Michael Savage vs. Britain - Page 3

It's an accent, not a race, gender, or sexual orientation. Those things are not subject to change no matter how hard you try (and before you argue sex reassignment surgery, many would argue that gender is unrelated to physical sexual characteristics). Even if you consider accent to be an integral part of who you are, it's still quite possible for someone with an accent to "pass" with a little work. You are not beaten up for your accent. Your Appalachianness does not prevent you from marrying who you want.

I don't know what your point is by bringing up urban dialect as a comparison point. Yeah, it's thinly-veiled racism, but the biggest hurdle for a black guy trying to get a job probably isn't going to be his dialect.

Look, I know it's tempting to claim discrimination on your own behalf. We all like to think that our problems are unique and truly significant, and, on an individual level, maybe they actually are. But if you're a white, straight guy in this society, most of your problems are probably not institutionalized in the same way. You may have it tough in some way as an individual, but that likely has nothing to do with your whiteness, maleness, or heterosexuality, all of which are qualities that are ultimately given privilege in this society.

Good man yourself.

What's frustrating about the way the British government deals with terrorism is no matter what our Republican friends might like us to believe the British Government were starting to learn lessons from their dealings with the IRA and were starting to understand, assess, and pre-empt threats rather than act in broad and reactive ways. 9/11 and 7/7 seemed to completely panic the government and we went back to dealing with terrorism like it was the 1970s again, with broad campaigns and searches which did nothing but radicalise the communities even more

See, I have a hard time with the world view espoused in those links. "White Privilege" is so entrenched that it can't be removed. Oh and any White Men who argue against this point of view? Well they are in on it or else they don't understand because...they are Privileged White Men.

The circular logic is no different than the Conspiracy Theorists who say the Illuminati control everything.

For me the real flaw in this world view is that it leads exactly nowhere. You can't do anything with it except retreat into hatred. And I've seen this at work in my own life.

I've known Blacks and Whites who feel strongly that they are discriminated against. I know the bias on this Board is to take the Black seriously and laugh at the White. But both are absolutely convinced they are correct, that the System is rigged against them so they can't get a job in state Government (that's my White acquaintance) or succeed in Law (that's my Black acquaintance). And because they believe what they do they sabotage themselves constantly: applying for jobs they are not qualified for, then blaming Racism for not getting them, expressing resentment to people they are interviewing with (!) etc

And meanwhile I know plenty of professionals of all races who succeed because of hard work and self reliance.

Which is the Conservative critique of Liberalism. That it preaches Group Identity (based on Race, Gender, Etc) and discounts the individual. How very ironic that many of these Conservative voices (like Savage) then turn around and treat whole populations (Teh Muslims! Teh Gays!) as if they were Borg, operating with one mind to bring down the West.

Finally, I did not argue that Racism as an institution has not had profound grip on US Society historically (although even there, I'd argue that economic, social and religious forces were all intertwined with Racism, to such an extent that singling out Racism risks masking the real issues). My argument is that we are in a new era with new concerns, Social/Economic class and religion foremost among them

It's not so much that they're unable to see or understand it (and certainly not that they're "in on it"; most of the points mentioned are the result of unconscious action); it's that they're not in a particularly good position to deny that it exists. And the argument isn't that straight, white, male privilege is so entrenched that it can't be removed, but rather that it's so entrenched that it's difficult to see. It has to be acknowledged before it can be addressed.

It's absolute bullshit that these viewpoints espouse some sort of fatalist outlook when it comes to equality. They only lead nowhere if you're too stubborn to acknowledge that these privileged positions still exist or too complacent to do anything about it.

It's also stupid in an almost fascinating way to take race, gender, and sexual preference out of socioeconomic and religious concerns. You don't see how these are intertwined? Have you driven through a poverty-stricken urban area lately? Have you noticed any striking racial similarities among the locals? Do you just chalk this economic disparity up to coincidence? Does the religious right not have some bearing on why homosexuals are discriminated against? And isn't it interesting how the leaders of commerce tend to be men and not women, despite all of those historic strides that we've supposedly made toward equality?

It's very comfortable and seemingly egalitarian to place all of the emphasis on concerns that unite and affect all of us, but it's ultimately shallow; when you look closely at those concerns, their causes and effects differ dramatically based on race, gender, and sexual orientation.

DaveB you are restating my arguement. I wrote that socioeconoic and religious concerns are intertwined with racism. Again. what I'm argueing here is that racism is declining in imprtance while the other two factors are assuming much more importance now and in the future.

I used to work for an insurance company in the South and I toured all sorts of ghettos (and middle and upper class enclaves). There are poor communties of Whites, Blacks, mixed race communtities etc.

And there is no "Supposed gains" in quality. in 1900 Women in the US could not vote. Now they can. In 1900 Blacks could not vote (except on paper). Now they can. Neither gender nor race exclude one from running for office.

To just discount the changes that have taken place in the last 109 years is to discount the efforts of a lot of men and women who sacrificed a lot (including their lives) to make change happen.

Your dismissal of race as the primary factor in discrimination ignores two crucial elements:

1. The percentages of minorities in jails vs. the general population. Recently this percentage has begun to inch down, but the overwhelming fact is that if you are black, you are far more likely to end up in jail. Obviously, if you are poor, you are also far more likely to end up in jail - but if you are black and poor, the odds are stacked mightily against you. Socioeconomic status is a major factor, we agree on that, but you cannot dismiss the particular effects of race when considering the makeup of our prison system. It is little more than institutionalized racism, with truly devastating effects on communities.

2. The black/white divide - this seems to be the overwhelming tact of these discussions, and it's not necessarily accurate. Just because equality for African-Americans has become more common (particularly if you are middle class and African-American, not so much if you are poor and urban) does not wave away underlying racial conflicts in America and around the world. Much of these racial conflicts are being subsumed into 'immigration issues,' with illegal immigration becoming short-hand for race. These two things getting tied up into one another is incredibly dangerous, since illegal immigration is a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed by every sovereign nation. However, just because it's an important problem doesn't mean it doesn't devolve into racism with particular ease. "I only hate illegals because they're here illegally," is all too close to "I hate Mexican immigrants." If someone is making that distinction, they are not really informed of the facts, and they are probably full of shit. You cannot distinguish between a first-generation Mexican immigrant here on a visa and an illegal immigrant by simply looking at them.

And to acknowledge them doesn't mean we get to rest on our laurels. They didn't fix everything, nor is it conceivable that they could have.

Plus, economics and legal rights don't account for all forms of oppression. Adult men are not the typical victims of domestic abuse, rape, or even harassment, and straight people aren't typically beaten up for public displays of affection.

Zhukov and DaveB: Very good points and lots I agree with, especially in regards to the Immigration debate.

In fact the usual meme I hear about Illegal immigrants is economic: "They undercut American Workers!". (I live in California where the debate has been raging for some time). It may easily devolve into a racial polemic (most of the building contractors being undercut are white). But I think in this case a lot of the furor is based in economics....people are fidning their livliehoods threatened...

There is always a go-to explanation for bigotry - very rarely will anyone come out and admit that 'I hate these people simply because of who they are.' In the south that explanation was cultural - 'it's part of our way of life.' In more 'progressive' circles, there was often an implicit understanding that 'races just don't mix.' A lot of African-Americans justify their hatred of white people in response to prior offenses.

Taken to an extreme, the Nazi's (and many sympathetic Germans) believed the only reason they lost World War I, and suffered the subsequent historical indignities, was because Jews had secretly worked to bring America into the war.

I don't doubt that the economic angle is a legitimate concern for a lot of people, but I don't think racism spontaneously erupts out of a void. In order to institutionalize hate, to the point that it becomes culturally acceptable to a significant segment of the population . . . that requires the appearance of a reason.

Here's my turn to be the guy who jumps in a discussion and links to a joke on the topic: Louis C.K. - Being White

You know what I keep finding to be weird? In virtually all discussions of this kind, and I agree they are a necessity, there is the underlying premise of all people being, generally, the same, just held back by the various facts of live, of racism, of socioeconomic factors, gender and so on.
Did it ever occur to you that there might be a reason why there arent as many female top managers as male ones, besides the so called male privilege? Why are there more female teachers than male ones in high school? Why do black people take to certain kinds of sports more easily?

There are differences that no amount of discussion or measures taken can erase, yet they are often used as arguments to further push angles that, maybe, are actually not that bad right now? There are biological and psychological reasons for some things, esp. when it pertains male/female behaviour. In some northern european countries, for example, there is basically gender equality. Wages are the same, social and career chances are the same, yet still some areas are dominated by a certain gender.

I do not deny there is lots of unequality going on in this world, but there are plenty of cases where the numbers will never ever add up to whats expected, because the expectations are wrong.

Did it ever occur to you that the English are simply more civilized, Poles are simply less intelligent, and Jews are simply greedier?

Black people (African-Americans) are often better at sports because during slavery, stronger and more physical adults had better chances of surviving and procreating in the 'Southern Economic System.' So no shit, there's a reason. Europeans dominated the globe in the 20th century because of their built-in advantages, those being guns, germs, and steel (I highly recommend the book about this, by Jared Diamond). So obviously, there's a reason there as well.

Fundamentally, there is a crucial difference between the reasons that things have happened, and the reasons we use in making things happen. Past is prologue, sure, but that's hardly a fucking excuse. Are we going to start enslaving the GOPs base just so one day we can get a white dude in the NBA better than Dirk Nowitzki? Your argumentation sucks.

EDIT: the gender roles angle is way different that what we're talking about anyway. By stepping in saying 'hey, women are teachers and guy's are construction workers,' followed by 'black people are good at sports,' simply underscores the fact that you haven't given this a lot of thought.

Women give birth: that's the main biological difference. And many women leave the workforce to care for their newborn children. Otherwise, what Zhukov said.

I'd just like to repeat (again): I see Racism as a declining force compared to the past. I am NOT saying it was never relevant.

And having one's livelihood threatened is not "just an excuse" for inherent racism. Massive Immigration (legal and illegal) from Mexico, Puerto Rico and Cuba is a demographic fact of life. Immigrants are willing to take jobs at lower wages than people born in the US.

It will be quite interesting to see the Obama Administration balance the anti-Immigration/Pro-Protectionism stance of the Unions with the desire for Immigration reform (including workers permits) by the Latino community

I live in europe, so I am not that intimate with the american brand of racism, thus argueing from my perspective. Here, skin color is not the issue, but there is racism towards nationality nonetheless, and esp. Austria is really a backwater when it comes to male/female equality, I grant you that.
My point is, stop trying to make up for the past. You cant ever make up for the fact, nor is it anyones job, that women got the short end of the stick in several areas for centuries. Our job is to do it better right now, and thats not by coming up with a dozen or two of programs to shoehorn people into roles/jobs/positions their "kind" of people hasnt had an equal chance to occupy in the past, because you are still putting these people into categories.

There is an interview with Morgan Freeman somewhere which tells it much better than I could, when he says: "You want to get rid of racism? Stop talking about it! "
I am a minority in the country I live in. On two occasions, there have been special initiatives to help "people like me" (in other words, foreigners) get jobs. The thing is, I can take that job, and feel equal, but I am not. I am merely now having a job that was given to me. I had little choice if I take it, I pretty much subscribe to being a minority that needs help, and I am even more defined by belonging to the group of people who get jobs that way.

At the end of the day, I still wake up german in a country that doesnt like that fact, but now somewhere in a statistic it looks a tiny bit better.
Fighting Racism and Prejudice isnt done by making some numbers look better, and shoehorn people into areas they may not actually want in the first place. It also creates an uncomfortable situation for those who are fine with the way they are stereotyped (for ex., a woman who by choice fits the stereotype of rather staying at home tending to the kids, having pets, caring for lilies or whatever stereotypical cliche else you can come up with) since they will frequently be expected to live different to prove they are standing up for their rights and all.

Affirmative Action, integration programs, quotas and all are bandaids that make the situation look better on the surface. They arent the key to actually changing society, as they build as much resentment as they help alleviate. Thats my personal opinion, and I actually have given it quite some thought.

Back on topic - this was debated in the house of commons yesterday...#


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05..._smith_savage/