Thread: Is this comment rasist

Today at lunch, my boss who is of mexican desent made this comment. He said Gonzalas should be fired, when asked why, he said that from a Hispanic prespective that he is a sell out and a yes man to Bush. I felt this was a rasist comment, how do others view a comment like this from a Hispanic person?

I am not a Hispanic but he is right. Attorney General Gonzalez seems too eager to satisfy his padron.

RBA, Welcome!

What does your boss mean by his statement "From a hispanic perspective.."?

Of course it's racist. Any comment that starts out with "as a..." followed by a race is at least mildly racist from the old standard of the mythical colorblind society. This is particularly true when the comment is followed by an expectation predicated on the racial description. What do you expect from people who see no problem having a group called "The Race" (La Raza) speak for them (as an example )?

The problem with the silliness of the colorblind society ideal is that it has never worked in the history of mankind. In this culture, it never had a prayer because the expectation of "colorblindness" never extended beyond the majority. Because of the manner in which white Americans were browbeaten and guilt-tripped into the concept, the races who were prospective beneficiaries of this new group-think never considered themselves as being part of the problem. Rather, as "victims," they saw racism solely as a thing that was directed at them, not as a generically detrimental attribute in a heterogenous society. So it is that while preaching colorblindness, minority groups have no problem segregating themselves by creating exclusionary groups and caucuses dedicated to furthering their racial goals. They see no problem with their own voluntary segregation, but rather only with externally enforced segregation. Of course, what they intentionally overlook is that ANY segregation which excludes others is by definition exclusionary, meaning that they are guilty of imposing on others the very segregation they fought to have legally terminated. Neither do they wish to consider the converse idea that those who they felt were acting with prejudice by excluding them were merely engaging in the identical prerogative that they now assert when they form groups like the Black Caucus or LULAC that exclude those not of their specified race.

Yes, it's racist. It's like your Mexican boss was ashamed for "his people" that a fellow Mexican let them down.

I'm confused... a sell-out how? There's a lot of people who think that Bush is too conservative!

What was your boss insinuating?

e

The problem with the silliness of the colorblind society ideal is that it has never worked in the history of mankind. In this culture, it never had a prayer because the expectation of "colorblindness" never extended beyond the majority. Because of the manner in which white Americans were browbeaten and guilt-tripped into the concept, the races who were prospective beneficiaries of this new group-think never considered themselves as being part of the problem. Rather, as "victims," they saw racism solely as a thing that was directed at them, not as a generically detrimental attribute in a heterogenous society. So it is that while preaching colorblindness, minority groups have no problem segregating themselves by creating exclusionary groups and caucuses dedicated to furthering their racial goals. They see no problem with their own voluntary segregation, but rather only with externally enforced segregation. Of course, what they intentionally overlook is that ANY segregation which excludes others is by definition exclusionary, meaning that they are guilty of imposing on others the very segregation they fought to have legally terminated. Neither do they wish to consider the converse idea that those who they felt were acting with prejudice by excluding them were merely engaging in the identical prerogative that they now assert when they form groups like the Black Caucus or LULAC that exclude those not of their specified race.

I have to disagree with this premise. The silliness began when our White ancestors brought Africans over on ships against their will, beat, maimed, tortured and enslaved them, considered, treated and put laws on the books to legitimize them as less than 3/5ths humans and forced them to build our nation, provide nanny/maid services and do all of the heavy lifting for free. Let's not rewrite history and blame others for what our forefathers barbaric conduct and complex ignorance did in the name of racial superiorty. That is where the SILLINESS began. Had slavery not been a legalized degenerating institution based on the premise of skin color, this country would not have been built based on white racial superiority and we as a society and country probably would not be in this PC quagmire today.

Originally Posted by WhatMattersMost

The problem with the silliness of the colorblind society ideal is that it has never worked in the history of mankind. In this culture, it never had a prayer because the expectation of "colorblindness" never extended beyond the majority. Because of the manner in which white Americans were browbeaten and guilt-tripped into the concept, the races who were prospective beneficiaries of this new group-think never considered themselves as being part of the problem. Rather, as "victims," they saw racism solely as a thing that was directed at them, not as a generically detrimental attribute in a heterogenous society. So it is that while preaching colorblindness, minority groups have no problem segregating themselves by creating exclusionary groups and caucuses dedicated to furthering their racial goals. They see no problem with their own voluntary segregation, but rather only with externally enforced segregation. Of course, what they intentionally overlook is that ANY segregation which excludes others is by definition exclusionary, meaning that they are guilty of imposing on others the very segregation they fought to have legally terminated. Neither do they wish to consider the converse idea that those who they felt were acting with prejudice by excluding them were merely engaging in the identical prerogative that they now assert when they form groups like the Black Caucus or LULAC that exclude those not of their specified race.

I have to disagree with this premise. The silliness began when our White ancestors brought Africans over on ships against their will, enslaved them, considered and treated them as less than 3/5ths humans and forced them to build our nation, provide nanny/maid services and do all of the heavy lifting for free. Let's not rewrite history and blame others for our forefathers barbaric conduct and complex ignorance did in the name of superiorty. That is where the SILLINESS began. Had slavery not been a legalized degenerating institution based on the premise of skin color, we as a society may not be in this PC correct quagmire today.

HOLD ON, BUDDY...

MY white ancestors didn't have Jack Squat to do with slavery, so be careful who you tar with that brush. There are a couple of billion "white people" on this planet and only a tiny percentage have ancestors who engaged in the slave trade or slave ownership. Even in the old South the percentage of citizens who owned slaves was very small. What's more, many of the slaves were captured and sold into slavery not by Europeans out harvesting them with nets, but by other black tribes who sold captives from tribal wars to European trading partners. Slavery is still an active institution in parts of Africa. As a matter of fact, percentage-wise, the chances of having slavers or slave owners in your lineage is much greater if you are black or Muslim.

Also, you mention skin color. Perhaps you should re-read your history books, but the first slaves in the Americas under European colonialization were WHITE PEOPLE who came over under the terms of indentured servitude. That practice continued in one form or another into the Industrial Age. The black slave trade did not begin in earnest until the late 1600s and importation was ended just over 100 years later in 1808. The principal period of black slave trade was only about 200 years in America, while it has existed in Islamic cultures for almost 1500 years and in African culture for well over two and perhaps more than three millennia.

First and foremost I DID NOT NAME YOUR ANCESTORS. When I use White Americans as an example, if the shoe doesn't fit in your bloodline that's great, however, it doesn't change the premise that this country was built and based upon White racial superiority. Nor does it change the fact that we (White America)have benefitted the most from racial inequality.

I don't need to reread history, nor should you attempt to rewrite it, again it does not change nor negate the reason racism still exists in America and the race card is still played by everyone who steps foot on American soil legal or illegally they know the history of this country which is why they still play the card all these decades later.

Originally Posted by WhatMattersMost

First and foremost I DID NOT NAME YOUR ANCESTORS. When I use White Americans as an example, if the shoe doesn't fit in your bloodline that's great, however, it doesn't change the premise that this country was built and based upon, nor does it change the fact that we (White America)have benefitted the most from racial inequality.

You said "our White ancestors," and since the you were responding to my post, you will forgive me if I make the obvious assumption that "my" are included in "our."

Again, relatively small numbers of Southerners (approximately 5% by 1860) owned slaves and most people in the industrialized North never owned slaves. I'm not sure who you meant by "our," but judging from those numbers it should be a VERY exclusive group.