dealt with. Should I now be punished for the things that my father or grandfather may have done? Is that really just? Before you say yes, pretend it was murder. Should I be punished because my grandfather was a murderer? (He wasn't, by the way, it's just an example). And if you do decide that yes, it's just to punish the sons for the sins of the father, where do you stop?

The answer to racism can't be more racism. It's not even a band-aid for the problem, like someone else suggested. It's adding germs to an already badly infected wound. The wound just gets worse and worse and never heals.

Thomas Jefferson (yes, the slave owner. I appreciate the irony) said it best. "All men (feel free to read human, if you'd like) are created equal..." If this is true, then our laws and our society need to reflect that, with no one group being given special advantages over the other. If we try to correct 300 years of racism with more racism, then the Revolution and the Civil Rights movements were just big wastes of time, IMO.

Marc

[slingblade]

Now I'm genuely curious. Do you have a source for the text of that law?

Yes, actually, although I did misspeak in using the word "killed." I should have said "lashed to a point where death was almost certain" (39 strokes, usually). However, whites could be killed for spreading the doctrine of educating blacks, so I'm fairly certain educated blacks weren't spared:

http://www.dinsdoc.com/goodell-1-2-6.htm

“In Georgia, by Act of 1829, no person is permitted to teach a slave, negro, or free person of color to read or write. So in Virginia, by statute, in 1830, meetings of free negroes to learn reading and writing are unlawful, and subject them to corporal punishment; and it is unlawful for white persons to assemble with free negroes or slaves, to teach them to read or write. The prohibitory Act of the Legislature of Alabama, passed in the session of 1831-2, relative to instruction to be given to the slave or free colored population, or exhortation or preaching to them, or any mischievous influence attempted to be exerted over them, is sufficiently penal. Laws of similar import are presumed to exist in the other slaveholding States; but in Louisiana, the law is armed with tenfold severity. It not only forbids any person teaching slaves to read or write, but it declares, that any person using language in any public discourse, from the bar, bench, stage, or pulpit, or in any other place, or in any private conversation, or making use of any signs or actions
having a tendency to produce discontent among the free colored population, or insubordination among the slaves, or who shall be knowingly instrumental in bringing into the State any paper, book, or pamphlet, having the like tendency, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment or death, at the discretion of the Court.” (Kent’s Commentaries, vol. ii., part iv., p. 268, note.)

In the House of Delegates of Virginia, in 1832, Mr. Berry said: “We have, as far as possible, closed every avenue by which light might enter their [the slaves’] minds. If we could extinguish the capacity to see the light, our work would be completed; they would then be on a level with the beasts of the field, and we should be safe! I am not certain that we would not do it, if we could find out the process, and that on the plea of necessity.”


There are similar laws from several states on the above-cited site.

[Marc L]

I think that Jon was saying that: "they were promoted because of the affirmative action but they themselves are completely certain that it was because of their abilities".

Ah, I see. He was commenting on 'what does it do to their pride.' I misunderstood.

Marc

[Art Vandelay]

Strawman. I never said that; you did.You said that whites haven't lost jobs. That makes no sense unless there are no unemployed white people.

Slavery laws said blacks could be killed for learning to read or write. Literacy is power. So blacks fought and died for the right to be literate because they valued, as whites do, that power discourse. How does that contradict itself?You're the one posting strawmen. Simply picking two of your points that don't contradict themselves is quite silly. I never said that every single thing you said contradicts everything else you said.

[Jon_in_london]

Ah, I see. He was commenting on 'what does it do to their pride.' I misunderstood.

Marc

Indeed. People have a remarkable faculty of selective blindness when it comes to benfitting from discrimination. I know so many white South Africans who were/are adamant that Aparthied did not disadvantage black people and the only reason they lived in squalor and poverty was their indolence, dishonesty, promiscuity, paganism and laziness (!)

[Art Vandelay]

Whiteness in America doesn't occupy the same power discourse as being non-white tends to occupy. And many non-whites have been asking for centuries "why do they hate us?" When blacks were being lynched in the south, there were many surviving family members that asked that question.The point is that it seems like when whites are the victims, the focus is "What it is about white people that causes them to be hated?" while when whites are the perpetrators, the focus is "What is it about white that causes them to hate?" In both cases, whites get blamed.

[Tmy]

The point is that it seems like when whites are the victims, the focus is "What it is about white people that causes them to be hated?" while when whites are the perpetrators, the focus is "What is it about white that causes them to hate?" In both cases, whites get blamed.

Could you provide an example of this?

[hammegk]

Indeed. People have a remarkable faculty of selective blindness when it comes to benfitting from discrimination. I know so many white South Africans who were/are adamant that Aparthied did not disadvantage black people and the only reason they lived in squalor and poverty was their indolence, dishonesty, promiscuity, paganism and laziness (!)
How are things doing in SA these days? Lot's of folks clamoring to immigrate in?

[EvilBiker]

How are things doing in SA these days? Lot's of folks clamoring to immigrate in?

Actually, yes. Besides most of sub-Saharan Africa, we have a healthy inflow of ex-pats.

Economy is booming, government is slackening off on AA because they have realised that it was done in a really heavy-handed fashion which left departments without valuable experience. For eg. they are now re-hiring white engineers previously laid off to preferred black applicants. Hell, they are dragging them out of retirement in some cases.

We're doing nicely, thank you for asking.

[hammegk]

Actually, yes. Besides most of sub-Saharan Africa, we have a healthy inflow of ex-pats.
Ex-pats are mercenaries, not immigrees. (often, anyway) ;)


Economy is booming, government is slackening off on AA because they have realised that it was done in a really heavy-handed fashion which left departments without valuable experience.
AA is anti-apartheid?

And how are y'all coping with the sub-Saharans coming in? Are these folks right off the farm, or more qualified immigrants?

For eg. they are now re-hiring white engineers previously laid off to preferred black applicants. Hell, they are dragging them out of retirement in some cases.
What areas of expertise are in demand?

We're doing nicely, thank you for asking.
I hope you are correct, and wish you and yours the best.

[EvilBiker]

Ex-pats are mercenaries, not immigrees. (often, anyway) ;)

Not really - I was using the term in its formal context:

expatriate

Etymology: Medieval Latin expatriatus, past participle of expatriare to leave one's own country, from Latin ex- + patria native country, from feminine of patrius of a father, from patr-, pater father -- more at FATHER
transitive senses
1 : to withdraw (oneself) from residence in or allegiance to one's native country

AA is anti-apartheid?

Nope, Affirmative Action. A particularly virulent form was applied here. Ideally AA was to have been applied on an equal qualification basis, with the applicant's race being used as a decider. However, due to a severe lack of skills among the black populace (due to the apartheid govt's policy of restricting or impeding black education), this quickly became skewed as the new govt set dates for quotas to be filled. Companies would hire any black with a smattering of skills in the required field just to comply.

Things were pushed too fast - as a result valuable skills were lost. In the govt's favour, they have realised this now, and are trying to reverse the trend to some extent. The process has left the political field somewhat, and has entered the more realistic economic market.


And how are y'all coping with the sub-Saharans coming in? Are these folks right off the farm, or more qualified immigrants?

On the whole they tend to be more qualified - the majority are from Zimbabwe, our immediate neighbour, but we are also getting a lot of Nigerians, Kenyans, Zambians. Then we have smaller amounts of Congolese, Malawians, Mocambiquans.

The Nigerians run the drug trade.

A significant difference between the immigrants and the locals is that the immigrants seem to plan things better, to put it simply. For example: a Zambian will enter the country, hook up with some of his mates (generally along tribal lines), and then either join their venture or form a new one, be it selling cellphone airtime or tourist curios. They will open bank accounts, rent flats, pool resources, etc. with a view to advancement/enrichment in the long term. They become affluent pretty quickly.

The locals, however, (at the risk of generalising) don't seem to take the same position. They have fallen into a "you owe me" culture, for one thing. They also do not forward plan. Savings are a non-issue.

What this has led to is a very high level of xenophobia - the immigrants have higher degree of work ethic than the locals, and as such tend to get more work. The locals see the immigrants as job usurpers instead of opportunity creators and as a result react negatively.

The immigrants really want to work and settle in SA, but the immigration laws are very draconian at the moment. They are in the process of being updated and made more lenient. We need these guys - they are a major contributor to our economy.

What areas of expertise are in demand?

Hell, you name it: doctors, engineers (all disciplines), nurses, town planners, technicians, the list is pretty big.

I hope you are correct, and wish you and yours the best.

Heh, I think I am - I try to keep up to date with what goes on down here. We live in interesting times - the ANC is crumbling a little on the edges, as would be expected of such a large party. There is significant infighting about various issues. While this may not be good for the ANC, it is good for the democratic process and ultimately the country.

The best to you and yours as well.

[Skeptic]

Usually riots are brought up by a sub group that feels powerless in every other avenue.

In about the same sense that usually wife beatings are done by husbands who feel powerless to effect their wife's behavior in any other way.

[Skeptic]

A significant difference between the immigrants and the locals is that the immigrants seem to plan things better, to put it simply ... rent flats, pool resources, etc. with a view to advancement/enrichment in the long term. They become affluent pretty quickly.

The locals, however, (at the risk of generalising) don't seem to take the same position. They have fallen into a "you owe me" culture, for one thing. They also do not forward plan. Savings are a non-issue.

This is, alas, typical of human nature. Let's hope that the immigrants succeed... and that their children won't fall into the "You owe me" culture themselves.

[hammegk]

Any country attracting immigrants who attempt to make contributions to the economy as they better themselves is a shining beacon to all of humanity.

just my 2cts ... :)

[luchog]

The Nigerians run the drug trade.
As well as the majority of credit card fraud. That seems to be the case anywhere large groups of Nigerians settle.

[hodgy]

Lets all apply some common sense and realise that racism is a human quality -there are black racists and there are white racists, I doubt if the distribution varies on a racial basis.

On another note - should the descendants of US slaves be compensated? Maybe it could be argued that they have benefited by being moved from Africa to North America. Should they pay an extra tax to contribute to US aid programs on account of their happy circumstance?

Shame and guilt and liberal conscience are ridiculous and full of logical holes. Let each man do as well for himself as he can.