It’s a choice of behavior rather than an inherent part of our being.

A discussion for another day.

Since both sides are discriminating against the other, the end result is equality.

IMHO, Affirmative Action is a policy is a lot more complicated than that. The SCOTUS ruling in 2003 was explained by the Wall Street Journal this way:

In the Michigan cases, both of which were brought by rejected white applicants to the university, the court approved of using race as one tool to achieve a diverse student body. But the court said schools can’t maintain quotas or separate admissions tracks for racial groups — nor define diversity solely in terms of race. As such, it struck down a point scale for admitting undergraduates that gave an automatic boost to blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans, ruling that applicants must receive “truly individualized consideration.” In other words, all aspects of a student’s life should be taken into account, from race to family background to economic opportunity.

So the country continues to discuss and debate how big a role race plays in our everyday lives.

Ironically, there have been a series of articles recently published to address this very issue.

In today’s New York Times.

A VERY interesting read the Wall Street Journal very similar to the discussion we have had.

The AP has also reported on the Affirmative Action debate as well recently.

I mean no offense with this term. I used the term “underdog” to refer to any group or individual that faces either an uphill battle, difficult challenge or injustice.

I believe you when you say you meant no offense. But I do think that your use of the term in the way you intended it also is very interesting. Because many African Americans (according to the above linked articles) still feel that race plays a factor in our society and contributes to that “uphill battle” of which you speak. The best ways to remedy that disagreement continue to be debated.

I’m still pondering what you said about W.E.B. Dubois, Booker T. Washington, and Ellis Washington.

I’m still interested in your reaction to the WND story and my opinion about it.

Oh, and Happy Independence Day, by the way. Hope you and your family had a great time celebrating our Nation’s birthday.

I had a great day, thank you for asking. Hope you had a great time as well with you and yours. I have enjoyed our discusion thus far and look forward to your response.

But could there perhaps be intances where one doesn’t have the opportunity for them to try and earn trust, based on someone else’s personal discrimination (for example, being turned away from housing based on sexual orientation)?

I see your point here. Sexual orientation though is different than race, gender or religion. It’s a choice of behavior rather than an inherent part of our being.

It is true that some people may retain personal prejudices and the chances of getting them to get over their prejudices by telling to them to do so may be slim.

Some people choose through willful ignorance or just plain hate to not look at personal accomplishment or character when judging folks. It’s a sad thing for everyone.

By not overcoming prejudices in the workplace, and relying solely on the “hope” that people will eventually get it leaves the door open for prejudice and discrimination. Not saying it happens all the time, I’m just saying the door is open.

Quite true. But what is the alternative? A.Action, as I understand it, says the following: 1) People “A” are discriminating against people “B”. 2) People “A” will now have to fill a quota of people “B”, hence potentially discriminating against people “A”. 3) Since both sides are discriminating against the other, the end result is equality. The problem though is that now both sides have legitimate feelings of resentment, hence fueling more and stronger prejudices. Relying on the hope that people will treat others decently is our best alternative, unless you can think of something better. Some folks are just jerks, which reminds me of this Far Side calendar.

Underdog. Interesting word choice and I want to ask you why you used that particular term. What makes them, or anyone else who must “outperform their peers” in order to achieve to success, an “underdog?” Are there any more “underdogs” today?

I mean no offense with this term. I used the term “underdog” to refer to any group or individual that faces either an uphill battle, difficult challenge or injustice. After looking into the denotation of the word in the dictionary, I see part of the actual meaning is that the underdog is expected to lose. I don’t think blacks, or any minority in the United States, are expected to lose. This was an oversight of definition on my part.
I’m still pondering what you said about W.E.B. Dubois, Booker T. Washington, and Ellis Washington.
Oh, and Happy Independence Day, by the way. Hope you and your family had a great time celebrating our Nation’s birthday.

Fourth of July Kreiz, Carolyn and the HRB, enjoy your Fourth as well. Yesterday, a woman of color decided that the words to the Star Spangled Banner didn’t say the words she felt for her country. She instead sung what…

The last two paragraphs beginning with “I will close with this” are my own thoughts.

Racial barriers, like any other barrier whether it be economic, social status, handicap, whatever, has to be overcome by hard work, which would hopefully earn the respect of others.

The emphasis on “hopefully” is mine. The reason why I highlighted that word is because it gives a window wherefore we can understand the other’s position. The reason why the “hopefully” is important is because on one hand, it is a great thing when people are able to work hard and achieve personal success. Some of the most successful people in history have had to rely on their own courage and initiative to make sure they could overcome personal obstacles that have been placed in their way. Just as important as it is for people to understand that they must work hard (James 2:20: “faith without works is dead”) and accept personal responsibility for their actions, society must also do its part to eliminate other obstacles that may be outside of the control of the personal individual. It is true that some people may retain personal prejudices and the chances of getting them to get over their prejudices by telling to them to do so may be slim. But society has placed certain punishments for those who may target a person for discrimination or injury simply because they are part of a certain minority group. We have had discussions on this board before about “hate crimes” and their role in our society, so I will not get into the subject further, but to say that this seems to be (to me at least) our society’s attempt to suppress discrimination based on certain factors.

Trust must be earned, not asked for and given by a third party.

Indeed. But could there perhaps be intances where one doesn’t have the opportunity for them to try and earn trust, based on someone else’s personal discrimination (for example, being turned away from housing based on sexual orientation)?

I’ve come to trust folks of all races who wear the uniform with me. If I didn’t, I would fail in my job. I don’t respect them because the government told me to do so, but rather I respect them because they proved their worth to me by doing their job effectively and showing me their character. I do this with all people. I have to do this, or someone dies.

When you say uniform, I do not know if that is military or another organization. If that is military, you have my gratitude for your service. I am thinking more along the lines of business practices. If we agree that discrimination still occurs based on people’s personal prejudices, then who is going to tell them that “it would be a good idea to take this person to make your company workforce better.” Perhaps then, once that person in question is in that position, he/she would start to earn the trust of people around them. Even though their name might be unique, they still can show that they are qualified to do the job.

By not overcoming prejudices in the workplace, and relying solely on the “hope” that people will eventually get it leaves the door open for prejudice and discrimination. Not saying it happens all the time, I’m just saying the door is open. This is what W.E.B. Dubois wanted to avoid, and it leads me right into your question about a discussion between Dubois and Booker T. Washington.

I do not know much about the author Mr. Ellis Washington at this time, so I cannot speak to what kind of experiences he has had on which to base his understanding of how to live his life. With that said, it is where he chose to publish the article that is of particular interest to me. World Net Daily is a conservative website (how conservative is based on who you ask). But it seems to me in his article that Mr. Washington is expressing his desire for a “pull-yourself-up” mentality that is a staple of personal responsibility and self-reliance instead of relying on others (such as the government for example). Booker T. Washington is quoted as once saying: “Dignify and glorify common labor. It is at the bottom of life that we must begin, not at the top.” This quote indicates that if black people work hard and accumulate resources that it would hopefully lead to equality… eventually. So Mr. Washington’s beliefs seem to be closely aligned with Booker T. Washington’s beliefs.

W.E.B. Dubois saw it differently. He said that if African Americans spoke up and spoke out against discrimination and actively advocated for the same rights as their white counterparts (for example: voting), then that would be the foundation upon which the movement would be formed in attaining equality in America. This is what eventually happened. I believe that this is what Mr. Washington is referring to when he says that:

it is obvious that King and the entire civil rights movement chose to follow the philosophy of W.E.B. Dubois, a miserable and tragic worldview born of arrogance (Dubois’ “talent tenth” philosophy), ignorance (liberalism), despair (anger, protest, litigation), and has forsaken the worldview of Booker T. Washington, born of self-discipline, morality and rugged American individualism (despite the odds).

While I respect Mr. Ellis Washington’s right to his opinion, I do not agree.

It appears to me that Mr. Washington wants to make a point about “individualism” while slamming “liberals, protests and litigation” (some call this judicial activism, etc.). What I feel Mr. Ellis Washington ignores is that protests can sometimes bring about awareness and change. The Civil Rights Movement protests were key in bringing about change in our country. Litigation can also bring about progress. If it were not for Loving v. Virginia, Mr. and Mrs. Loving could have had all the “personal morality, discipline and… monastic solitude of your local library” IN THE WORLD… and interracial marriage would still be illegal. It took a court case to address this issue! It is confusing to me why Mr. Ellis Washington would ignore those good things that came about from people asking questions when they observe injustices.

It seems to me that this article was perhaps designed to slam liberalism and the “liberal Democrat Party” in general, but I think that he could’ve made his point about the need for the Civil Rights Movement to have had more emphasis for personal responsibility, without going so far as to call people “pretenders, poverty pimps” and “demagogues.”

I think of how the Tuskegee Airmen did not complain, but earned their respect by outperforming their peers. This sucks, but so does being any sort of underdog.

Underdog. Interesting word choice and I want to ask you why you used that particular term. What makes them, or anyone else who must “outperform their peers” in order to achieve to success, an “underdog?” Are there any more “underdogs” today?

It is also very interesting that you use the Tuskegee Airmen as your example. It provides a perfect example of W.E.B. Dubois’ AND Booker T. Washington’s ideas.

From the Tuskegee Airmen website:

The Tuskegee Airmen were dedicated, determined young men who enlisted to become America’s first black military airmen, at a time when there were many people who thought that black men lacked intelligence, skill, courage and patriotism. They came from every section of the country, with large numbers coming from New York City, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and Detroit. Each one possessed a strong personal desire to serve the United States of America at the best of his ability.</blockquote>

I will close with this. I believe that Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Dubois both exhibited ideas that can be embraced by African Americans and people of all ethnicities. It shows great discipline when one is able to take initiative and personal responsibility to do what is necessary to achieve a goal (Washington). At the same time, it is also important to keep an eye out for barriers that may impede that progress (Dubois).

I’m tired so I’m going to call it a night. Have a great night and God Bless you as well.

James Greenidge
Queens NY

On July 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm, DarkKnight said:

Thank you for the response.
I suppose I’ll start with that which I’m in agreement with you:
1) You’re right, racism does still exist. When I say racism is a series of ad hominem fallicies, I mean this: judging someone for something other than their character, words, or deeds is an ad hominem fallacy. Skin tone plays no role in such things; therefore, any judgments of a person based upon such things is an ad hominem attack. Racism, is, by definition, irrational.
2) You’re also right in respect to Obama. Some folks aren’t going to respect him because of racial issues. Some folks will attack those who don’t like Obama by taking the easy road of calling him a racist rather than forming a rational response to their critiques. Judging him based upon race is no different, categorically, than if folks didn’t like him for his shoe size, eye color, hair color, or shape of his ears. All of these things have one thing in common: they are irrelevant to the issues at hand.
3)I think we’re both in agreement that changing the song in Denver was lacking good judgment.
Some points that I either disagree or need clarification:
1)

A.Action exists because of a historical imbalance against a group of individuals. The fallacy is not Affirmative Action itself, but rather the belief that imbalances and opportunities connected to race do not remain at this point in time. Affirmative Action was meant to try and correct that balance.

The fallacy of which I spoke dealing with A.Action is this: why should one person get hired or admitted into school for reasons other than merit? Anything other than merit that is used as a selection criteria is a fallacy of relevance. Such things have no bearing on the subject.
Now, if I understand, you’re saying that because some folks aren’t getting the same opportunities because of their race, we should discriminate against others to correct the balance? I’ve always hated filling out applications that ask for race and gender, because I knew that because I’m white and male that I’d have a less chance of getting selected. Same thing applies: what does race have to do with getting selected for something that is merit-based? If no one had to fill in the “race” bubble on the test or application, then there would be no race discrimination. This would also prove that any disparities among races in the workforce could be explained by other reasons rather than strictly race (i.e. sociological, economic, cultural, etc.)
2)

In all seriousness, do you think that discrimination and prejudice do not exist? The reason why I ask is when someone sees a name on an application such as Tamesha, does that (for a split second) conjure a racial association as opposed to a name such as James? Studies have shown that discrimination does occur just by looking at a name. Is that racism or just plain discrimination? Good question, it will more than likely depend on who you ask.

I understand what you are saying. This does happen, most assuredly. The questions though are why and how to fix this. I don’t think the government, or even the white community alone, can fix this. From a white person’s perspective they see a name like Tamesha written down, then they think, “yeah, I didn’t get that scholarship because a black person got it solely because he/she was black.” The resentment builds. Your example and this example are both forms of discrimination. Both sides make prejudgments of the other, based upon previous positive or negative experience. Both sides must work to gain the trust and respect of the other. The only way to do this is to clear the playing field of artificial racial boundaries. This was done with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. We need to remove all A.Action, an artificial fix that causes resentment in those it discriminates against. I think of how the Tuskegee Airmen did not complain, but earned their respect by outperforming their peers. This sucks, but so does being any sort of underdog. Racial barriers, like any other barrier whether it be economic, social status, handicap, whatever, has to be overcome by hard work, which would hopefully earn the respect of others. If one party flatly refuses to respect the other, then that side loses. I’ve come to trust folks of all races who wear the uniform with me. If I didn’t, I would fail in my job. I don’t respect them because the government told me to do so, but rather I respect them because they proved their worth to me by doing their job effectively and showing me their character. I do this with all people. I have to do this, or someone dies. Trust must be earned, not asked for and given by a third party.
3) I also understand your points on culture. It is important to understand the backgrounds of others in order to improve relations with other folks. It’s only important though as a first step. In order to grow, we must be able to question what we believe and why we believe it. Sure, I’ll always respect the other person, but that doesn’t mean I must respect the basis for their beliefs. This is not to say that I will not seek to understand them further for the sake of common ground so that conversation and debate may take place. I’ll most assuredly do this. It’s the reason I majored in philosophy in college: to understand what people believe and why they believe it and how to argue effectively and efficiently. Arguing, that is, using reason to find the best answer, is ok. It’s what we’re doing now. My point is that just learning what other folks believe is only the first step and not the endstate.
4) I see your point in terms of the music that was sung. My reaction may have seemed harsh. I get that way when I perceive a subversive act performed. It wasn’t the song in and of itself that angered me. In the proper context, I see some value in the poem. Poetry is often a reflection of one’s soul, which is why this poem has value. However, this poem, sung in this instance, under these circumstances, with the motivation of this singer, was a form of subversion against the United States. That was the focus of my anger, not her race or the song on its own merits.
On a side note, I found an article you may find interesting by Ellis Washington on WorldNetDaily. I’d like to know what you think. God bless.

race still exists in our society

You don’t say! I thought there was only one race! Dooooiiiieee.

“What benefits are there in discussing race?” Very little.

Ok, this is going to take a while, but here goes. I’m going to have to disagree with you that there are little or no benefits to talking about race. Whether we like it or not, race still exists in our society and it remains a topic that some people would rather not talk about. But discussion about race and its barriers can lead to a better understanding of people and their beliefs and how their race affected or still affects their identity. Racism, unfortunately, is not dead yet. It is not a fallacy. There are some instances of racial intimidation that have no other explanation but racism. At the same time, racism cannot be an excuse for everything. There are certain statistics that are cited, and categorized by race, that would be impossible to blame on racism… it is purely about personal responsibility- plain and simple. While we can say racism may not be as up-front as it used to be 40 years ago, it is far from dead.

In the future, if Sen. Obama is elected president, this country will have to answer questions unlike anything it has ever seen in our lifetime. For example, when he makes a decision and people are critical of that decision, it is possible that some people would come to his defense because (consciously or unconsciously) they feel that Sen. Obama must be defended. They may ask the question to those same critics “how much of this criticism is based on the actual policy decision and how much is based on the fact that a person of color is now in a position of authority?” We are already seeing examples of this misunderstanding when people are accused of being “racist” when they simply trying to be critical of his policy. At the same time, those who see these critics make baseless accusions then wonder if it is not part of a concerted effort to try and bring him down.

For example, remember E.D. Hill and her infamous “Terrorist Fist Jab” comment? You may have or you may not have (as this incident did not make MichelleMalkin.com). Why did she make that comment? What connection was there between Sen. Obama making a fist-bump with his wife… and terrorism???

As I said, this country is going to have to ask itself some very hard questions. One of which is “now that a black man is in the highest position of power, shouldn’t we do away with affirmative action?”

“Is affirmative action a just policy?” No. Why should one ill necessitate more ills based upon the same fallacies?

There have been many discussions on Affirmative Action here on MichelleMalkin.com before. I believe that it was former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner who said that Affirmative Action is still needed in our country. However according to Justice O’Conner, in the next 25 years or so, it should not be necessary. A.Action exists because of a historial imbalance against a group of individuals. There are some that argue that A.Action is not limited to just race, although that is what is discussed the most. The fallacy is not Affirmative Action itself, but rather the belief that imblances and opportunities connected to race do not remain at this point in time. Affirmative Action was meant to try and correct that balance.

Culture is seldom mentioned when talking about race, economics, education, sociology, etc. I’d like to know why culture is to be revered, yet kept off limits when discussing these topics.

When you see some of the animated reactions to cultural differnces that are sometimes presented, it is no wonder why some people would prefer not to talk about it! Culture is not off limits. In fact, cultural discussion is needed. African Americans, when brought over from slavery, (mostly) are not able to identify with a specific country in Africa. So there is a certain connection with the entire continent. The Black National Anthem serves as a reminder of the struggles that African Americans had to endure, not just during slavery, but also during the days of Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes. When it speaks of staying true to our “native land,” it speaks to never forget the history and whose shoulders upon which African Americans stand. It serves not to recycle a mentality of victimization. Additionally, the Star Spangled Banner is a song that reminds all Americans not to forget the battles waged and won to ensure our freedom. IN THE DENVER INCIDENT, the lyrics should not have been replaced. I am reminded of I Corinthians 14:40 “Let all things be done decently and in order.”

Remove all questions on applications that deal with race.

Like which group(s)one identifies with? I’m interested in why you would do this. Sometimes companies keep track for their own record keeping. They want to make sure that they keep a diverse workforce, one that ensures that multiple viewpoints and experiences are expressed in decision-making.

At the same time, as time goes by, I believe that the definitive lines will begin to blur. Indeed, that is already happening. What happens at that point to racial conversation and cultural identity is certainly a question that will fuel many answers and speculation.

“What is racism?” Nothing more than a collection of ad hominem fallacies strung together concerning race.

Let me answer a question with a question. In all seriousness, do you think that discrimination and prejudice do not exist? The reason why I ask is when someone sees a name on an application such as Tamesha, does that (for a split second) conjure a racial association as opposed to a name such as James? Studies have shown that discrimination does occur just by looking at a name. Is that racism or just plain discrimination? Good question, it will more than likely depend on who you ask.

Understanding the “historical heritage of others” is not growth. Learning from it and applying those lessons learned is growth.

I do think that understanding the historical heritage of others is growth. Years ago, I had a very good friend who was Jewish that I went to school with. Though I was Christian, he invited me over to his home to show me how they celebrated Passover and Rosh Hashanah. This was an important cultural lesson and it helped me to understand how his culture influenced his life today. I mentioned Kwanzaa earlier in our discussion. This, too, can serve as a bridge to understanding how different cultures recognize and connect to their past, while looking forward to the future. The Black National Anthem, when sung, is a great way of learning culture. This song has been around for over 100 years. Those who sing the song do so with great reverence to those that have come before.

“I’ll be damned if someone thinks they will successfully conquer MY NATIVE LAND. If you don’t like this land, and you love your native land so much, then GO HOME!”

My comments were not racial in nature, but rather focused on that act and the culture to which this poem/song embodies.

For me, it was very difficult to separate the two. As much as you may not have intended them to be, I interpreted that to mean that “if would like to stay true to your native land, then get the heck out!” When most people sing “true to our native land,” I do not interpret that to mean that they hate America. Most African Americans are proud to be free and live in the land of the free. At the same time, this song serves as a reminder that there are still elements that combat social progress. Everytime I see a noose, hung in order to produce racial intimidation, it is a reminder that racism is still alive and by standing up and declaring racial intolerance will not be tolerated in our country, we most one step closer to the phrase “let us march on til victory is won.”

I hope I have answered some of your questions Send_Me. These are questions that will surely be discussed on this site and in our country in the future for years to come. I look forward to them.

Hickenlooper’s staff picked Marie to sing the national anthem. The mayor says he believes Marie did not intend to offend anyone or make a political statement.

I sent the mayor’s office a strong email. How stupid does he think we are to try and make us believe that she didn’t have an agenda.

I didn’t realize there was a “Black National Anthem” but apparently there is. Video and lyrics are here. Now we learn that the black national anthem is “Lift Every Voice and Sing” which is a great song. I just didn……