Baldimo
 
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:05 pm
Source
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To think this is still happening in America today. What are your thoughts?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,038 • Replies: 58
No top replies

 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:16 pm
I think there's a grammatical error in the last sentence. The subject (No one) is singular; therefore the predicate should also be singular. "No one from the National Association of Black Social Workers was available to comment at this time" is how it should read. Tsk tsk to the editors at KGET.

But, seriously, I find this funny rather than shocking. The organizers of the conference, concerned about racism, seem to be unaware of the definition of the word. There is a fine irony here that makes me chuckle rather than get indignant.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:19 pm
It seems to me that he was not discriminated against because of his skin colour, bur rather lack of it. If it was promoted as a black only conference, I would think that it would be for blacks only.

Unless we did not hear about it, he was the only non-black to try to enter. Did that mean that others were aware that it was a black only event and did not attempt to attend?

If something was billed as a black tie event and he turned up in blue jeans, he would be turned away there as well. Not because of his skin colour, but because he lacked the proper attire that was an obvious requirement for entry.

Methinks something is being made of nothing here. Granted, it might be viewed differently if it was billed as a white only event.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:20 pm
I think people look for racism in these kind of instances to asuage their own subliminal racist tendencies.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:30 pm
Intrepid, it's a touchy subject. Because, of course, you're right: it would be viewed differently if it was billed as a white only event. What's good for the goose etc.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:33 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
I think people look for racism in these kind of instances to asuage their own subliminal racist tendencies.


How did you know? Rolling Eyes

Would you fell the same way if it were a black man turned away at a white only conference?

I'm not upset but I do find the situation typical of how only white people can be racist and everyone else is just trying to be with "their own people".
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:41 pm
Mmm hmmm Yeah.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:52 pm
First, this is a private organization which has the right to set any criteria for membership it chooses.

Second, unlike "whites only" restaurants and places of employment of years past, non-black social workers are not particularly harmed by their inability to attend this conference. Non-black social workers are not excluded from the community of social workers as a whole in this case.

Such was not the case with "whites only" restaurants and public accommodations in the past.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:57 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
First, this is a private organization which has the right to set any criteria for membership it chooses.

Second, unlike "whites only" restaurants and places of employment of years past, non-black social workers are not particularly harmed by their inability to attend this conference. Non-black social workers are not excluded from the community of social workers as a whole in this case.

Such was not the case with "whites only" restaurants and public accommodations in the past.


Restraunts were private businesses as well as most other places of employeement. Going by your post they should have been allowed to say who could enter and who couldn't. They were private organizations and should have that same right.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 10:02 pm
Baldimo wrote:
I'm not upset but I do find the situation typical of how only white people can be racist and everyone else is just trying to be with "their own people".


White people are in the vast majority, and also own a disproportionate amount of most of the wealth and influence in the country. When they exclude people other than their own, people get hurt.

Black social workers are not in the majority,and do not hold a disproportionate amount of wealth and influence in the social worker world. Therefore, an organization exclusive to them is not racist, in the sense that it causes hardship for those not part of the group.

An Irish social worker convention or an Italian social worker convention would similarly not cause hardship in those not part of those two groups.
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 10:03 pm
Well DUH! It's fine for blacks to be racist against whites!

Wait...is that racist? Don't want to piss off the tree huggers.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 10:05 pm
They were engaged in trade with the public, however, and all that one can advance for the organization of Black social workers is that they might hope to sell an agenda to the community of their professional peers. For as unfortunate as the behavior of this organization has been, it does not deny any basic rights to the public at large in the prosecution of their daily lives--it is more silly than sinning. If you open your doors to the public for business, and you have no criterion for participation in a private club in place other than race, racism is a very plausible basis for the condemnation of your activities, and for legal action against you. If you are by definition an exclusive group, racism certainly can be charged against you, and on that point i agree with you. But that does not authorize a comparison between these fools and the grasping racists of the American South from 1865 to 1963, who sought to practice an institutionalized racism while preserving economic dominance of the community they despised. Apples to oranges . . .
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 10:07 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Restraunts were private businesses as well as most other places of employeement. Going by your post they should have been allowed to say who could enter and who couldn't.


You can still have whites only organizations. Nondiscrimination only applies if you are in the business of public accommodations or employment. Restaurants are public accommodations.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 10:11 pm
Would anyone consider an organization of Irish social workers, Italian social workers, or Uzbek social workers racist?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 10:15 pm
If they denied attendance upon their national conventions upon an ethnic basis, i for one, would consider them racist. I would also consider them as hilariously stupid. That's how i view the behavior of this organization--racist and stupid. But as you have pointed out, they are not discrimating in public accomodation based on race.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 10:37 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Restraunts were private businesses as well as most other places of employeement. Going by your post they should have been allowed to say who could enter and who couldn't.


You can still have whites only organizations. Nondiscrimination only applies if you are in the business of public accommodations or employment. Restaurants are public accommodations.


Restaurants are public domains? I didn't know they were funded by the govt. They have the right to refuse service to anyone they chose don't they?

Who funds this group? Do they fund themselves or does taxpayer money support them? Do only black people provide service to black people or do white people also provide service to the black community. Wouldn't a meeting of people who serve the black community be a much better idea? Why should these people be excused from their brand of racism and no one else is? Could it be because black people receive a pass on these issues where while people would never be allowed?
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 11:08 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Restaurants are public domains?

Never said that. Why do you read things into statements which simply are not there?

Baldimo wrote:
I didn't know they were funded by the govt.

They're not. And your point is.....??????

Baldimo wrote:
They have the right to refuse service to anyone they chose don't they?

No. They cannot refuse service on the basis of race, national origin, or gender. You should have seen the brouhaha when McSorley's in New York had to serve women for the first time.

They have the right to refuse service based on personal behavior, dress code, or the fact that you came in with six guys two weeks ago and busted the place up.


Baldimo wrote:
Who funds this group?

How the heck would I know? I never even heard of this group until I read your news story.


Baldimo wrote:
Do they fund themselves or does taxpayer money support them?

You tell me, it's your news story. Very Happy

I would say if they are publicly funded then there would need to be some explaining, that's for sure.

Baldimo wrote:
Do only black people provide service to black people or do white people also provide service to the black community.

Not the point. People from common backgrounds have the right to form organizations to pursue their common destiny.

Baldimo wrote:
Wouldn't a meeting of people who serve the black community be a much better idea?

No, it would be a different idea. The goal of this organization apparently is deal with issues of the black social workers who comprise their membership, not to deal necessarily with the issues of the people the social workers help.

Baldimo wrote:
Why should these people be excused from their brand of racism and no one else is?

You presuppose that what they are doing is racist. On it's face, I don't think it is. Any more than an organization of Polish social workers, Armenian social workers, or Chadian social workers would be racist.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 04:52 am
Those restaurants were appendages of an institutionalized racism nobody can deny existed. To equate the actions of this organization to them is at best foolish.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 07:07 am
I have to admit that if this was a whites only group of social workers having a meeting and a black person wanted in and they were denied, it would be called racism.

Sometimes people other than whites are racists and it don't make whites racist to acknowledge that fact.

On the other hand the ones who usually seem to go out of their way to bring these subjects to attention seem to have a particular axe to grind.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 07:25 am
It has become acceptable in America for minorities and minority organizations to be exclusive. It's a result of the oppressive history of the majority.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Racism is still alive
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2021 at 12:59:22