Bush Tells Blacks, 'I'm Here to Ask for Your Vote'

ladysycamore • Jul 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Heh...Had to laugh to myself when I saw this. He must realize that he's not going to get it.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5761054&src=US_DskTopTkr/GetContent&section=news
lumberjim • Jul 23, 2004 10:49 pm
I find that seeing this:

Image

on the same page as the article somehow lessens the credibility of the source. Is Rueters tilted in a particular direction?

oh, and ...uh...George is a dick.
Cyber Wolf • Jul 23, 2004 10:57 pm
For some reason, whenever I see a politician trying to pull the 'honesty is the best policy' card, I trust them even less.
slang • Jul 23, 2004 11:17 pm
What are you talking about LS? He'll probably get the same 1% that most Reps get.

It does seem strange to me though that Bush has 3 solid, competent blacks in his administration, more than "the first black president", yet he'll still only get the same 1%.

This just reinforces the notion that blacks as a voting block, aren't really interested in working their way up in the society. They don't see Condi, Rodney, or Colin as proof you can be black in America and succeed. They see them as "uncle Toms". Sad.

It will truly be interesting though to see what the numbers are as even the longtime black supporter, Bill Cosby, suggests that maybe.....just maybe, blacks have actually won the war for equal treatment, but instead choose to blame white America for their lack of progress when in fact, they simply need to move away from the victim mentality.

Voting Republican would be a major step in doing so.
elSicomoro • Jul 24, 2004 12:09 am
Ads from both campaigns are showing up on news websites. As a whole, I find Reuters to be pretty middle-of-the-road.

For older Blacks, the vote on Election Day will be a matter of "Do I want a crumb or absolutely nothing? Hmmm...that crumb looks mighty good."

For younger Blacks, two groups will converge--the apathetic ("What does it matter anyway?") and the militant ("Fuck both these crackers!"). Neither will vote.

The Democrats are taking the Black vote for granted...and they shouldn't. Their votes are going to be important for Kerry in PA, MI, OH and MO. Having said that though, the Black vote has become less and less important as a whole, for 2 primary reasons:

--Blacks are getting closer to Whites in terms of equality.
--Latinos have become the "more important" minority. They're now the largest minority group in this country.

Will we see a shift in party affiliation from Blacks? It depends on how badly the GOP wants them and how much longer they're willing to take the treatment they get from the Dems.
smoothmoniker • Jul 24, 2004 3:14 am
1865 – Abolished Slavery

1868 – passed the 14th Amendment after one attempt blocked by Democrats

1955 – Eisenhower makes E Fredrick Murrow first African-American to hold a cabinet level position

1957 – Eisenhower signs the Civil Rights Act

1957 – enforced the desegregation of Little Rock, Arkansas under armed escort by presidential order.

1964 – passed the Civil Rights Act over a democrat filibuster

1965 – passed the Voting Rights Act, again over democratic opposition

1987 – Reagan appoints the first black National Security Adviser

1989 – Bush Sr. appoints the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

2000 – Bush Jr. appoint the first black Secretary of State

If abolition, broken color barriers, voting rights and civil rights are enough to “earn the Black vote”, then maybe the Republicans should stop trying! Imagine what America might look like today if the Democrats had been successful in 1865, 1868, 1964, and 1965.

-sm
xoxoxoBruce • Jul 24, 2004 7:53 am
A BET/CBS News poll of 986 black Americans released on Wednesday found that Kerry led Bush by 8 to 1. However, most said they were just "satisfied" with Kerry as the challenger.
I think if the same poll was given to whites, it wouldn't be 8 to 1, but most would "just "satisfied"" with Kerry.
The best Kerry can do is....Hey, he's not Bush.
The best Bush can do is.....Hey, he's not Hitler.
:(
slang • Jul 24, 2004 8:31 am
xoxoxoBruce wrote:
The best Bush can do is.....Hey, he's not Hitler


But he could be "if he applied himself". I heard that the other day and laughed my ass off.......and Bush is "my guy". :biggrin:
Happy Monkey • Jul 24, 2004 9:11 am
smoothmoniker wrote:
If abolition, broken color barriers, voting rights and civil rights are enough to “earn the Black vote”, then maybe the Republicans should stop trying! Imagine what America might look like today if the Democrats had been successful in 1865, 1868, 1964, and 1965.
They probably would have kept the black vote if they hadn't worked so hard to take the racist vote from the Democrats. During the civil rights battles, most of the anti-civil-rights Democrats migrated to the Republican party.
xoxoxoBruce • Jul 24, 2004 11:03 am
slang wrote:
But he could be "if he applied himself". I heard that the other day and laughed my ass off.......and Bush is "my guy". :biggrin:
Shouldn't that be "my lesser of two evils" ;)
Elspode • Jul 24, 2004 11:06 am
sycamore wrote:
Will we see a shift in party affiliation from Blacks? It depends on how badly the GOP wants them ...


Well, given that Bush has spoken to pretty much everyone who would stand still long enough to listen, refusing the NAACP invite would seem to mean the answer to that speculation is "not very".
elSicomoro • Jul 24, 2004 11:35 am
smoothmoniker wrote:
1957 – Eisenhower signs the Civil Rights Act


Which got to his desk partly as a result of the efforts of Sen. Lyndon Johnson, D-TX.

1964 – passed the Civil Rights Act over a democrat filibuster

1965 – passed the Voting Rights Act, again over democratic opposition


Both championed and signed by President Lyndon Johnson.

1955 – Eisenhower makes E Fredrick Murrow first African-American to hold a cabinet level position


Do you have a source on this? I can't find anything on this guy.
smoothmoniker • Jul 24, 2004 1:36 pm
sycamore wrote:

Do you have a source on this? I can't find anything on this guy.


here
richlevy • Jul 25, 2004 10:56 am
smoothmoniker wrote:

1957 – Eisenhower signs the Civil Rights Act

-sm


Over a record-setting filibuster by Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond who switched parties to Republican when he realized that the Democratic party would not support segregation.

On the second day of the convention, as I went walking through one of those huge Miami Beach hotels, I heard Thurmond speak to an audience of Southerners. The gist of Thurmond's message was clear: You Southern Republicans want to vote for Reagan because he's the true conservative, but stick with Nixon on the first ballot because he has promised, if elected, to stop enforcing the Civil Rights and Voting Right Acts of 1964 and 1965. (So far as any of us knew,
from this link.


Let's face it, which party in this election is going to get the Klan and Nazi vote? The Republicans may have a big tent, but it's not big enough to hold both the KKK and the NAACP.
elSicomoro • Jul 25, 2004 11:53 am
smoothmoniker wrote:
[quote=sycamore]Do you have a source on this? I can't find anything on this guy.


here[/QUOTE]

Thanks.

No wonder I couldn't find anything on him...his name was E. Frederic Morrow.
Beestie • Jul 25, 2004 12:35 pm
richlevy wrote:
The Republicans may have a big tent, but it's not big enough to hold both the KKK and the NAACP.
Senator Robert Byrd wrote:
[size=-1] "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth in West Virginia... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibility of rebuilding the Klan realm of W. Va?" Byrd's letter to the Klan's Imperial Wizard, 1946.[/size]
Scoff.
richlevy • Jul 25, 2004 12:55 pm
Beestie wrote:
Scoff.


So, who in 2004 will get the Klan vote?
elSicomoro • Jul 25, 2004 12:57 pm
It would seem that the Dems chose the NAACP to be in their tent instead of the KKK.
jaguar • Jul 25, 2004 12:59 pm
Probably because it's bigger.
elSicomoro • Jul 25, 2004 1:02 pm
Or because they were a safer bet.
lookout123 • Jul 25, 2004 1:02 pm
Probably because it's bigger


and only slightly less racist.
elSicomoro • Jul 25, 2004 1:06 pm
Please explain how the NAACP is racist. I've heard the charge and the rationale before from others, but I'd like to hear your explanation of it.
jaguar • Jul 25, 2004 1:07 pm
I don't know about that but if it was politically expediant I'm sure both parties would jump into bed with NAMBLA.
jaguar • Jul 25, 2004 1:08 pm
Well it's very existance is about a certain racial group, is that not racist?
Yes I'm playing devil's advocate
richlevy • Jul 25, 2004 1:22 pm
jaguar wrote:
Well it's very existance is about a certain racial group, is that not racist?
Yes I'm playing devil's advocate


That would mean that any group tied to any ethnic group or sex would be racist or sexist by definition.

Working for the advancement of one specific group is not necessarily racist, it is when you work for the suppression of competing groups that you become racist/sexist.
lookout123 • Jul 25, 2004 2:42 pm
ok then, let's think this one through. tomorrow, me and my white friends are going to launch a few new organizations. some will be businesses others will be activist groups. here are the names that they will be known by:

NAAWP - national assoc. for the advancement of white people
WET - white entertainment television
WSU - White student union ( gotta get the college campuses involved)
UCCF - united caucasian college fund
NOWLE - national organization of white law enforcement executives
WRAG - white retail action group
NAWA, Inc - national association of white accountants
NWCC - national white chamber of commerce
WITE - White information technology eprofessionals
WGSA - white graduate students association
NAWSE - national assoc of white school educators
CWCF, inc - congressional white caucus foundation
NACHR - national assoc of caucasion-americans in human resources
AWC - assoc of white charities

the list goes on and on. i believe that most of the organizationsi based this list on provide real value to the community, but what would you say if you saw one of my new organizations in the news? most would assume it has a racist agenda, and they would be right. i'm pretty sure that these organizations aren't based on creating a society where the color of one's skin is irrelevent. and if i remember correctly, that was one of the goals of the civil rights movement.

now please pardon me while i go find my flame resistant suit and a big-ass fire extinguisher.
jaguar • Jul 25, 2004 2:48 pm
a but isn't racism by definition merely discrimination, positive or negative.
xoxoxoBruce • Jul 25, 2004 2:51 pm
Working for the advancement of one specific group is not necessarily racist, it is when you work for the suppression of competing groups that you become racist/sexist.
But, if you pull strings, exert pressure and harass someone to hire your candidate, aren't you suppressing all the other candidates? And if you do it because your candidate is a particular sex or race, doesn't that make it sexist or racist? How and where do you draw the line between supporting yours and supressing theirs? I've wrestled with this for some time and have yet to find a satisfactory answer. :confused:
lookout123 • Jul 25, 2004 2:57 pm
any organization that is designed on the premise of the exclusion of or the the advancement of one particular race is discriminatory and goes against the idea of genuine equality.

i would support the NAAAP - national association for the advancement of all people. but the NAA(fill-in-the-blank)P is just plain wrong.

all of these organizations build walls between people.
ladysycamore • Jul 25, 2004 6:47 pm
lookout123 wrote:
any organization that is designed on the premise of the exclusion of or the the advancement of one particular race is discriminatory and goes against the idea of genuine equality.


So are you saying that even in the midst of blatent racism when many black orgs were created, that in the spirit of "genunine equality" that they should NOT have been created?

i would support the NAAAP - national association for the advancement of all people. but the NAA(fill-in-the-blank)P is just plain wrong.

all of these organizations build walls between people.


And you want to get into the walls of these particular orgs that are currently helping non-whites..why lookout123? What are you going to contribute that these orgs will be able to use to advance their culture/ethnicity?

WET - white entertainment television
WSU - White student union ( gotta get the college campuses involved)
UCCF - united caucasian college fund
NOWLE - national organization of white law enforcement executives
WRAG - white retail action group
NAWA, Inc - national association of white accountants
NWCC - national white chamber of commerce
WITE - White information technology eprofessionals
WGSA - white graduate students association
NAWSE - national assoc of white school educators
CWCF, inc - congressional white caucus foundation
NACHR - national assoc of caucasion-americans in human resources
AWC - assoc of white charities


Great gosh almighty, I had to laugh when I saw this...um, didn't you know? These groups have been in existance ALL ALONG, just not by those names!! :lol:

Kerry Tells Black Voters He Shares Their Hopes:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5765177&src=US_DskTopTkr/GetContent&section=news
lookout123 • Jul 26, 2004 11:54 am
Lsyc - please name a couple of organizations that are strictly for the advancement of the white man, and give specific examples of why it is designed to exclude others or hold them back.
the argument that everything is designed to advance the whiteman just doesn't hold water anymore.
ladysycamore • Jul 26, 2004 2:11 pm
lookout123 wrote:
Lsyc - please name a couple of organizations that are strictly for the advancement of the white man, and give specific examples of why it is designed to exclude others or hold them back.
the argument that everything is designed to advance the whiteman just doesn't hold water anymore.


*shrugs* If you say so. That's your opinion though. I feel that the deck is still stacked against non-whites.

As far as orgs, I already named one...in fact you named it first on your list: the NAAWP. You can go to their website and see for yourself. Plus, you can easily do a Google search under "white supremacy groups" and see plenty of groups designed for the advancement of the white man and their mission statements.
Troubleshooter • Jul 26, 2004 2:15 pm
*reaches for his asbestos blankey*
lookout123 • Jul 26, 2004 2:15 pm
no i mean groups that are acceptable within the mainstream. not groups that most everyone writes off as being wackjobs. when you step up and cite white supremecy groups as existing for the advancement of white people it is just silly. most white people would gladly take a 2x4 to those repulsive fools.
i am asking you for organizations that have a measure of public acceptance that exist for the advancement of white people.

afterthought: are you saying that you think the real organizations my list was based on are as ridiculously fringe-oriented as the white supremecy groups you countered with?
Happy Monkey • Jul 26, 2004 2:16 pm
Advancement of white people to where?
lookout123 • Jul 26, 2004 2:18 pm
Happy Monkey wrote:
Advancement of white people to where?


just pulled the word advancement from the NAACP.
Happy Monkey • Jul 26, 2004 2:20 pm
The point of black groups is to provide resources for a group that they consider to be underserved by the rest of society. What would be the point of a white advancement assocation?
Troubleshooter • Jul 26, 2004 2:25 pm
I think that the crux of the issue is the difference between entitlement vs. opportunity.
lookout123 • Jul 26, 2004 2:29 pm
*ding ding ding* TS has nailed it!

again, we are not guaranteed "life, liberty, and happiness"
only "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
wolf • Jul 26, 2004 2:29 pm
Well, the organization's mission statement is on their home page, if you'd care to visit.
Happy Monkey • Jul 26, 2004 2:31 pm
And blacks are the largest group that was systematically denied those three.
lookout123 • Jul 26, 2004 2:32 pm
talk to me about TODAY. no one denies that bad evil shit happened. the point is every day is a new day. how is anyone (other than anecdotal cases) in america denied "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" on 7/26/2004?
Troubleshooter • Jul 26, 2004 2:34 pm
wolf wrote:
Well, the organization's mission statement is on their home page, if you'd care to visit.


I'm rather certain that they were being lumped in with the wackos to be dismissed.
lookout123 • Jul 26, 2004 2:43 pm
having just perused their site - i am sure as hell dismissing them.

here is the thing - if you only look at the mission statement, you're like "damn straight!" you wonder to yourself who in their right mind would disagree with the premise of the organization. but then you get into the their articles, and it is a supremecy group.
ladysycamore • Jul 26, 2004 3:36 pm
lookout123 wrote:
no i mean groups that are acceptable within the mainstream. not groups that most everyone writes off as being wackjobs. when you step up and cite white supremecy groups as existing for the advancement of white people it is just silly. most white people would gladly take a 2x4 to those repulsive fools.


And some are more than willing to join up. Especially now that racism has a place online, it's just too easy now.

i am asking you for organizations that have a measure of public acceptance that exist for the advancement of white people.


Like I said, they don't have names. ;) And what does this mean for me if I can't name any orgs that have a measure of public acceptance that exist for the advancement of white people?

afterthought: are you saying that you think the real organizations my list was based on are as ridiculously fringe-oriented as the white supremecy groups you countered with?


Oh those were real??? I thought only the NAAWP was. Interesting. No, I just think that they are "typical". *shrugs*
lookout123 • Jul 26, 2004 3:45 pm
ladysycamore wrote:
Oh those were real??? I thought only the NAAWP was. Interesting. No, I just think that they are "typical". *shrugs*


no actually the organizations i listed are not real... i had to change ONE word in each of them. can you guess which one?

and nobody has even attempted to answer how the real organizations aren't exclusivist and racist by their very definition. my whole point was that those agencies all exist and are perfectly acceptable because they are the Association of Black _________ but if you turn it around and create Association of White _________ it would be seen as racist and typical of racist society we live in. explain to me how the double standard is acceptable? mind you - i don't want organizations for white people i just think that organizations designed for one race are foolish and equally wrong, no matter which ethnic group is involved.
Troubleshooter • Jul 26, 2004 3:55 pm
ladysycamore wrote:
I just think that they are "typical". *shrugs*


Why?

How so?
ladysycamore • Jul 26, 2004 4:44 pm
lookout123 wrote:
no actually the organizations i listed are not real... i had to change ONE word in each of them. can you guess which one?

and nobody has even attempted to answer how the real organizations aren't exclusivist and racist by their very definition.


And maybe you won't get an answer. At least, not from me, because honestly, I don't know. I don't think that the orgs are so horribly exclusivist and racist. What are they supposed to do? Just b/c you think they are "wrong" then suddenly they should just disband and no longer exist?

my whole point was that those agencies all exist and are perfectly acceptable because they are the Association of Black _________ but if you turn it around and create Association of White _________ it would be seen as racist and typical of racist society we live in. explain to me how the double standard is acceptable? mind you - i don't want organizations for white people i just think that organizations designed for one race are foolish and equally wrong, no matter which ethnic group is involved.


I don't have the answer you are looking for. All I know is that racism is still an issue that we must battle, and I can only go by what I've gone through, what some members of my family have gone through, and what some people are STILL going through even in 2004. However, I'm not going to sit here and discuss/debate/argue this point anymore since I don't have a lot of "backup", meaning other blacks to either support me or to backup any points that I make (but a major thanks to DanaC and richlevy and anyone else I might have missed).
ladysycamore • Jul 26, 2004 4:44 pm
Troubleshooter wrote:
Why?

How so?


Never mind. I was just being catty really. :rolleyes:


Intesting reading:

Age of Rage
Young extremists find new targets — and new recruits

By Bob Moser

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=468

Last July 4, a lesbian couple in Boston took their two children to an Independence Day celebration in a local park — and ran smack into a gang of teenagers who did not appreciate their presence.
After the teens allegedly taunted the family with anti-gay slurs and threats, 15-year-old Anita Santiago allegedly slugged 35-year-old Lisa Craig hard enough to knock her to the ground. According to police reports, Santiago and her fellow gang members then bashed Craig's head against the sidewalk and kicked the woman so brutally that her brain hemorrhaged and she needed more than 200 stitches.

A few hours later, in the blue-collar suburb of Farmingville, N.Y., a Mexican family was startled awake — just in time — by a fire that would tear through their home and reduce it to ashes in minutes. Five boys, ages 15 to 17, had decided to top off their July 4th festivities by torching the house with leftover firecrackers.

Asked why, one of the teens simply told police that "Mexicans live there" — as if that were reason enough.

Welcome to the harsh new world of young-adult hate. Like the stories, photos and profiles in this special section, the Independence Day incidents illustrate some major shifts in the ways American kids are learning to hate — and how they act it out.

The Poison Spreads
Hate among kids has probably never been more widespread — and it doesn't stop with racist graffiti, Confederate flag T-shirts, swastika tattoos and homophobic slurs in high-school hallways.

Studies by hate-crime experts like Jack Levin, director of Northeastern University's Brudnick Center and co-author of the new book, Why We Hate, show that incidents perpetrated by youngsters, which became more frequent from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, "plummeted" during the Clinton years.

But since 9/11, the number of hate crimes by kids has risen sharply — and they appear to be more brutal than ever. "What we're seeing," says Eric Ward, a longtime observer of extremist youth who works at Chicago's Center for New Community, "is a more militant, street-fighter culture."

As both the Boston and Farmingville incidents show, the targets of this militance have multiplied — and so have the perpetrators. After 9 /11, a disproportionate number of the assaults on Muslim-Americans were committed by teenagers. The same appears true for attacks against sexual and gender minorities, Hispanics and the homeless.

And hate activity is no longer the province of white boys, though they're still the main offenders. Not only are more Hispanic and African-American kids getting involved in hate, but more girls as well.

Social ecologist Ronald Huff, a longtime student of both street and racist youth gangs, estimates that in many cities "anywhere from a third to 50% of gang members are girls."

In another demographic shift, the bulk of hate activity now bubbles up in the suburbs — among reasonably well-off youth.

"Twenty years ago, big cities were hotbeds of hate," says Levin. "But as more and more minority families have moved into suburban areas, the prevalence of hate attacks has also increased there — much of it perpetrated by kids."

Where the classic profile of a young hater in the 1980s was a blue-collar juvenile angered by economic displacement, the more typical picture now is a teenager "raised in a middle-class family in a place where almost everyone is a racial rubber-stamp of himself," Levin says.

"These kids aren't prepared for people who are different. They see them as a threat. They come home in the afternoon to their empty houses, log onto the Internet, visit hate sites, chat rooms, bulletin boards and get ideas. "

For kids who've grown up online, there's no longer a need to join large hate groups in order to get those ideas. Neo-Nazi outfits like the National Socialist Movement and Aryan Nations (see Youth Action Corps) still work hard to recruit youngsters into the fold, and concerts featuring adrenaline-fueled "hatecore" music continue to gain popularity and win converts.

But much of the racist activity among kids is springing up from the grassroots, with small groups like the Connecticut White Wolves and Agnostic Neo-Nazis, who draw inspiration from Internet hate sites — and run with it.

"I don't know what's more frightening," says Ward, "kids joining organized hate groups, or the way hate is rising up spontaneously among kids who feel it's OK to terrorize and assault people because of their race or religion or sexual orientation. What does that say about where our society's headed?"

Desperately Seeking Stability
It's an excellent question. Why is juvenile hate spreading in a culture that seems to become more accepting of differences by the day?

There's no shortage of reasons that have been proferred by sociologists and criminologists. Some blame the re-segregation of schools and neighborhoods. Some point to the omnipresence of violence in movies, on TV, and in video games.

Some cite misguided "zero tolerance" policies in schools and communities, where kids are increasingly incarcerated for first offenses; on any given day, well over 100,000 U.S. youth are locked up in places that are "not only schools of violence," says Levin, "but crash courses in hatred."

Then there's the lingering death of the American dream: with downward mobility — rather than upward — as their most likely future direction, more middle-class kids are looking to rebel, and looking for somebody to blame.

No single factor is sufficient to explain the spread of youth hatred. But the upsurge in one of its main manifestations — white supremacy — has inspired a theory developed by sociologists like Pamela Perry and Randy Blazak.

In Perry's 2002 book, Shades of White, she chronicled the racial attitudes of white kids at two contemporary California high schools — one predominantly white, one minority white. She found what Blazak calls "anomie" — French sociologist Emile Durkheim's term for the sense of confusion brought on by rapid social change.

The confusion, in this case, amounts to a basic question: "[W]hat is the new role of whites in the multicultural chorus?"

As Blazak points out in his forthcoming book, Ethnic Envy, "contemporary youth were born in the 1980s and 1990s, long after the frontline civil rights battles." White kids lack a long-term perspective on racial oppression in the U.S. — and end up saying, for instance, that "racism ended in the 1960s" and they're tired of hearing blacks "complaining about it."

They also see Hispanics, lesbians and gay men, Asian-Americans and others embraced and recognized — while straight white culture seems, from their limited vantage points, to be dissed and demonized.

"White kids feel like their racial identity is murky nowadays," says Ward. That's been partly responsible for the outbreak of Confederate flag T-shirts in high schools, both North and South, and also in several efforts — usually snuffed out by administrators — to start Caucasian clubs, mostly in California high schools.

"When they bring it up, they get their hands slapped," Ward says, "and they become pariahs. Pariahs can be dangerous."

Hate groups have tailored their recruitment pitches to these frustrated white kids. A perfect example is Jeff Schoep, "commander" of the National Socialist Movement, who says his group "lets our young people know it's all right to be white, and better yet, something to be proud of."

With whites already a minority in some parts of the U.S., it's a pitch that has become very popular among extremist groups — and among bright, middle-class kids like Logan Brown. The 15-year-old lives in California, the first large American state to become minority white, and he's trying to revive the Aryan Nations Youth Action Corps.

Brown insists that he's nothing like "the stereotypical racist," certainly no "redneck." But he yearns for the long-lost days like "the 1920s when everything was white and beautiful. Minorities were few and far between. Gays weren't out of the closet. We were a white civilized nation."

Brown's longing for simplicity and order — two things that seem hopelessly lost in the America of 2004 — points up one final, age-old reason why kids turn to hate. They want to know why the world seems so messy, so complicated, so out-of-control.

"Most parents, most teachers don't pretend to have easy answers," notes Ward. "Hate groups do. Hate music does. Hate sites do. The racist Skinhead down the street does, too."

Easy answers can be mighty appealing to young people. But when those answers don't mesh with the complicated realities of contemporary life, the result can be anger, frustration, and violence. The following articles offer sad, and instructive, testimony to that.
elSicomoro • Jul 26, 2004 5:07 pm
lookout123 wrote:
and nobody has even attempted to answer how the real organizations aren't exclusivist and racist by their very definition.


Groups like the NAACP were created to help minorities advance as a culture, at a time when they were nothing more than second-class citizens and the white man ruled the world. As I see it, minorities are still considered second-class citizens by many, and the white man still rules the world. As such, the groups are still necessary. I personally don't see such groups as racist or consider this a double-standard.
Happy Monkey • Jul 26, 2004 5:15 pm
Also, there are a multitude of Anti-Defamation leagues for various white ethnicities which are active wherever there happen to be any lingering "no Irish need apply"-like sentiments. Of course, they don't get as much press because they don't have as much work to do.
lookout123 • Jul 26, 2004 5:15 pm
LSyc - i apologize if you think that this was an attack on you or your views in any way. i am not angry, upset, or even especially excited in any way over race issues. my main point, which maybe i didn't communicate clearly, is that most of these organizations, while having a valid mission statement, actually act in ways counter to their intentions.

the civil rights movement was meant to end the foolish and evil oppression of blacks and other minorities in our country. much ground was gained there but we are not to the end of the road yet. racism and ignorance still exist in society, because society is still comprised of men and women. until we eradicate that strange 2 legged creature known as human, we cannot rid ourselves of ignorance. BUT, i firmly believe that any organization that draws distinction and attempts to classify and set apart people of different skin colors, faiths, etc... is acting counter to our nation's best interests. what we need is a mindset that accentuates peoples' similarities, not differences; that shows that all of interests our advanced when we work together toward a common goal, not many goals set for many different groups distinguishable by color.

again, if you thought that this was a personal battle which required reinforcements, or if you thought i was trying to get you to surrender to my view of the world - i sincerely apologize.
just another day in the cellar, just another topic to stir the braincells. :)
Troubleshooter • Jul 26, 2004 5:20 pm
sycamore wrote:
I personally don't see such groups as racist or consider this a double-standard.


rac·ism Audio pronunciation of "racist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.*

*Emphasis added

They are racist.

Now, if you'd like to come up with a better word I'd be happy to apply it, but as it stands, any use of the word in referrence to an organization that doesn't include other races is wrong.

The terms must be clear. See the The Rules of The Game.
DanaC • Jul 26, 2004 5:31 pm
Thats like calling a women's support group sexist because it doesnt include or take into account men
lookout123 • Jul 26, 2004 5:36 pm
DanaC wrote:
Thats like calling a women's support group sexist because it doesnt include or take into account men

are you sure you want to open that can of worms?

why is it that female golfers can sue to get on the PGA, and people support it? if a man tried to get on the LPGA, they would call him an ass.

females sue for the right to gain entrance to a private men's golf club and get attention and support. if a man wants entrance to Curves gym, he would be an ass...
Troubleshooter • Jul 26, 2004 5:42 pm
DanaC wrote:
Thats like calling a women's support group sexist because it doesnt include or take into account men


sex·ism Audio pronunciation of "sexist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skszm)
n.

1. Discrimination based on gender*, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

*Emphasis added.

Not liking a definition is not the same as not agreeing to the terms of that definition. It's important to be on the same page.

Connotations aside, the definition is correct.
DanaC • Jul 26, 2004 5:42 pm
*chuckles* let me guess....Sexism is no longer the problem that it was, and we women should let bygones be bygones, bury the hatchet and stop trying to make men feel guilty for the sins of their forefathers? Any balancing attempts on our part are by default aimed at modern day man when in reality he has done us no harm and as such our balancing attempts become in and of themselves an oppression?

Well *smiles* that's one way of looking at it. Another way is that we live in a world built of both modernity and antiquity and many of the economic imperatives and social conditioning which underpinned the deeply patriarchal and possibly misogynistic world of our grandparents are still in evidence and as such still to be fought against
Clodfobble • Jul 26, 2004 5:42 pm
It sure is. Here, I'll do better than simile, let's go for straight up equivalency: The National Organization of Women IS sexist, DanaC.

Edit: Oh, well sure, change your post then. :P :)
jaguar • Jul 26, 2004 5:43 pm
Not to mention if an ad made women out to be dumb blondes who should be in the kitchen the company would be sued out of existance but any kind of potshot at men is fine.
jaguar • Jul 26, 2004 5:44 pm
That said, the recent suit against one of the big financial firms, forget who showed there is still serious wage disparity.
DanaC • Jul 26, 2004 5:45 pm
And that Jag is ultimately the point. Look at any of the groups who cry oppression or discrimination and at it's core you will find an economic disparity
jaguar • Jul 26, 2004 5:48 pm
But does that justify other forms of discrimination to 'balance it out'?
Happy Monkey • Jul 26, 2004 5:50 pm
Only as long as a better solution can't be implemented.
jaguar • Jul 26, 2004 5:54 pm
So an eye for an eye HM? I thought two wrongs don't make a right, or does that only apply in the playground?
lookout123 • Jul 26, 2004 5:55 pm
"hey you discriminated against us last recess, it's our turn to discriminate against you!!! i'm going to tell the teacher!!!"

yeah - seems reasonable enough
Happy Monkey • Jul 26, 2004 6:18 pm
What's the better solution? Pretend there's no problem?
lookout123 • Jul 26, 2004 6:33 pm
if you walked out to your back yard and saw your son beating your daughter with a baseball bat, not hard enough to cause real damage, but enough to inflict pain, what would you do?

A) would you say "son that was really wrong" then hand your daughter the bat and say "i'm sorry that this wrong behavior was directed at you. please take this bat as compensation and beat your brother until you think that the two of you have received equal beatings."?

B) would you acknowledge that it was unacceptable behavior and then try to draw the 2 siblings into a more acceptable relationship; one where they both understand that wronging the other is unacceptable, no matter who the aggressor is?

C) would you walk out and say "good swinging son, now don't drop your shoulder."

i think you would choose b. if not, what is the number to CPS in your area? wrong behavior is not an acceptable repayment for previous wrong behavior.
Happy Monkey • Jul 26, 2004 6:44 pm
I tried constructing a response based on your analogy, but it just isn't relevant. It's more like the son is digging the daughter into a hole, and she's trying to dig her way out. Even if you stop the son from digging (which hasn't completely happened yet), she still has a ways to go before she gets to the surface.
ladysycamore • Jul 26, 2004 7:33 pm
Troubleshooter wrote:
rac·ism Audio pronunciation of "racist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.*

*Emphasis added

They are racist.

Now, if you'd like to come up with a better word I'd be happy to apply it, but as it stands, any use of the word in referrence to an organization that doesn't include other races is wrong.

The terms must be clear. See the The Rules of The Game.



Oh lordy. I read those rules (or at least part of them). *shakes head*

At any rate, so what's next? You've proudly condemned these orgs. What's the next step?
lookout123 • Jul 26, 2004 7:48 pm
the next step is for everyone to quit looking for someone to blame for diffifulties in their lives, even when there is valid fault reason to do so, and get on with life. do the best that we can, with what we have, try to improve yourself and help the person to the right and left of you, applaud those you see helping others, ignore those who hinder, help old ladies across the street, smile and little kids(even the dirty ones), be kind to everyone (even those that make your skin crawl), love every day of life for all it is worth, hug and kiss (when appropriate) your family every chance you get, and raise your kids to understand that the ignorant people in the world cannot hold them back unless they succomb to victimhood.

lather, rinse, repeat.

no one can make me fail, except for me.
that is what we should do.
smoothmoniker • Jul 26, 2004 8:29 pm
Troubleshooter wrote:

The terms must be clear. See the The Rules of The Game.



My work here is done.

-sm
ladysycamore • Jul 26, 2004 8:47 pm
And so is mine. :D
Troubleshooter • Jul 26, 2004 8:49 pm
ladysycamore wrote:
Oh lordy. I read those rules (or at least part of them). *shakes head*

At any rate, so what's next? You've proudly condemned these orgs. What's the next step?


Clearly you've misread my posts. Nowhere did I say they were bad. I said they were racist. I don't have a problem with a club having valid discriminatory criteria.

What I do have a problem with is an organization using its vast resources to sell its constituency on the fact that all of their problems can be blamed on someone else instead of spending those resources to improve the clearly pointed out problems that they actually have.
Troubleshooter • Jul 26, 2004 8:51 pm
smoothmoniker wrote:
My work here is done.

-sm


Smartass...

My philosophy instructor beat you to the punch. Sorry. Yours was just a convenient link.
DanaC • Jul 27, 2004 4:23 am
The only way to end racism is to engage in a process to end racism. The process to end racism cannot begin until racism is recognised and confronted. If racism exists in the present day then it must be confronted in the present and framed in contemporary terms.

If you or your community experience racism then you have two possible responses. You can either ignore it or attempt in some way to confront or deal with it. If you are a journalist that may come inthe form of a written expose .....if you are a university professor it may come in the form of your teaching style and content. If you are a stay at home mother of three it may underpin how you raise your children. If you are a young man without employment but a whole lot of testosterone to add a bitter twist to your anger it may come in the form of a violent response. If you are the kind of person who responds well to a challeneg you may make some attempt to progress despite it.....whether or not the doors slam shut in your face is not your decision to make. If you are the kind of person who is easily disenchanted or derailed you may slump into a bleak mood from which you never fully emerge. If your experience of the world is of extreme racism you may form an extreme response. If your experience of the world is of a slight residual racism you may form a sense of unfairness to be challenged but not to rail against.

Racism takes many forms and manifests in many walks of life. Some areas of the world and some areas of each country are more extreme than others. If your life experience introduces you primarily to the milder forms of racism then you may well percieve there to be less of a problem than there is....arguably then if your life experience introduces you primarily to the most damaging and base forms of racism and discrimination then perhaps you percieve more of a problem than exists in the world at large.

Just looking at the educational opportunities and employment opportunities for black and white in specific areas and looking at the wages commanded by each block overall....it seems to me ( and indeed to many) that there is inequity between the two. That is not to say if you are white you get it handed to you on a plate and if you are black you are slapped if you reach for the plate....It just seems from the evidence that if you are white you are more likely to have had better opportunities and advantages than if you are black ( or indeed darker skinned, this seems to run across many ethnicities although the black experience seems to sit at the bottom in most scales)

By extension thne if you are black you are less likely to have had the educational opportunities of your white counterpart. You are statistically more likely to have been raised below the poverty line and statistically less likely to get a job above minimum wage levels. You are also statisticaly more likely to have been arrested and more likely to serve time in prison ....seems to me that last part is fairly intrinsically linked to the rest.

If you are part of a group, even if you yourself are one of the people who responds to racism in the system as a challenge and progresses, through the hardest work and most dedicated commitment. Even if you are raised in a family that already broke through the glass ceiling and found a way into the upper echelons of society. If the group to which you belong has been systematically abused in the past and is still at many levels still facing abuse then I would imagine it could be a difficult thing to do, to disassociate from that groups' distress. For instance...I was raised in a family that held very little in the way of patriarchal sexist views or agendas. My brother and I did the same household chores ( unlike some of my friends at school, whose brothers didnt have to help with housework because it was girls work ) I played with all kinds of toys, soldiers included. I found outside a world which was a mix of old sexist institutions and attitudes and new progressive liberal attitudes and institutions. I can blame none of my failures on an unfair patriarchy, they are my own entire. I have not experienced extreme prejudice but I have experienced a low level sexism ( occassionally rising to the outrageous but theyre mainly dying off now ) just enough to keep the kettle boiling..... I am not angry, I have little reason for it and there are other fights more worth my while right now ( like the fight against fascism in britain) but .....there are still many glass ceilings in place and many of the old barriers to progression are still there. Look to where the true power and wealth reside and you'll find very very few female faces. Precious few asian or black ones also. Follow a trail down from the lines of power and as you move down you'll see more female faces. Get to the unskilled menial work and you'll find ever more. Look to the temping agencies and the part timers who work with no rights or protections and that's where you'll find many of the women.

Meantime domestic violence is at an astonishing high and recent studies show a disturbing attitude amongst school age males towards females and violence.

If I as someone who hasnt been blighted with verymuch of the downside of being female in today's britain, hear the stories of those who do suffer the worst aspects of society's sexism, I feel a sense of kinship to the woman and I feel a sense of anger at the unfairness of it. I also feel a sense of...there but for the grace of fate go I. It's natural to search for likeness in others. It's a natural human instinct to associate into those that are like.

Even if someone has had the very good fortune to be born black in a white world and still succeed, that doesnt mean they cease to feel their brother's pain and nor should they ( in my opinion) If they stop fighting the race war thne they'll lose it ...again. What they understand, and what I would tend to agree with ...is that the race war hasnt ended, it's just become more covert.....White society has very much not stopped fighting that war, even if individual white people have

Thats my tuppen'orth anyway *smiles* bit rambling but that's what happens when ya log in first thing in the morning and come round with coffee and cellar :P
Catwoman • Jul 27, 2004 5:02 am
lookout123 wrote:
the next step is for everyone to quit looking for someone to blame for diffifulties in their lives, even when there is valid fault reason to do so, and get on with life. do the best that we can, with what we have, try to improve yourself and help the person to the right and left of you, applaud those you see helping others, ignore those who hinder, help old ladies across the street, smile and little kids(even the dirty ones), be kind to everyone (even those that make your skin crawl), love every day of life for all it is worth, hug and kiss (when appropriate) your family every chance you get, and raise your kids to understand that the ignorant people in the world cannot hold them back unless they succomb to victimhood.

lather, rinse, repeat.

no one can make me fail, except for me.
that is what we should do.


Good point, well made. :)
lookout123 • Jul 27, 2004 10:57 am
If they stop fighting the race war thne they'll lose it ...again. What they understand, and what I would tend to agree with ...is that the race war hasnt ended,


there's nothing like perpetuating a perceived state of conflict by couching your statements in terms of violence.

dana - you sound like a wonderfully empathetic and sympathetic individual but it is clear that in situations where you can't fit yourself into the victim's role, you will look around to make sure there is someone being victimized.

it has been pointed out by smarter cellarites than myself - if you want to find cases of disparity, you will.
DanaC • Jul 27, 2004 12:41 pm
"dana - you sound like a wonderfully empathetic and sympathetic individual but it is clear that in situations where you can't fit yourself into the victim's role, you will look around to make sure there is someone being victimized. "

No....I just take a political analysis of a political problem. I couch it in terms of battle because there is a battle being fought. There are many battles. There is a long tradition of couching political struggles in terms appropriate to warfare. As long as the inequity still exists within the wider picture thne there is still a battle to be fought by those on the losing end of that equation. It's naturally in the interests of someone who belongs to the more powerful group to work to maintain the status quo because the status quo benefits them. Hence it is usually those belonging to the oppressing group rather thna the oppressed group who claim the oppression is part of the past . Anybody who belongs to the oppressed group knows damn well it is an iniquity of the present day.
jaguar • Jul 27, 2004 12:50 pm
Dana you might want to re-phrase that, you basically just accused every white person on the planet who is not aware of any current discrimination against in this case, blacks, of being part of a vast conspiricy to maintiain their 'superiority' or somesuch rubbish.

Inequality will always exist and as bruce so finely put it, we all cop it one way or another, people give favours to people they know, people they go golfing with, brother's friends not to mention old school tie stuff. There are entire management structures in some companies that you'll be unable to break in to unless you went to a certain school. Suck? Hell yes? Part of life? Certainly. Justify a culture of victimhood? no.
lookout123 • Jul 27, 2004 12:53 pm
ok dana -

name 1 thing that a white individual has the right or ability to do that a member of any minority, in america, does not have the right to do. just 1, that is all i'm asking. we have equal access to schools, we have equal access to jobs, we have equal access to housing, etc...

in fact there are pending lawsuits in america because of schools like Univ of Michigan that work on a point system for acceptance. most of the points are for academics, etc. but there is a scale of "extra credit"points you get if you are a member of different minority groups. care to venture a guess as to how many points a white person gets?

jag is right, to a large degree business is about who you know. successful business people surround themselves with people that they know they can count on. this generally means someone they have worked with before, or a direct referral. it's called the good old boy network. it is not racist at all, there are also many qualified white people that miss out on jobs, because of the "who you know" network.
just because a qualified black individual didn't get the job, doesn't mean they were not hired because of skin color.
DanaC • Jul 27, 2004 1:00 pm
My point is that one can either tackle racism as a problem or ignore it. To ignore it is to accept it as an inevitable part of life rather than a problem which can be solved. To ignore it is to maintain the status quo. It is in the interests of those in power to maintain the status quo as it benefits their demographic.

Do I believe that all white people are conspiring to keep the black man down? of course not, but it is clearly a reality of life which makes itself felt in the black experience in a way it does not make itself felt in the white. Is life fair for white people? No it's fair for nobody, some people get many opportunities some get few and that cuts across the boards....However the earnings disparity between the majority of black people in America and the majority of white people in America is extreme and in fact has not shifted terribly much since the days of slavery. Black people are free and they have more rights and opportunities thna they once had in America but the distance between their earnings and the majority of whites has not shrunk particularly in the past 2oo years. In order to redress the balance affirmative action has in some cases been used, but since affirmative action does it's job by making things unfair for some white people it has recieved an awful lot of bad press......to shift the balance so that is less in favour of whites means acting unfairly towards whites by placing artificial barriers in their way. This is not considered acceptable by most despite the fact it would make things more fair whne viewed as a whole. Most people who are not part of the groups most likely to face discrimination dont want the world made any more unfair towards themselves regardless of how much more fair that would be for those who are currently discriminated against.


Lookout it isnt a case of rights. In law black and white are equal.....but in reality the opportunities are fewerr for black than white and the wages are lower. Unless you are suggesting that the reason black people are so disproportionately living bneath the poverty line and that whites are disproportionately likely to succeed in business and academia is due to black people just being less capable or ambitious.
Troubleshooter • Jul 27, 2004 1:07 pm
DanaC wrote:
it would make things more fair whne viewed as a whole.


How so?

Why is it fair to make it easier for for a group, when taken as a whole, that is less qualified, when taken as a whole, for for most forms of skilled positions, when taken as a whole?
lookout123 • Jul 27, 2004 1:13 pm
DanaC wrote:
However the earnings disparity between the majority of black people in America and the majority of white people in America is extreme and in fact has not shifted terribly much since the days of slavery. Black people are free and they have more rights and opportunities thna they once had in America but the distance between their earnings and the majority of whites has not shrunk particularly in the past 2oo years.


numbers? show me proof that blacks make, in relation to whites, earn no more now than they did 200 years ago.

and drop this "they have more rights and opportunities thna they one had..." BS. they have EVERY right and opportunity that i have.

handicaps are for golf not life. it is inexcuseable in modern life to skew the starting point of anything in the favor of any particular group, no matter what happened in the past. affirmative action while a good idea on paper, cannot be put into action in a proper manner - because it does not treat people as equal. it says to the minority "you couldn't do this on your own so we'll give you a little shove" if that isn't inherently racist, i don't know what is.
jaguar • Jul 27, 2004 1:15 pm
To ignore it is to accept it as an inevitable part of life rather than a problem which can be solved. To ignore it is to maintain the status quo. It is in the interests of those in power to maintain the status quo as it benefits their demographic.
Bias is part of humanity, you're never going to eliminate it. If the majority of executives were black women I'll put $50 that says they would elect a disproportionate number of blacks and women to similar posts, why? Not because they are racism or sexist but becuase they are more likely to be close friends and associates of blacks and women. Bruce's westinghouse example goes in this direction, but that does sound like straight out racism that jobs for the boys.

disproportionately likely to succeed in business and academia is due to black people just being less capable or ambitious.
How about we look at the socioeconomics of that a little further. Poverty breeds poverty, outside the more racist areas of the US I'm willing to be a white guy from an impoverished background who goes though a shitty school system in an inner city slum is just as likely to be a failure as a black guy who does the same. Visa versa for middle class. The fact that more blacks are below the poverty is a social artifact of another era, there isn't too much you can do about it that doesn't apply to all races.

Dana 200 years ago blacks were slaves, I don't think they are today, wage equality isn't there yet but it isn't quite that bad.
lookout123 • Jul 27, 2004 1:19 pm
DanaC wrote:
Lookout it isnt a case of rights. In law black and white are equal.....but in reality the opportunities are fewerr for black than white and the wages are lower. Unless you are suggesting that the reason black people are so disproportionately living bneath the poverty line and that whites are disproportionately likely to succeed in business and academia is due to black people just being less capable or ambitious.


actually i don't feel they are less capable or ambitious, but those who support affirmative action obviously do.

again - what opportunities do blacks not have access to?

the difference in thought here is pretty obvious - you think that equality means we all have similar job success, income, educational achievements, etc. i say that those are results dependent on the individuals level of dedication - something that cannot be quantitatively measured. in my view equality means having the same ACCESS to opportunities schools, jobs, etc... what you do with it and how you perform and the decisions you make in regards to these opportunities all fall on the individual, not society.
jaguar • Jul 27, 2004 1:21 pm
again - what opportunities do blacks not have access to?

Or to word it slightly differently, what do blacks not have access to that all whites have access to. If my parents were alumini of an Ivy League uni I'd have an easier path in.
lookout123 • Jul 27, 2004 1:30 pm
you know that is a good point. i just assumed we were all working from the same basis, but we obviously aren't.

dana and many like here don't see that even though i (and many others) scored high enough to meet their standards it would be a cold day in hell before i ever got into an ivy league school. that isn't racist, classist, or any other ist. life is about meeting people and networking. my dad got his job in the factory 30-odd years ago when they weren't hiring because he played poker with one of the HR guys. each of my successive jobs i have worked with or for someone that i sold something to in my last career. people remember those that they have had a positive experience with and move them to the top of the list. as long as the person hired is qualified, there is nothing wrong with that.
Happy Monkey • Jul 27, 2004 1:35 pm
lookout123 wrote:
actually i don't feel they are less capable or ambitious, but those who support affirmative action obviously do.
No, those who support affirmative action feel that there are still many people in positions of power who feel that way, who have to be given a nudge to overcome their prejudices.
jaguar • Jul 27, 2004 1:36 pm
For the record I'll add my own examples - though family name and resulting contacts I've had access to information that has made me a lot of money and opened many doors though no action or inaction of my own. I understand this and do my best to help out others who may not have the same luck (it is luck) but I certainly don't apologise for it.
wolf • Jul 27, 2004 1:57 pm
[double]Jag ... for the purpose of any discussion of race or racism, as a white male you start with a lack of credibility from the standpoint of those whose job/avocation/life mission it is to find, point out, and punish racism.[/standard]

See, that's what I have a problem with. And no amount of arguing is going to change the viewpoint of those whose firm belief (despite evidence pro or con) it is that thus and such does or does not exist. It's pretty much the same stalement you come to in existence of god(s) discussions.

Racism is the evangelism of color.
Undertoad • Jul 27, 2004 2:01 pm
I thought this was important so I went to the US Census Bureau table on mean income over time against race to get mean incomes for whites and blacks from 1948-2001 (in fixed 2001 dollars). Then I created a graph of it.

Image

Conclusion: there is still a very large gap in income. However, percentage-wise, blacks ARE catching up. White income was about 100% higher than black income in 1948 and now is about 30% higher.

I also learned, in browsing around the tables at the census bureau, that in 2001 white women and black women's mean income was about the SAME. !!!
Troubleshooter • Jul 27, 2004 2:30 pm
Rather illuminating.

Thanks for the extra effort. Graphs can be a bitch.
Happy Monkey • Jul 27, 2004 2:32 pm
(Fixed 2001 dollars means adjusted for inflation, right?)

Wierd. An almost fixed difference of $7500 the whole way down. I wonder what accounts for something that constant.
Troubleshooter • Jul 27, 2004 2:34 pm
Happy Monkey wrote:
(Fixed 2001 dollars means adjusted for inflation, right?)

Wierd. An almost fixed difference of $7500 the whole way down. I wonder what accounts for something that constant.


Correlation can be hard to find sometimes. The trick is to avoid attribution, or spurious correlation, under those conditions.

And I agree, weird.
Beestie • Jul 27, 2004 2:43 pm
Those lines just seem too similar to me. Every wave and crest. I can't bring myselft to believe that blacks were doing that well relative to whites pre 1950. The $7,500 gap today seems believable but in 1950? That's almost laughable. Not questioning UT's work but the data itself.
Happy Monkey • Jul 27, 2004 2:48 pm
You don't think they were making half salary on average, pre 1950? There were (and still are) a lot of poor whites to balance out the rich elites, and the number is mean salary, not average, so the robber barrons don't throw the number off too much.
lookout123 • Jul 27, 2004 2:53 pm
thanks for that effort UT. good job.
Undertoad • Jul 27, 2004 2:57 pm
It is adjusted for inflation, so the real numbers in 1950 were more like $2000 vs $1000.
DanaC • Jul 27, 2004 3:51 pm
Yeah, thanks for that UT that's very interesting