Racism is still alive

Merry Andrew wrote:

I now notice that when the white sw tried to get in, he was asked whether he was black. He said no. Now, what if he had said, yes? What if he had claimed partial African ancestry, now not evident because of a preponderance of Caucasian DNA?

I imagine the definition of "black" is whatever the organization says it is.

I wonder if the question has ever come up.

The Pequot Indians near here say anyone can be an active member of the tribe if they can show are one sixteenth Pequot or more.

I think that one sixteenth figure came from the Supreme Court's Plessy vs Ferguson decision which ruled that a person in the South where discrimination laws were in effect was considered black if they had black ancestry of one sixteenth or more. Even allowing for the gross unfairness of the whole Jim Crow system, you have to ask, "Were these people psychotic or what?" Of course, that decision is now null and void.

If a white appearing person said he was black, I do not know what they would do. It is conceivable that the policy for being admitted to the organization might to allow anyone who is black appearing in automatically, but require proof for a white appearing person. This is pure guesswork on my part-I don't know.

I imagine the same policy applies to organizations that require a certain age to join , or for senior citizen discounts at stores or restaurants.

0 Replies

I have a grandson that is ½ white and ½ Mohawk indian. He looks 100% white. What if he looked 100% indian? He is still 50%. He has a sister that is 100% indian. He was asked once why he was white and his sister was not....he answered "Because God made us that way" He was 3 years old at the time.

0 Replies

Here's a question. If these people were there on the govt bill would they be allowed to not grant access to non-blacks? I would almost say that most of them were there on the govt dime as part of some sort of workshop. This would be illegal.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Here's a question. If these people were there on the govt bill would they be allowed to not grant access to non-blacks? I would almost say that most of them were there on the govt dime as part of some sort of workshop. This would be illegal.

You seem to be stretching there Baldimo. Tell you what. You go and check that out and get back to the rest of us with your findings. Thanks.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

If these people were there on the govt bill would they be allowed to not grant access to non-blacks? I would almost say that most of them were there on the govt dime as part of some sort of workshop. This would be illegal.

A fair question. The article did say:

article wrote:

BAKERSFIELD - In a recent effort to tackle race relations, some county social workers were sent to New Orleans to a conference held by the National Association of Black Social Workers.

That would tend tio indicate that these particular social workers, at least, were being sent on public funds.

I don't know. It is conceivable that these departments may allow a certain number of days per year to be spent on professional advancement, and that social workers barred from this conference might have the opportunity to go to some other conference.

Considering the tight budgets for social service departments, though, I have a hunch that might not be the case.

If it is illegal, and I don't know that it is, the question is: illegal for whom? The organization is entitled to it's rules. If the social service departments want to spend money sending people down there, my guess is that they have to do the explaining, not the organization.

Similarly, I have no idea about the tax exempt status and non profit status the article mentions. I know these organizations, constitutionally, have the right to exist. Tax status and other matters I do not know, one way or the other.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
If these people were there on the govt bill would they be allowed to not grant access to non-blacks? I would almost say that most of them were there on the govt dime as part of some sort of workshop. This would be illegal.

A fair question. The article did say:

article wrote:
BAKERSFIELD - In a recent effort to tackle race relations, some county social workers were sent to New Orleans to a conference held by the National Association of Black Social Workers.

That would tend tio indicate that these particular social workers, at least, were being sent on public funds.

I don't know. It is conceivable that these departments may allow a certain number of days per year to be spent on professional advancement, and that social workers barred from this conference might have the opportunity to go to some other conference.

Considering the tight budgets for social service departments, though, I have a hunch that might not be the case.

If it is illegal, and I don't know that it is, the question is: illegal for whom? The organization is entitled to it's rules. If the social service departments want to spend money sending people down there, my guess is that they have to do the explaining, not the organization.

Similarly, I have no idea about the tax exempt status and non profit status the article mentions. I know these organizations, constitutionally, have the right to exist. Tax status and other matters I do not know, one way or the other.

Thank you for your honest answer. I will look and find what I can.

0 Replies

Just an interesting thought on the issue of whether state funds were used to send social workers down to this conference.

In the pre-civil rights era, there were White Citizens Councils which apparently had a role in deciding things. Many anti-discrimination laws were passed since, and I it would not surprise me if federal and later state laws were passed forbidding state funds being used to support any organization that bars people because of race or national origin. Very possibly, these laws might have been extended later to include gender.

Assuming the tickets to the conference cost some money, in that case state funds would be used to support an organization which discriminates on the basis of race, and would therefore be against the law.

Even if admission were free, the law might be worded to include public funds being used for people to attend such a conference.

I don't know that such state laws exist, but if I were a betting man, I would be that they do. In which case, the trips would in fact be illegal, and the person who authorized such funds could face charges.

0 Replies

Just to give some perspective: some time ago the Federal government barred Federal scholarships and grants from being used at Bob Jones University and a handful of other colleges which had racially discriminatory policies.

Most students these days get some sort of Federal help toward college. Well, you cannot use that Federal money to pay for tuition or books at Bob Jones University or the few others.

This is a Federal policy, not a state law. I just bring it up to illustrate the large body of anti-discriminatory law that is on the books, and how far reaching it is.

While not conclusive proof, this would tend to indicate that there probably is a state law barring public funds from being used to send people to a conference of an organization which bars people on the basis of race. Even if the race being barred in this case is the one that historically did the barring.

0 Replies

My union has a structure of branches which are organised along functional and geographical and gender/race lines. Apart from the functional and geographical branches there is a women's branch and an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander branch.

Both the women's branch and the indigenous members branch have meetings and conferences. I don't qualify to attend the women's branch meetings/conferences as I'm male. Should they let me and the other 3800 or so male members attend? Sort of defeats the purpose of having the branch doesn't it?

And I'm not qualified to attend the indigenous branch meetings/conferences because I'm an Anglo-Irish caucasian. There are probably about 20-30 indigenous members. Should the non-indigenous members be allowed to attend their branch meetings/conferences?

My union has formed these branches to allow those members to investigate the work issues that affect them specifically as women members or indigenous members. That isn't racism, it's understanding that those members who are outside the mainstream will have a different work experience than mainstream (non-indigenous male) members. That isn't racism.

And if a bunch of black professionals want to form a group for themselves within their profession and then want to close off membership, attendance at conferences etc to those who don't qualify for membership so what? Shouldn't they be entitled to?

I think it's a bit sad that any group has to band together as in the above examples because there's obviously a need for it. When everyone is "mainstream" all of this will be unnecessary. Until then though I shall bubble along happily being an Anglo-Irish male member of the mainstream, never having suffered sexism and never having suffered racism. And therefore never having felt the need to get together with other members of the mainstream. I'm already there and have been all of my life.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Do you think what they did was wrong?

It depends on what their purposes are. If they are interested in promoting racial harmony and unity - what they did here was counterproductive to that aim. Just as your posting this and making such an issue of something that really does not affect you in any real way is counterproductive to that aim as well. It seems to have been an isolated incident, which yes, is at best divisive, and at worst blatantly racist. But I can think of reasons they may have felt it necessary to do (and I'm white).

What is your purpose in posting this? Are you interested in promoting racial harmony and unity? Just wondering.

0 Replies

And as for the title you chose for this thread: Racism is still Alive.

Were you ever in any doubt of that?

Does it only get your attention when it is extended toward people of your own race?

Are you sure you're not contributing in any way and keeping it alive?

0 Replies

Goodfielder, I agree with most of your analysis, and the idea of equating an organization composed of people who had been relegated to the bottom with an organization of people who had traditionally been on top is silly.

I don't have an issue with the concept of an organization of black social workers who do not allow whites in, since blacks are the minority who has traditionally been discriminated against.

But to give Baldimo credit, I do believe there is an issue here with the matter of public funds being used to send people to a meeting of such a group. I think the chances are great that there are laws forbidding this specific practice. The laws might have been written to prevent blacks from being excluded, but I would wager that the laws are still on the books and might have been broken here.

0 Replies

The argument that historical minorities are entitled to discriminate because they have, for so long, been discriminated against cannot be more ridiculous.

While it may be human nature to seek tit for tat, it is also human nature to attempt to dominate others. Because there is some sort of base sense of fairness in blacks discriminating against whites, doesn't make it OK.

I would imagine that any organization that defines itself by race or ethnicity would not be particularly attractive to members of other races or ethnicities: I might be curious about an Armenian- American League meeting but I doubt I would expend too much effort to attend. However if I chose to attend, how might it prevent the Armenians in attendance from obtaining the full measure of the meeting's benefit?

In any case I don't have a problem with these sort of exclusive organizations (unless of course they are accepting public funding). If blacks want to establish organizations that restrict membership to those with black or brown skin they should be allowed to do so. Likewise people with white skin should also be allowed to do so as so with people of red and yellow skin.

Personally, I would not have much interest in an organization that was so strict in its membership qualifications, but we all don't need to be allowed in everyone's house either.

Presumably there is some advantage to being a member of an exclusive club, irrespective of the criteria for exclusivity. A blacks only Rap Producers organization would very likely deprive a fledgling white Rap Producer of the ability to form very valuable business connections.

Allow exclusive clubs or do not, but do not allow them for one group and not another. Minorities do not need to "catch up" to the majority by employing the same dubious practices of the majority.

Cranberry juice spilled by a black produces the same stain as that spilled by a white.

0 Replies

On government funding - fair comment, I didn't address it as I'm not familiar with the process.

On the issue of "reverse discrimination" - I'm not in favour of it either. But this wasn't it.

0 Replies

Racism and other human hates come from the false Idea "I am the body".
Let me assure you my friend,you re divine souls!
And your body is a car to play around on earth! :wink:

Dont blame a Mercedes if you are a Ferrari for each car has its own purpose! Very Happy

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

But to give Baldimo credit, I do believe there is an issue here with the matter of public funds being used to send people to a meeting of such a group. I think the chances are great that there are laws forbidding this specific practice. The laws might have been written to prevent blacks from being excluded, but I would wager that the laws are still on the books and might have been broken here.

that's the impression i got. if public funds were used, the conference should be open to all social workers regardless of color, etc.

what i do find interesting is that through out the thread, there is such an effort to justify the perceived racism of the event. as baldi said, 2 wrongs don't make a right. and to me, to continue to treat blacks as if they are helpless and need constant defending is also a kind of racism, though a type that is based in benificence (sic?). well meaning as it is, it still implies that blacks are lesser beings just as much as the ravings of the aryan nation whackos.

that's not to say that i don't think that their should be no organizations of people with common beliefs, race, religion or national heritage.

ya know what i think is bizarre ? it seems to me that race relations have actually worsened in the last decade or so. in the '70s and '80s i really thought we'd made progress. now it appears to me that we've all lost a lot of ground. Confused

0 Replies

Sorry - I messed up the qote - but this was quoted by guy above:
"...what i do find interesting is that through out the thread, there is such an effort to justify the perceived racism of the event. as baldi said, 2 wrongs don't make a right. and to me, to continue to treat blacks as if they are helpless and need constant defending is also a kind of racism, though a type that is based in benificence (sic?). well meaning as it is, it still implies that blacks are lesser beings just as much as the ravings of the aryan nation whackos.

that's not to say that i don't think that their should be no organizations of people with common beliefs, race, religion or national heritage.

ya know what i think is bizarre ? it seems to me that race relations have actually worsened in the last decade or so. in the '70s and '80s i really thought we'd made progress. now it appears to me that we've all lost a lot of ground. Confused

[/quote]

Maybe some people who defended the right of these people to do what they did, actually "perceived" the incident differently, and in fact, did not find it to be racist. In that case, there need not have been an implication that blacks are "lesser beings" and need defending and/or protecting. I know I am wondering what all the fuss is about , although I will admit to curiousity and would like to hear what the reasoning behind this decision was. But I also know that I could keep my mind open long enough to listen and maybe even find some sense and logic in it- even if it's not the decision I would have made. Did anyone ever state the actual reasoning behind the decision?

But I agree with you that racial relationships are more strained and there is an even greater divide in some instances than thirty years ago. I think it's because we don't want to try to understand each other - we look for ways in which we can take offense. What is important is not who funded this event - but the attitudes of the people who both did the turning away and were turned away. Until either side can try to see the other's viewpoint - and drops the righteous indignation for just a moment - nothing will change.

0 Replies

i havent read the whole thread... but i will go with the op.

yes its alive... nsmb diggers, b&h, c18... many more far right types...

0 Replies

yes its not just alive.. its kicking

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/588738.html

(i am not sure if posting links are allowed. if not then whats the alternative? can i post the whole story here)

i am not surprised that its most alive in the country that produced the triangular slave trade, the aparthied in s.a. and some more similar...........

0 Replies

Racism is still alive

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know