Food for thought... please read

[M Dogg™]

LOL... Unique and I are solders in a war that our dad taught us about for years. Our Dad is a straight radical, it's cool, he gots me wanting to be a radical too. Cruz Bustamante in 2006, fuck Arnold... lol... j/k. Arnold's cool but I want Cruz in office, I agree with his politics more. As long as there is not more Pete Wilson.

[PinkTowelGirl]

i am a full supporter of minority abortion

well i plan on being a mexican breeding machine... lol

i am going to marry the most radical mexican there is around here.. and like M said... make more brown soldiers...

[AWS SS 88]

good for you,i mean,its not like theyll amount to anything.

[Trauma-san]

Good post.

BTW, I was thinking about applying to the Univ. of Texas at Austin, but when I read that part about it being predominantly white, I have come to the conclusion that I won't attend a school full of racist crackers.

...but yet you're not racist, even though upon hearing that a school was white, you call them all racist crackers? Fuck you, this is the last reply you get from me in any post, because you're a fucking racist, and if that's the way you think, you don't deserve my presence.  I'm going to go talk to some people I can at least have hope for.  

[PinkTowelGirl]

good for you,i mean,its not like theyll amount to anything.

thats what you think... but they will.. becuase i am working real hard to have a good future... this why i can provide for all 20 little pinks... running around.. then they will have there little pinks running around... i am just going to bake beans.. till the end of time...

[UnstoppableForce]

Good post.

BTW, I was thinking about applying to the Univ. of Texas at Austin, but when I read that part about it being predominantly white, I have come to the conclusion that I won't attend a school full of racist crackers.

...but yet you're not racist, even though upon hearing that a school was white, you call them all racist crackers? Fuck you, this is the last reply you get from me in any post, because you're a fucking racist, and if that's the way you think, you don't deserve my presence.  I'm going to go talk to some people I can at least have hope for.  

 


BTW, Sub-Z, if you're so fed up with minorities complaining then maybe you should leave and go somewhere where minorities don't complain. Or just fuckin go wherever your cracker ancestors came from because if you can't be a patriotic American who values the visions of our fouding fathers then you don't belong in this country.  

[budsmokeronly]

good articles.  I think I read them all before in a college class a few years ago.  I never really realized a lot of that shit till I had that class.  It's sad to see how uneducated people in this world are.

[Woodrow]

This is a nice article written by the big homie Bret Jacobson. It's an opposing view to the articles first posted up.

No Room For Racism
There is a common perception in America that conservatives are racist -- they are small-town hicks with little education and a fear of change. They chew chaw, spit on the sidewalk and have beady eyes… and they probably have a shotgun rack in the window of their pickup truck. Right?
Wrong.

The ideology of conservatism is inherently non-biased, non-racist and non-bigoted because it is an ideology of results. Conservatism is about finding the right person for the right job. A true conservative believes that individual organizations -- whether a large corporation, a nonprofit, or a small family -- make the best decisions for finding the ways to success. If a company believes customer service is the key to success, they will hire friendly employees. If technical excellence
is the order of the day for a biotech company, it will do its best to hunt down the best chemical engineers and doctors. The most important ingredient is to serve what customers value most.

That is a powerful lesson for those who dont understand conservatism, because in a society driven by the bottom line and public relations, there is no room for racism, bigotry or narrow mindedness. Customers do not like to hear that they are associated with racist companies, and the most cut throat business person will never think about any employee factor besides the economic impact of job candidates. While there is no room in conservative orthodoxy for racism, modern liberalism is built squarely on a foundation of “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” From every syllable of their
condescending rhetoric to policies that promote poverty, liberals constantly reinforce the idea that minorities are automatically underprivileged and therefore require extraordinary legal and social protections.

Bigotry is a common tool in the quest for power and a sense of self-righteousness evidently desired by “progressives.” Liberals would have no crusade to fight if everyone knew that America is increasingly reaching the nobility of a merit-based playing field -- a scary proposition for those who believe those lacking talent or drive must be protected from themselves by the more enlightened (read: better-bred). But by reinforcing the notion that there is a vast group in our society that is constantly tread upon, and so defenseless that they cannot possibly be expected to fight for their rights in the same way every other group in American history has done, the implication is that minority groups must be patronized and pandered to.

Quickly examine the policies favored by progressives. They constantly fight the battles of yesterday as they continue to focus on affirmative action, women's rights and class warfare. But those issues have essentially been settled for decades and ganging up on the few violators under
the pretense of a critical mass facing societyis worthy of ridicule and scorn.

While it may feel wonderful to fight for a perceived underdog, every individual in the real-world America will continue to be judged on how much value their mentaland personal acuity add. That leaves “civil rights leaders” such as Rev. Jesse Jackson, women's rights activists such as Gloria Allred and Gloria Steinem and the conglomerated hordes fighting for affirmative action with a very real problem: a vacuum of legitimate issues that must be filled with a sound and a fury that signifies nothing, save perhaps their own inflated sense of self-purpose.

If middle-class white kids want to make it a more just society for all American citizens, they should take responsibility for their own actions and mind their own damn business. No self-righteous marches, no sit-in demonstrations and definitely no poetryladen coffee hours. As P.J. O'Rourke has noted, the best duty a citizen can perform is to obey the laws and pay one's taxes. If you follow that prescription, you will judge others based on their relative merits, which is the ultimate form of justice.


There's some food for thought. Condescending liberals get their rocks off by patronizing minorities, do you?

[Miss NWA Whoorider]

this is not a conversation til I get into it.Now bigotry is something the devil uses,it's a tool he uses to make us not get along.Open your eyes and see,it keeps you farther from God and causes you not to be able to see your neighbor for who they are yor neighbor,instead of some black or white person that lives next door.It seperates us,digs its claws in and if we don't do anything about it in the end can kill us just like any of satans other tools....................

[M Dogg™]

Fuck a conservative or a liberal, because both sides don't want the true story of racism, and white privilage out there. The facts are this, the idea of white privilage is that the United States has underlining racism. And because of this, true conservatism cannot work, because people still see race. The right man maybe a white man, it maybe a black man. Would a great man like Martin Luther King ever run for president. NO, race is still seen. Collin Powell was the man the Republicans felt would be great for president, why, because he is the bast man for the job. Who did the Republicans nominate, George W. Bush, someone that has shown to not half the skills of leadership that Collin Powell has shown by Collin Powell looking for many alterative ways to fighting the whole Middle East when he meet with all the Middle Eastern leaders, and tried to be a goodwill person. Bush and Powell don't usually see eye to eye. So why put in George W. Bush as oppose to Collin Powell, well, Powell would have actually won the election. Hell, why would Powell not except the nomination, because even he knows race is a huge reason why they wanted him in. Yeah he was the best man, but at the sametime, race was seen, and that taints the facts. A black man can't even run for president if his the better man, because race is still seen. A white man still can, because we don't see white race, we see a white person. That is the trust form of white privilage, what happened to Collin Powell and why we have George Bush as president now is exactly what I'm talking about white privilage. And you know what's funny, not a single minority really talks about white privilage, its what most white people talk about. It's there, and it's not liberal or conservative, because in politics, both parties want to have as many votes as possible, and don't want to be seen as racist. It's really just an underline thing in American culture.

[Woodrow]

Fuck a conservative or a liberal, because both sides don't want the true story of racism, and white privilage out there. The facts are this, the idea of white privilage is that the United States has underlining racism. And because of this, true conservatism cannot work, because people still see race. The right man maybe a white man, it maybe a black man. Would a great man like Martin Luther King ever run for president. NO, race is still seen. Collin Powell was the man the Republicans felt would be great for president, why, because he is the bast man for the job. Who did the Republicans nominate, George W. Bush, someone that has shown to not half the skills of leadership that Collin Powell has shown by Collin Powell looking for many alterative ways to fighting the whole Middle East when he meet with all the Middle Eastern leaders, and tried to be a goodwill person. Bush and Powell don't usually see eye to eye. So why put in George W. Bush as oppose to Collin Powell, well, Powell would have actually won the election. Hell, why would Powell not except the nomination, because even he knows race is a huge reason why they wanted him in. Yeah he was the best man, but at the sametime, race was seen, and that taints the facts. A black man can't even run for president if his the better man, because race is still seen. A white man still can, because we don't see white race, we see a white person. That is the trust form of white privilage, what happened to Collin Powell and why we have George Bush as president now is exactly what I'm talking about white privilage. And you know what's funny, not a single minority really talks about white privilage, its what most white people talk about. It's there, and it's not liberal or conservative, because in politics, both parties want to have as many votes as possible, and don't want to be seen as racist. It's really just an underline thing in American culture.

You're a clown.

Quit complaining about the white man holding you down, get up, get out and get something.
Nobody likes a whiner. Shit, do you even have a job or do you just complain all day about how shitty the white man is. Scapegoatism is an easy way not take responsibility for your actions.

The reason Powell didn't run for president is because his wife and family didn't want him to. Don't speak on shit you don't know anything about and blame it on race.

Your comments reek of a 1940's Germany.

I've got no job. Blame it on the white man
I don't like my job. Blame it on the white man
I see successful white people.  Blame it on the white man
I see successful minorities.  They are puppetts of white man
I didn't get into the college of my choice.  Blame it on the white man
I don't have enough money to pay for my college.  Blame it on the white man
I lost at Madden 2004.  Blame it on the white man

[M Dogg™]

I've got no job. Blame it on the white man - I got a job
I don't like my job. Blame it on the white man - don't mind it
I see successful white people.  Blame it on the white man -  props to successful people, whatever the race
I see successful minorities.  They are puppetts of white man - No, props to successful people
I didn't get into the college of my choice.  Blame it on the white man - Actually I did, I'm in a top 50 college in the nation
I don't have enough money to pay for my college.  Blame it on the white man - I love taxes, because they pay the difference
I lost at Madden 2004.  Blame it on the white man - Actually I'm 10-3 right now, and speeding to the Super Bowl with the Raiders, God I love the new owner mode... lol

Dogg, all that shit is not important. It's the underline of United States mentality of white privilage. White's don't even know they got privilage. But whatever. An educated minority is a threat to white people, oh my God, that Mexican is getting educated... oh no... he might spread truth to other Mexicans, and get educated, then they would pick our fruits anymore... oh no... they wouldn't clean our dishes, or swipe the floors, oh no... they'll work beside us. Oh no... can't have that. Their leaders must be currupt and racist, like Cruz Bustamante, and they can only get this way from Affirmative Action, after all, they aren't smart enought to really succeed, are they?

[Woodrow]

Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism

By Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D., and Gary Hull, Ph.D.

Is ethnic diversity an “absolute essential” of a college education? UCLA’s Chancellor Charles Young thinks so. Ethnic diversity is clearly the purpose of affirmative action, which Young is defending against a long-overdue assault. But far from being essential to a college education, such diversity is a sure road to its destruction. “Ethnic diversity” is merely racism in a politically correct disguise.
     
Many people have a very superficial view of racism. They see it as merely the belief that one race is superior to another. It is much more than that. It is a fundamental (and fundamentally wrong) view of human nature. Racism is the notion that one’s race determines one’s identity. It is the belief that one’s convictions, values and character are determined not by the judgment of one’s mind but by one’s anatomy or “blood.”
     
This view causes people to be condemned (or praised) based on their racial membership. In turn, it leads them to condemn or praise others on the same basis. In fact, one can gain an authentic sense of pride only from one’s own achievements, not from inherited characteristics.
     
The spread of racism requires the destruction of an individual’s confidence in his own mind. Such an individual then anxiously seeks a sense of identity by clinging to some group, abandoning his autonomy and his rights, allowing his ethnic group to tell him what to believe. Because he thinks of himself as a racial entity, he feels “himself” only among others of the same race. He becomes a separatist, choosing his friends — and enemies — based on ethnicity. This separatism has resulted in the spectacle of student-segregated dormitories and segregated graduations.
     
The diversity movement claims that its goal is to extinguish racism and build tolerance of differences. This is a complete sham. One cannot teach students that their identity is determined by skin color and expect them to become colorblind. One cannot espouse multiculturalism and expect students to see each other as individual human beings. One cannot preach the need for self-esteem while destroying the faculty which makes it possible: reason. One cannot teach collective identity and expect students to have self-esteem.
     
Advocates of “diversity” are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts — for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing: colorblindness is now considered evil, if not impossible. No wonder people don’t treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they aren’t.
     
Advocates of “diversity” claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. But the “differences” they have in mind are racial differences, which means we’re being urged to glorify race, which means we’re being asked to institutionalize separatism. “Racial identity” erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common. If that were true — if “racial identity” determined one’s values and thinking methods — there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races.
     
Advocates of “diversity” claim that because the real world is diverse, the campus should reflect that fact. But why should a campus population “reflect” the general population (particularly the ethnic population)? No answer. In fact, the purpose of a university is to impart knowledge and develop reasoning, not to be a demographic mirror of society.
     
Racism, not any meaningful sense of diversity, guides today’s intellectuals. The educationally significant diversity that exists in “the real world” is intellectual diversity, i.e., the diversity of ideas. But such diversity — far from being sought after — is virtually forbidden on campus. The existence of “political correctness” blasts the academics’ pretense at valuing real diversity. What they want is abject conformity.
     
The only way to eradicate racism on campus is to scrap racist programs and the philosophic ideas that feed racism. Racism will become an ugly memory only when universities teach a valid concept of human nature: one based on the tenets that the individual’s mind is competent, that the human intellect is efficacious, that we possess free will, that individuals are to be judged as individuals — and that deriving one’s identity from one’s race is a corruption — a corruption appropriate to Nazi Germany, not to a nation based on freedom and independence.

[M Dogg™]

Nice article, but the problem is that now you have a scholar trying to redefine words because he feels he can. In fact, it has been agreed with many many many scholars that what he says is not true. Though I will give you props for at least coming up with educated article. I do have tons of respect for you, and am actually glad you are reading and looking up articles by people that are not just spitting bull shit, but have facts to back them up. I hope to see more from you soon, as this challenges me to now sight my sources, and to come up with educated arguments, as oppose to just speaking for CWalker, in hopes he understands.

[M Dogg™]

Professor Gregory Jay

Department of English

University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

Last Revised December 2002

1. Who did we learn about in school today?
Like most words, "multiculturalism" needs to be understood from both an historical and a conceptual perspective. Historically, "multiculturalism" came into wide public use during the early 1980s in the context of public school curriculum reform. Specifically, the argument was made that the content of classes in history, literature, social studies, and other areas reflected what came to be called a "Eurocentric" bias. Few if any women or people of color, or people from outside the Western European tradition, appeared prominently in the curriculums of schools in the United States. This material absence was also interpreted as a value judgment that reinforced unhealthy ethnocentric and even racist attitudes.
Observers noted that teaching and administrative staffs in schools were also overwhelmingly white and/or male (whiteness being pervasive at the teaching level, maleness at the administrative level, reflecting the politics of gender and class as well as race in the educational system). Eventually parallel questions were raised (once more) about the ethno-racial or cultural biases of other institutions, such as legislatures, government agencies, corporations, religious groups, private clubs, etc. Each of these has in turn developed its own response and policies regarding multiculturalism.
Finally, "multiculturalism" may also have become a popular term as "race" lost much of its former credibility as a concept. Scientists agree that, in terms of DNA genetics, "race" has no significant meaning as a way of categorizing human differences. Intermarried families offer the puzzle of a parent and child considered as belonging to two different races--clearly an absurd idea given that race was thought of as biologically passed from parent to offspring. Thus "culture" began to replace "race" as a term for distinguishing among distinct human groups.
2. Is there any justice in this world?
The concern to create a more "culturally diverse" curriculum had roots in the intellectual and social movements associated with the Civil Rights revolution of the 1960s. These included Black Power,La Raza, the American Indian Movement, and the Women's Liberation movement, each of which challenged the norms and effects of educational policy. Multiculturalism also is directly related to global shifts of power, population, and culture in the era of "postcolonialism," as nations around the world take independence in the wake of the decline of Western empires (whether European, Soviet, or American). Perhaps more importantly, the Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) --- which outlawed explicit school segregation --- led to the admission of large numbers of non-white students to public and some private schools (also occasioning the "white flight" that has largely succeeded in re-segregating schools in most major cities). Teachers and school administrators then faced a student body with very different faces. This demographic cultural diversity was accelerated by postcolonial immigration from non-Western European nations during the last two decades -- especially from Mexico, Latin America, and Asia, which was hastened by the liberalization of immigration laws in the mid-1960s.
3. Melt or get out of the pot!
The historical event of multiculturalism brings with it many complicated conceptual problems, causing a rich debate over what multiculturalism is or should mean. America's traditional conception of itself as a "melting pot" of diverse peoples joined in a common New World culture has been challenged by some multiculturalists who consider the "melting pot" metaphor a cover for oppressive assimilation. To them, the only way you can melt in the pot is by assimilating -- becoming similar to ---the dominant or "hegemonic" white culture. In this argument, assimilation is rejected. Then multiculturalism becomes a movement that insists that American society has never been white, but always in fact multiracial and diverse. This movement seeks to preserve distinctly different ethnic, racial, or cultural communities without melting them into a common culture. Here the common culture is seen as white supremeacy, a culture of bigotry and discrimination, and the remedy as an emphasis on the separate characteristics and virtues of particular cultural groups.
4. Out of Africa?
Most controversial in this regard is the movement known as "Afrocentrism," which in various versions seeks to document the centrality of African cultural traditions to the foundation of American and Western history, and to celebrate that African tradition so as to increase the self-esteem and educational success of African-American students. Critics of Afrocentrism dispute both its intellectual claims --- the scholarship and historical conclusions it advances --- and its educational claims --- especially regarding the effect of an ethnically-centered curriculum on the academic achievement of students.
Defenders of multiculturalism have published a number of respected books to substantiate their scholarly claims. They point out that critics of Afrocentrism rarely investigate whether or not the traditional Eurocentric curriculum has artificially improved the performance of white students. See, for example, debates about the cultural biases of "standardized" tests like the SAT or the GRE, on which many of the questions assume a body of cultural knowledge more likely to be found among white suburbanites than students in the ghetto or barrio. Or consider arguments that white males in the past created an artificially easy time for themselves in college admissions and job competition by excluding women and minorities. Critics of Afrocentrism have had more success challenging some of the details of its historical claims than in refuting the general charge of Eurocentrism. Many middle-of-the-road writers claim to reject both "-isms" as making the same mistake of asserting a dominant "center." They instead advocate models of cultural hybridity and impurity that see each culture as a changing node in a network without a single center.
5. Is identity political?
One problem with certain strands of multiculturalism is their reliance on "identity politics." "Identity politics" refers to the tendency to define one's political and social identity and interests purely in terms of some group category: race, ethnicity, class, gender, nationality, religion, etc. Identity politics became more popular after the 1960s for many of the same reasons that multiculturalism did. The critique of America's "common culture" led many people to identify with a particular group, rather than with the nation --- a nation, after all, whose policies they believed had excluded or oppressed them. People increasingly became Native-Americans, African-Americans, Latino-Americans, Asian-Americans, Gay-Americans, etc., in an explosion of hyphenation.
This movement for group solidarity did in many cases provide individuals with the resources to defend their interests and express their values, resources that as disparate individuals they could not possibly attain. As the American economy began to decline in the late 1980s, the scramble for a piece of the shrinking pie increased the tendency of people to band together in groups that together might have enough power to defend or extend their interests. American society is now often seen as a battleground of special-interest groups, many of them defined by the racial, ethnic, or cultural identity of their members. Hostility between these groups as they compete for scarce resources is inevitable. In defense of identity politics, others point out that these divisions between cultural groups are less the voluntary decisions of individuals than the product of discrimination and bigotry in the operation of the economy and the social institutions. It is these that divide people up by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, etc., privileging the dominant group and subordinating the rest, they claim.
6. Breaking up is hard to do.
Still, most analysts admit that in practice individuals belong to numerous different groups and have complex cultural identities. The theoretical term for analyzing people in terms of their group affiliations is "subject position." Each person occupies a variety of subject positions -- is positioned socially, economically, and politically -- by virtue of how his or her subjectivity is shaped by group identifications. When we analyze our identities, we can break them up into numerous facets of ourselves, until it seems that Humpty Dumpty can never be put back together again.
A person may think of herself or be treated at one moment as a woman, at another moment as Asian, at another moment as upper-class, at another moment as elderly, at another moment as a lesbian--each time being either helped or hindered by the identification, depending on the circumstances. The various parts of our cultural identities may not add up to a neat and predictable whole. Multiculturalism, then, insofar as it groups individuals into categories, may overlook the practical reality that no one lives in just one box. Recent proponents of multiculturalism, indeed, have emphasized the multiculturalism within each individual.
7. The end . . . and the beginning.
In my classes, the essays and stories we read, and the films and videos we study, give expression to the history and conceptual arguments over multiculturalism. There are many accounts of multiculturalism--many "fictions" about it. I am personally less concerned with discovering the "true" multiculturalism than I am with examining how different artists and writers have expressed their experience of it. In literature and the arts we tend to get the messy complexities in all their detail, rather than the abstract rigidities we get from theorists, polemicists, and statisticians. The texts (written and visual) should allow you to better comprehend the character of multicultural life in America today and to respond by evaluating your own personal relationship to the question of cultural identity.