[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The fact of the matter is that institutional racism does exist because the majority of the rules and laws are written by white people. This does not mean that they are inherently bad but does leave some questions.
I would like to challenge you on this point. Please give us specific laws written by white people that are on the books right now that are inherrently racist. .
please be very specific…
“Inherent” means that is is not necessarily specific; which are your words not mine. I said it was “not iherently bad”, not that is was inherently racist. I further back up my words with examples where institutional racism might exist.
Race-based discrimination in housing and bank lending; for example, not lending or leasing to people who qualify for HUD. This is institutional because many of the individuals in certain areas that qualify for HUD assistance are not of white origins. Another example: not accepting food stamps in grocery stores to keep poorer individuals out is also institutional. Institutional racism is not necessarily blatant bigotry.[/quote]
Well, since you didn’t cite any laws, I will assume that you have none that are racist in mind.
As for the lending practices of financial institutions or policies of some grocery stores, I say the following:
(1) Financial institutions are not part of the government. They are private, for profit, mainly stock companies who are accountable to their share holders – as they should be. Lending decisions are based upon the ability to make a profit, which would include factors such as the ability of the client to repay the loan, the property values of the area, etc. That being said, banks [as a former banker I know this to be true] are under government regulation to lend to “poor areas and individuals” through the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). Banks are graded on this annually, and their performance (or lack thereof) in this area, can adversely affect their ability to merge, expand, etc.
Oh, by the way, unless you have evidence to prove this, I believe that the “Community Reinvestment Act” was legislated into existence by a vast majority of white lawmakers and signed by a white President of the U.S.
So, again, where is this vast “institutional racist conspiracy” that you seem to be saying exists? [I know, this term is mine, not yours – but I think it sums up your characterizations].[quote]
The fact of the matter is that whites write and pass the laws and therfore are biased either knowingly or unknowingly.[/quote]
Oh, I see, if you are white and write laws they are de facto racist whether we know it or not or, I guess, whether it is racist or not.
That statement, my friend, is completely idiotic!
Would laws written by black lawmakers be biased just because they were written by people of color?
Are you suggesting a quota system based on race for lawmakers?[/quote]
I do not see any connect with idividualism equaling racism as you tried to explain it. The quote is, “emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology.” [the italics are mine for emphasis] Which means we prioritize individualism as opposed to collectivism (opposing social theories). Society is more than just an idividualism. However, it does not mean that we cannot teach concepts of individualism in favor of collectivism. [/quote]
Where have you been for the last 50 years? Or what history have you studied?
A free-market, democratic-republic, is based on individualism! Collectivism has been tried and has failed. Remember the U.S.S.R.? It’s gone, and so is its system…[quote]
According to Jean-Jaques Rousseau’s theory of the Social Contract, “an individualist enters into society to further his own interests, or at least demands the right to serve his own interests, without taking the interests of society into consideration.” This is the definition of individualism that the Seattle Public School System was trying to convey not that individualism = racism. Tsk, tsk. Don’t they teach critical thinking in law school or just to read the law they way it fits your clients interests?
My friend, I think you are mistaken. The American economic and social system was built upon the theories of Locke and Adam Smith. Smith wrote about the “invisible hand” to laud individualism. He said (and I am paraphrasing) that “as people go about to fulfill their own [selfish] interests, they will ‘as by an invisible hand’ provide for the social good.”
In other words, Smith was saying that individualism – the pursuit of individual goals – produced the BEST outcome for an economic system. This is what built this country into what it is – not socialist theories of how everyone should be equal and if they are not, we should steal their money and give it to others.
You would do well to better study your history here.
Yes, I agree. You are seeing black or white when you should be seeing shades of gray. Idividualism is important in regards to free enterprise. I never said it wasn’t. To think that it is more important than collectivism or vice-verse is wrong![/quote]
Well, there is where you are wrong! History doesn’t support your position that collectivism is more important than individualsim, and neither does our founding documents.
The fact is that YOU want our nation to change from what it has been to what you think it should be. This might be because you percieve this “have’s and have not’s” at war with each other. I agree that there is a shrinking middle class in this U.S. and there are plenty of poor working folks, working hard to make a living. But where I think we differ greatly is the solution.
In my view, hey I was poor growing up myself, come to think of it! My view is that the poor need to stop belly aching about the rich, study hard and work hard, and take advantage of the opportunities afforded them as individuals and they too, perhaps, could become one of the “have’s.”
Your solution, it would seem, is to have a quasi-socialist society where we continue to give handouts to those who really rather not work. Unfortunately, that is not how the system supposed to work.[quote]
We have gotten to the point in this country that we allow the great corporate machine to operate as an “autonomous” individual which totally disregards the will and good of the people (individualism over collectivism). [/quote]
So would you like government control of the means of production? Then your ideas are right in line with Marx and Lennin.[/quote]
Adam Smith was very naive in his inablity to see how greed would affect your average white man at the top. To say that our entire economy is based on idividualism and that it therefore must ultimately be correct is the kind of thinking that will continue to hinder this society. Our economy is not our culture; to bless one over the other will kill us. [/quote]
Actually, Smith was very very insightful and correct. You don’t like his propostion, nor do you like that he was correct, based upon the history of free-market economies, but alas he was!
Why do you think people are pounding their way into the U.S. illegally for a better life? So they can be part of a collective society? So they can be part of a socialist system where some work and support others who rather not?
I think not…[quote]
Another challenge – are you in favor of “affirmative action” laws? These laws favor people of certain races and therefore these laws are the ones that are racist – against Whites, by the way…
I am neither specifically for nor against affirmative action. For affirmative action to be racist it must show the “subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power.” Whites do not fall into this category. I have never been affected by it as I suspect the vast majority of whites haven’t either.[/quote]
Wait a minute. If you are against racism, you must be against these laws, because by their very nature, they ARE racist.
If two people with equal education and equal experience apply for a job, or for college, and non-white person gets the position or the slot because they had too many white people already – well that is racism!
The fact that you take this middle of the road postion here, seems to me a bit evasive since this would clash with your assertions.
