(OT) racism

Generally I believe that the primary mode of subjugation in this
country is mostly--not entirely--composed of the gap between the
have's and have-nots. Race has something to do with it
definitely, but probably not to the extent the extreme left would
have you believe (like Jesse Jackson, for instance). But
generally speaking being white and without means of advancing
yourself economically in this country is perhaps only slightly
better than being black and being without means of advancing
yourself in this country. It's a bit hard to tell because in
comparing the ghetto with rural West Virginia, you get
differences in culture that tend to make the lines fuzzy.
Certainly most of the people with the power to change this
inequity are white, but I'm guessing they're looking after the
green of their money first and the worrying about color of skin
second, generally speaking.

That said, anyway, with that preface, take a look at this:

<>

--

"Did you notice that [Candaq and Gardner] never miss one of my posts and I
never read theirs, I have to wonder just who it is that's envious." -Ed, in
news:<9cn26l$6di6$>.

Re: (OT) racism

"sam grey" <> wrote
> Generally I believe that the primary mode of subjugation in this
> country is mostly--not entirely--composed of the gap between the
> have's and have-nots. Race has something to do with it
> definitely, but probably not to the extent the extreme left would
> have you believe (like Jesse Jackson, for instance). But
> generally speaking being white and without means of advancing
> yourself economically in this country is perhaps only slightly
> better than being black and being without means of advancing
> yourself in this country.

Just exchanging viewpoints: It's much better to be white and poor than black
and poor. The chances of escaping poverty are better for the white people,
if only because the young white generation has more "role models" if you
will to urge them to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and escape
poverty. I would wager studies prove this.

> It's a bit hard to tell because in
> comparing the ghetto with rural West Virginia, you get
> differences in culture that tend to make the lines fuzzy.

Sure. But I was thinking it's a lot harder facing all the guns and drugs of
the inner city than facing simply a lack of food in rural W. Virginia.

> Certainly most of the people with the power to change this
> inequity are white, but I'm guessing they're looking after the
> green of their money first and the worrying about color of skin
> second, generally speaking.

These days, probably.

I have doubts about forty years ago.

Re: (OT) racism

In article
<82FSe.5004$>,
"Elle" <> wrote:

>
> Just exchanging viewpoints: It's much better to be white and poor than black
> and poor. The chances of escaping poverty are better for the white people,
> if only because the young white generation has more "role models" if you
> will to urge them to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and escape
> poverty. I would wager studies prove this.

Probably true.

>
> > It's a bit hard to tell because in
> > comparing the ghetto with rural West Virginia, you get
> > differences in culture that tend to make the lines fuzzy.
>
> Sure. But I was thinking it's a lot harder facing all the guns and drugs of
> the inner city than facing simply a lack of food in rural W. Virginia.

I grew up in Appalachia. There are plenty of hard drugs and
violence there too--it just takes difference forms. It's a
difference in degree and not kind--but yes, I'd rather grow up in
Appalachia than the slums.

>
> > Certainly most of the people with the power to change this
> > inequity are white, but I'm guessing they're looking after the
> > green of their money first and the worrying about color of skin
> > second, generally speaking.
>
> These days, probably.
>
> I have doubts about forty years ago.

What's really different these days is that it's become more and
more culturally acceptable to be self-centered and selfish, at
least compared to what I remember from the '60s and '70s.

--

"Did you notice that [Candaq and Gardner] never miss one of my posts and I
never read theirs, I have to wonder just who it is that's envious." -Ed, in
news:<9cn26l$6di6$>.

Re: (OT) racism

"sam grey" <> wrote
snip but comments noted
> What's really different these days is that it's become more and
> more culturally acceptable to be self-centered and selfish, at
> least compared to what I remember from the '60s and '70s.

This is my impression too. It's even fashionable among poor communities to
support a "man of God" like Bush, who of course epitomizes business
interests and not giving a damn about poor people. The Hispanic community
seems to have been largely sucked in, to name one. No doubt the low level of
education (linked of course to their poverty) is behind their gullibility.

Re: (OT) racism

In article
<vSFSe.5014$>,
"Elle" <> wrote:

> No doubt the low level of
> education (linked of course to their poverty) is behind their gullibility.

As a side note, thinking about the language used here . . . .

Of course, some would argue that the term "education" implies
some sort of "objective knowledge" associated with it, while what
you're talking about here is "enculturation." So along these
lines, if you're teaching a course with subject matter ostensibly
value-free (like physics) you're "educating" while if you're
teaching a course with subject matter intrinsically value-laden
(like history or political science or social science, or
literature), you're "enculturating" or "indoctrinating," because
necessary with these sorts of subjects no matter what view you
adopt and promulgate lots of people will be unhappy with your
point of view. They'd disagree with what your "is" is.

In other words, it's a completely fathomable to have a social
system to have a society in which 1% of the population possesses
98% of the wealth (talking in theory)--one which would be
accepted as "right" and "true." It could be rationalized or
argued in many ways as long as it works and is tenable and
sustains a somewhat stable society. One might disagree with it
morally but hey, the Egyptians accomplished a lot with slave
labor, as did antebellum South (for instance). I can easily
envision an "educational system" that supports such values, one
which constructs the very reality it espouses. The Hitler Youth
comes to mind as a somewhat recent example of this.

This is in contrast to the teaching of math or physics, in which
the only really people who argue against a particular proposition
are those that are on the cutting edge (a very small group of
people), which is what gives these subjects at least the guise of
being value-free.

--

"Did you notice that [Candaq and Gardner] never miss one of my posts and I
never read theirs, I have to wonder just who it is that's envious." -Ed, in
news:<9cn26l$6di6$>.

Re: (OT) racism

"sam grey" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote:
>
> > No doubt the low level of
> > education (linked of course to their poverty) is behind their
gullibility.
>
> As a side note, thinking about the language used here . . . .
>
> Of course, some would argue that the term "education" implies
> some sort of "objective knowledge" associated with it, while what
> you're talking about here is "enculturation." So along these
> lines, if you're teaching a course with subject matter ostensibly
> value-free (like physics) you're "educating" while if you're
> teaching a course with subject matter intrinsically value-laden
> (like history or political science or social science, or
> literature), you're "enculturating" or "indoctrinating,"

I disagree. Proper education includes instruction in history, political
science, social science, etc. It's not simply objective facts that are being
taught in these courses (when delivered properly). Instead, in a nutshell,
what's being taught in such courses (when done properly) are critical
thinking skills.

> because
> necessary with these sorts of subjects no matter what view you
> adopt and promulgate lots of people will be unhappy with your
> point of view. They'd disagree with what your "is" is.
>
> In other words, it's a completely fathomable to have a social
> system to have a society in which 1% of the population possesses
> 98% of the wealth (talking in theory)--one which would be
> accepted as "right" and "true."

My argument about the choices of many in the poor Hispanic population is
much simpler: They voted for Bush without considering what his policies do
for their impoverished situation. They put more faith in God saving them.
Bush is for God, so, they reason, he's the one to support. It's an ignorant
position to hold. I am certain we would find these folks lacking reasoning
skills and a knowledge of history of any kind other than their own. It's why
they don't survive long: They can't reason out of the proverbial wet paper
bag. Theirs is an animal-like existence, living moment for moment for many
of them. The few who rise a bit above this vote and vote with great
ignorance.

> It could be rationalized or
> argued in many ways as long as it works and is tenable and
> sustains a somewhat stable society. One might disagree with it
> morally but hey, the Egyptians accomplished a lot with slave
> labor, as did antebellum South (for instance). I can easily
> envision an "educational system" that supports such values, one
> which constructs the very reality it espouses. The Hitler Youth
> comes to mind as a somewhat recent example of this.
>
> This is in contrast to the teaching of math or physics, in which
> the only really people who argue against a particular proposition
> are those that are on the cutting edge (a very small group of
> people), which is what gives these subjects at least the guise of
> being value-free.

Again, I'm going on the assumption that the courses in the social sciences
you listed earlier are not conducted as propaganda tools per se for Nazis,
GOPers, Democrats, or whatever. I grant that some bias in certain subject
areas will always be present. But its not bias that poses the serious
dangers you propose. Plus, it's often ultimately exposed. Not unlike those
two photographs to which you posted a link.

I happen to believe most schools still do try to teach these courses with
the intent of teaching critical thinking skills. But when a kid is
surrounded by drugs and violence, generational welfare and just trying to
survive, it's pretty hard to keep his/her interest.

Re: (OT) racism

"sam grey" <> wrote in message
news:
> generally speaking being white and without means of advancing
> yourself economically in this country is perhaps only slightly
> better than being black and being without means of advancing
> yourself in this country.
>
Well, after seeing how some people reacted to this fiasco, I'll have to
disagree. There still are lots of closet racists out there. It's only that
they are not stupid enough to say "those blacks..." like Trent Lott did, at
least not in public. Just look at the poll numbers. 40% thinks the
government did good or excellent job. Do you think the numbers would've
been same if the refugees were half white? At least poor white folks are
not subject to that kind of racism.

Re: (OT) racism

In article <SgISe.33$>,
"TK Sung" <> wrote:

> Well, after seeing how some people reacted to this fiasco, I'll have to
> disagree. There still are lots of closet racists out there. It's only that
> they are not stupid enough to say "those blacks..." like Trent Lott did, at
> least not in public. Just look at the poll numbers. 40% thinks the
> government did good or excellent job. Do you think the numbers would've
> been same if the refugees were half white? At least poor white folks are
> not subject to that kind of racism.

Hey, you can toss a stone over your shoulder and hit a racist
anytime you walk down the street, I don't disagree.

I know people who say, "I admit it, I'm a racist." There's no
"closet" about it.

I'm just saying that the people in New Orleans didn't suffer
because they were black, predominantly, but rather because they
are poor and unimportant. I think. I'm sure if Michael Jackson
lived in New Orleans he would have been rescued mighty quick. Or
Magic Johnson or whoever.

But sure, there are a lot of people out there actually happy that
a bunch of black people got snuffed out by Katrina. You don't
have to look merely for racism--there's all sorts of out-'n-out
Ku Klux Klannery, white supremicism, whatever.

For you blues fans, I hear that R.L. Burnside was evacuated for
Katrina--and then died.



It's a pretty tough world out there

--

"Did you notice that [Candaq and Gardner] never miss one of my posts and I
never read theirs, I have to wonder just who it is that's envious." -Ed, in
news:<9cn26l$6di6$>.

Re: (OT) racism

"sam grey" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Hey, you can toss a stone over your shoulder and hit a racist
> anytime you walk down the street, I don't disagree.
>
Not in my part of the country. We are mostly latte-drinking, nyt-reading
liberals around here.

>
> I'm just saying that the people in New Orleans didn't suffer
> because they were black, predominantly, but rather because they
> are poor and unimportant.
>
But you have to wonder why the poors, 40% of the population, are 99% black
over there. The explanation has to be that A) because they are black, or B)
they are stupid or lazy. So, if you largely preclude the former, then you
necessarily have to largely include the latter. Not saying they got to be
poor just because they are black, and I do think black folks need to take
more responsibility, but I wouldn't consider the effect of racism "slight".

Re: (OT) racism

"TK Sung" <> wrote
> "sam grey" <> wrote
> > Hey, you can toss a stone over your shoulder and hit a racist
> > anytime you walk down the street, I don't disagree.
> >
> Not in my part of the country. We are mostly latte-drinking, nyt-reading
> liberals around here.

.... whose lifestyle is well-supported via investment in big business and
cocktail parties where you talk about helping eliminate income inequity, but
really prefer it and live for it.

> > I'm just saying that the people in New Orleans didn't suffer
> > because they were black, predominantly, but rather because they
> > are poor and unimportant.
> >
> But you have to wonder why the poors, 40% of the population, are 99% black
> over there. The explanation has to be that A) because they are black, or
B)
> they are stupid or lazy.

I am not sure that 99% of N'Orleans's poor are black, but it could be that
high.

One reality you are overlooking is that New Orleans has long been attractive
to America's black population. It did, in fact, offer educational and
cultural opportunites to blacks, whereas elsewhere in America, doors were
shut to them. Consider a report from today's Times at
:

-- The first literary magazine ever published in Louisiana was the work of
black men, French-speaking poets and writers who brought together their work
in three issues of a little book called L'Album Littéraire. That was in the
1840's, and by that time the city had a prosperous class of free black
artisans, sculptors, businessmen, property owners, skilled laborers in all
fields. Thousands of slaves lived on their own in the city, too, making a
living at various jobs, and sending home a few dollars to their owners in
the country at the end of the month.

--New Orleans became home to blacks in a way, perhaps, that few other
American cities have ever been. Dillard University and Xavier University
became two of the most outstanding black colleges in America; and once the
battles of desegregation had been won, black New Orleanians entered all
levels of life, building a visible middle class that is absent in far too
many Western and Northern American cities to this day.

--The influence of blacks on the music of the city and the nation is too
immense and too well known to be described. It was black musicians coming
down to New Orleans for work who nicknamed the city "the Big Easy" because
it was a place where they could always find a job. But it's not fair to the
nature of New Orleans to think of jazz and the blues as the poor man's
music, or the music of the oppressed.

Re: (OT) racism

On 2005-09-04, TK Sung <> wrote:
> But you have to wonder why the poors, 40% of the population, are 99% black
> over there.

Well, I don't know that your number are accurate, but for reasons
unknown to me, poor whites tend to live in the suburbs, while poor
blacks tend to live in the urban areas.

Re: (OT) racism

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:c3KSe.440$
>
> you talk about helping eliminate income inequity,
>
No m'am, we are liberals, not commies. We talk about social justice and
helping the poor, not eliminating income inequity.

>
> One reality you are overlooking is that New Orleans has long been
attractive
> to America's black population.
>
NO is 68% black, and I'm not overlooking it.

Re: (OT) racism

"TK Sung" <> wrote
> No m'am, we are liberals, not commies. We talk about social justice

Yes, you all do talk. ;-)

Elle
Figuring the Dow will plummet, but on panic alone, within two weeks. Approx.
9000-9500. Recovery within a year.

Re: (OT) racism

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Well, I don't know that your number are accurate, but for reasons
> unknown to me, poor whites tend to live in the suburbs, while poor
> blacks tend to live in the urban areas.
>

Ahhh, ya ... sure.

Re: (OT) racism

"Elle" <> wrote

> Figuring the Dow will plummet, but on panic alone, within two weeks.
> Approx.
> 9000-9500. Recovery within a year.

Better go to cash tomorrow then I guess. Panic selling, hmmm....
Would a 10% - 15% drop over 2 weeks indicate panic selling?
What would cause this panic selling?
What would cause the Dow to recover within a year?

Re: (OT) racism

"sam grey" <> wrote

> That said, anyway, with that preface, take a look at this:
>
> <>

In the top photo, I see a young black man with a plastic bag and a package
under his arm. It appears that the photographer saw him stealing the
contents of the bag and the package under his arm.

The bottom photo shows a black woman dragging packages through the water.
I'm not sure if the white guy is holding a can or if the can is just
floating in the water. Anyway, the photographer must have seen them being
given whatever it is they're carrying or, at the very least, being allowed
to take it.

There were many instances of police allowing the removal of food items from
markets. I guess the two reasons for this were because the food was going to
spoil if someone didn't use it and because people need to eat.

I don't understand why you have "looting" and "finding" circled in these
photos, they could represent two very different sets of circumstances.

Re: (OT) racism

Ed wrote:
> "Elle" <> wrote
>
>
>>Figuring the Dow will plummet, but on panic alone, within two weeks.
>>Approx.
>>9000-9500. Recovery within a year.
>
>
> Better go to cash tomorrow then I guess. Panic selling, hmmm....
> Would a 10% - 15% drop over 2 weeks indicate panic selling?
> What would cause this panic selling?
> What would cause the Dow to recover within a year?
>
>
I sold my America Index funds a couple of weeks ago when they breached
their stop losses. It was partly the S&P500 falling and partly the
dollar doing the same. It seems difficult to make any money out of the
US economy from the UK at the moment, in spite of all the Asset
Allocators and MPT'ers saying one should have a substantial holding in
the world's biggest economy.

Incidentally, all of bureaucratic, red-tape-strangled, over-taxed Europe
is not doing badly. An item that caught my eye in today's paper says:

" Barely noticed, Germany has overtaken America to become the world's
biggest single exporter, shipping the hardware that powers the rising
economies of Asia and eastern Europe. Its trade surplus is now greater
than that of China, Japan and India combined, reaching a staggering 16.8
billion Euros in June alone. The profits made by German companies are
running at over 33 percent of national income, the highest in 40 years. ..."

Must be all those BMWs they keep selling! No wonder my Fidelity European
keep going up.

Re: (OT) racism

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> Ed wrote:
>> "Elle" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Figuring the Dow will plummet, but on panic alone, within two weeks.
>>>Approx.
>>>9000-9500. Recovery within a year.
>>
>>
>> Better go to cash tomorrow then I guess. Panic selling, hmmm....
>> Would a 10% - 15% drop over 2 weeks indicate panic selling?
>> What would cause this panic selling?
>> What would cause the Dow to recover within a year?
> I sold my America Index funds a couple of weeks ago when they breached
> their stop losses. It was partly the S&P500 falling and partly the dollar
> doing the same. It seems difficult to make any money out of the US economy
> from the UK at the moment, in spite of all the Asset Allocators and
> MPT'ers saying one should have a substantial holding in the world's
> biggest economy.
>
> Incidentally, all of bureaucratic, red-tape-strangled, over-taxed Europe
> is not doing badly. An item that caught my eye in today's paper says:
>
> " Barely noticed, Germany has overtaken America to become the world's
> biggest single exporter, shipping the hardware that powers the rising
> economies of Asia and eastern Europe. Its trade surplus is now greater
> than that of China, Japan and India combined, reaching a staggering 16.8
> billion Euros in June alone. The profits made by German companies are
> running at over 33 percent of national income, the highest in 40 years.
> ..."
>
> Must be all those BMWs they keep selling! No wonder my Fidelity European
> keep going up.

Germany:
Exports $893.3 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Export partners: France 10.2%, US 8.8%, UK 8.2%, Italy 7.2%, Netherlands
6.3%, Belgium 5.7%, Austria 5.4%, Spain 5% (2004)
Imports: $716.7 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Import partners: France 9.2%, Netherlands 8.7%, US 6.5%, Italy 6.1%, UK
5.8%, Belgium 5.8%, China 5.3%, Austria 4.3% (2004)

China:
Exports: $583.1 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Export partners: US 22.8%, Hong Kong 16.2%, Japan 12.4%, South Korea 4.4%,
Germany 4% (2004)
Imports: $552.4 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Import partners: Japan 16.1%, Taiwan 10.9%, South Korea 10.4%, US 7.7%, Hong
Kong 7.4%, Germany 5.4% (2004)

U.S.:
Exports: $795 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Export partners: Canada 23%, Mexico 13.6%, Japan 6.7%, UK 4.4%, China 4.3%
(2004)
Imports: $1.476 trillion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Import partners: Canada 17.1%, China 13.7%, Mexico 10.4%, Japan 8.8%,
Germany 5.2% (2004)

Top 3 developed markets YTD, local currency:
Norway +31.73%
Austria +31.59%
Denmark +27.45%

Emerging Markets YTD:
Egypt +93.94%
Jordon +76.50%
Argentina +60.21%

Emerging Markets, regional:
Eastern Europe +40.29%
Europe +36.7%
Europe & Middle East +30.27%

All local currenct, all MSCI Indices.

Re: (OT) racism

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "sam grey" <> wrote
>
>> That said, anyway, with that preface, take a look at this:
>>
>> <>
>
> In the top photo, I see a young black man with a plastic bag and a package
> under his arm. It appears that the photographer saw him stealing the
> contents of the bag and the package under his arm.
>
> The bottom photo shows a black woman dragging packages through the water.
> I'm not sure if the white guy is holding a can or if the can is just
> floating in the water. Anyway, the photographer must have seen them being
> given whatever it is they're carrying or, at the very least, being allowed
> to take it.
>
> There were many instances of police allowing the removal of food items
> from markets. I guess the two reasons for this were because the food was
> going to spoil if someone didn't use it and because people need to eat.
>
> I don't understand why you have "looting" and "finding" circled in these
> photos, they could represent two very different sets of circumstances.
>

Has anyone seen any caucasians, via the media, that "found"
a new plasma TV?

Basic necessities, such as food and water is understandable.
But water soaked electronics is different, especially when you have no
electric and it's damaged. Where are those thieves going to plug their
new TVs in, their ass?