Teresa

Only you could take that quote and twist its meaning to "all black people are a certain way, and must be treated alike."

Wow!

You know for a fact that "the advocates of so-called diversity actually perpetuate racism."

You have, in the past, displayed some pure genius in your logic. But sometimes, and this is one of them, you fall on the wrong side of that thin line that seperates genius from lunacy.

Mark,

I don't know for a fact that advocates of so-called diversity actually perpetuate racism.

What's diversity? A bunch of people who are very different from each other living together peacefully? Allowing others to be different as long as they stay off your back? Being willing to make some minor changes to things that aren't that important to you to accomidate someone else's important issues?

In the past, our society has had certain elements that have banded together to repress other elements. When that happens, those who are repressed band together and fight back...in part through recourse to the government.

Ron Paul's position is that doing this makes racism, or any other kind of ism more intractable, and worse, is a kind of "collectivism".

When the Civil rights movoment began, and violence that had been endemic in society (not just the south) erupted to a whole new level, people could be heard to say that it wasn't the white people's fault this violence was happening. They wouldn't be opposing black rights if those uppity blacks weren't out there making trouble.

The argument is that black people shouldn't have tried to get recourse to the goverment for the protection of their rights, that the federal government has no constitutional power to protect the liberties of individuals against infringement by the states or infringement by individuals/organizations. Also, that organizing oneself into groups to aid yourself in the protection of those rights is "collectivist" (Which is, I think used as a word to suggest Communist). In essance, the only rights that you have are those you can hold onto with your own power.

That's not libertarianism, my friend, that is anarchy.

Ok

Let's read the quote again - my way, shall we?

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals [so far so good, right?] . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” [read Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, etc.] actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession [key word - obsession] with racial group identity is inherently racists . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of [racial] groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”

I hope that helps.

Your agrument that Ron Paul believes "The argument is that black people shouldn't have tried to get recourse to the goverment for the protection of their rights, that the federal government has no constitutional power to protect the liberties of individuals against infringement by the states or infringement by individuals/organizations" is absolutely rediculous. The constitution, especially the Bill Rights, is all about individual freedoms and liberty and the protections of them. If Ron Paul is anything, he is a constitutionalist. Reading what he says/writes needs to be put into that context.

I understand your being careful, but aren't you bordering on paranoia?

Quoting Ron Paul from the same article you originally linked:

"We must not allow the term "states’ rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism."

"By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups." -- your quote is actually incorrect, AND you left out the very important reason of why he says it is inherently racist. Naughty girl...

Mark,

Um...Louis Farrakhan is not generally known as a proponant of diversity. His message mellowed somewhat over time, but he made his nut on Black Sepratism. If you think the body of his activism represents "diversity" we're going to have a pretty unproductive conversation.

I don't understand how "states rights" in the context of saying the Civil Rights Act should never have happened can be seen as anything other than code for segregationist policies and racism.

I get that you see something different, but you're going to have to help me out here by being more in-depth. (sorry, I know you've got other things to do.)

I don't think that the ellipsed portion of the Ron Paul quote changes the meaning at all (I have to confess to grabbing it off a different site in my haste. I remembered reading it, typed key words into Google, found the quote and grabbed it). It merely adds to the dismissive tone of the quote. Saying that they see people only as members of racial groups is innaccuarate and misleading. Once again, all I see is a guy who is saying that group actions to solve problems in common to members of the group are wrong-headed. Having read a couple handfuls of articles bu him now, I have to say that my gestalt understanding of his philosophy is that groups of people working together to solve problems in common is wrong.

He seems to have an almost Ayn Rand level of contempt for group effort.

Ok

hmmm. How to make you understand.... I kind of think you DO understand, but just don't like it.

The Bill of Rights restricts the power of government over individuals. The Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) basically talks about individuals when discussing the citizenry. So the government only recognizes groups of people in the manner of which state they happen to be living.

I know, "what's your point, Mark?"

The point is that if everyone were treated as individuals instead of black or hispanic or white or whatever, that would go a long way to solving the problem of racism, or even favoritism (real or imagined). So - when someone (a company, person, institution, etc.) discriminates against an individual on the basis of race, the government (more than likely a state government at first) could impose penalties against the entity. Yeah I know, the Civil Rights Act did just that. However, it also imposed quotas that just aggrevated lots of people. Codifying a quota system into law inserts the word "favoritism" where it doesn't belong. True, the favoritism in this case is imagined, but it's easy to see that some ethnic groups would become angry because there quota, by law, seems unfair to them. Impose enough penalties on entities because they use race as a deciding factor in their activities and they'll get the point. The quota system makes everyone think in terms of race when that is exactly what the law is supposed to remove!

Focus should be placed on the individual. If the Civil Rights Act were written properly, racial tensions today would be a lot less strenuous.

People can form groups to achieve their goals. I don't think Ron Paul would have an issue with that. The issue would be to write a law that does not focus a group of people, but focuses on individual rights and liberties.

I am not going to comment on Ron Paul, because I haven't seen more than soundbites.

However, I will make an observation on group identification.

I was briefly signed up for a course called something like "Educating Latinos in the United States". At the first class meeting, the professor at some point said that we shouldn't think of the Latinos as being different, thus setting them apart. I couldn't help but wonder at the irony of being a in a class, that by its very title sets Latino apart as a group to be studied, and then being told that we (read: ignorant white people) shouldn't set them apart.

I'm all for diversity (and aparently so were my anscestors, who came from 10 different European and American heritages; most of them having been at war with each other sometime in the last 1000 years - I personally identify culturally as white American). However, it really annoys me when someone of color makes it sound like you're a moron for seeing different groups.

It irked me when a lawyer (who happened to be a black woman) from the campus diversity office came and explained to all of us mid-western white kids that only whites can be racist, because racism requires power. (She did concede that people of color could be bigots; just not racists.) I'm sick of the white guilt trip.

I don't know how to solve the problem. I agree that the less we set up groups of "us" vs "them", the better. On the other hand, it's in human nature to put things/ideas/people into little conceptual boxes. If we didn't then we'd never be able to sort our laundry or separate thinkers of the Dark Ages from those of the Renaissance, or the Dark Ages from the Renaissance - nor would we be able to learn a language (Just stop and think; what makes a tree a tree? When is it just a bush? How about birds? How much do chickens, sparrows and penguins have in common?). So, it only makes sense that we would naturally put people into groups as well.

Maybe we just need to define more societally relevent/useful/just categories.

Mark,

Have you read the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Ron Paul wants to abolish because of required "quotas?"

it's here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002000---e002-.html

Take a look at sub-section "J". Aw heck, I'll make it easy for you:

(j) Preferential treatment not to be granted on account of existing number or percentage imbalance
Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.

Karen,

It bugged me when a feminist told me that only women could be abused, and only men were abusers when I asked for help for a male friend with an abusive girlfriend.

*shrug*

There are assholes everywhere with stupid assumptions. (althought I belive that there is a distinction between being bigoted and being racist. Lincoln was a bigot (he thought blacks were inferior and had traits that made them inherantly ill-suited for citizenship) but he endeavored to behave in a way that was not racist (working to erase unjust conditions for people which were based on race.) Some people are bigoted, but do not want to see power used against people based on race.

The fact that people will make assumptions about you due to affiliation with a group is irksome...but the argument that trying to rectify injustice perpetrated against specific groups must be done without doing any sort of group catagorization is just silly.

Teresa

Puhleeeze! EVERYONE knows that businesses and institutions (universities, etc.) were/are required to have a certain percentage of minorities because of "affirmative action" programs passed as law.

It's very convenient that you focus on one item in the whole debate while missing the point entirely.

Point: Reguarding the government and their laws - Do you want to be treated as an individual, with individual rights and liberties (per the constitution) or do you want your rights granted to you based on the enthnic group to which you most closely fit?

That is the "bottom line" question. Playing semantics just doesn't work...

Mark,

Does everyone actually know that? I was under the impression that affirmative action guidelines were either voluntary policies, or only imposed by a judge after a finding of racial bias.

Even then, the Affirmative Action guidlines do not require them to admit/hire unqualified people, only to make reasonable effort to recruit qualified people. If they fall short, the guidlines are adjusted so that they can be reached.

Interesting. Could you provide me with information to the contrary?

Oh, and I've already had my rights violated by what ethnic group I fit into.

When I lived in Alabama, I got a job as a groundskeeper at a local rental property. I did this because, as a student, I wanted a job that was physical, and out-of doors. I did a great job. My boss was a progressive southern woman and thought it was great that I wanted the job and could do it well.

After about three months, though, she called me into her office and told me that I was being fired. A "shopper" from the main office had come to check out the property and she had been informed that it was inapporpriate to have a "White woman" in that position. She said she had to let me go from the position. Every other groundskeeper for propertied owned by that company were men of color. that job was considered to be "beneath my station".

I thought about fighting it, but decided I liked her too much to do so and cause her trouble. Looking back, I probably should have done some rabble-rousing, but I was young and I really liked my boss, and felt that she had put herself at risk by telling me what she did.

Everyday I'm judged and evaluated for everything, my weight, my race, how I espress myself. How I dress, do my make-up, the area I live in...

Everyday that stuff leads people to conclusions about me. Usually socially favorable conclusions, and usually having mostly to do with things over which I have little or no control, and often over things that have little or nothing to do with the conlusions that they draw...and often lead them to the wrong conclusions.

Do I want someone to give me a job I'm less qualified for than someone who may be black or hispanic or native American just because they percieve me as being more qualified because I'm white?

No.

Do I mind if there is a guideline that causes them to look harder past their perceptions and biases to get the best person? How much insecurity does it take to worry about that?