When did race based policy become "anti-racist"?

The Supreme Court just ruled that the law giving Native Americans preference when adopting Native American children stands is something you would call racist.

But what I consider racism is prejudice or antagonism against a race or culture and/or the belief that a group is inherently superior or inferior. So I don't find the ruling "racist".

 

If done according to race, yes, correct, I would call that racist. I would not, for example, exclude a black person who was themself adopted by First Nations parents and who grew up in that culture and considers it their own. That's prejudice and discrimination based on race. Race isn't culture.

You already established above that you do not oppose prejudice based on race. So for you it's more about antagonism and beliefs of inherent superiority?

If that's so, do you have any problem with White Nationalists who believe people of different races aren't compatible and desire a white nation, so long as they don't call other races inferior?

Do you consider bans on interracial marriage to be racist?

Do you consider white people giving preference in hiring, admissions, etc based entirely on race racist?

Are you in opposition to "separate but equal" race based division, telling people of one race to use this bathroom, this water fountain, etc and not the other, so long as it isn't accompanied by statements of superiority? Even if one race is given preference over another? Even if the preferred race is white?

 

There is positive prejudice and negative prejudice. Someone may be prejudiced toward a culture and seek it out because they like it. Someone may dislike aspects of Moslem culture, but that is different from being prejudiced against Moslems.
Why do white nationalists want to be separate from other races? Because they believe them inferior, per their own rhetoric, to their race.
Why would interracial be racist....doesn't fit the definition.
Whites could get preferential treatment if there was a compelling reason, like a proven history of prejudicial hiring or a history of being barred from universities.
Segregation means that the races should not mix. What could be the possible reasons for this? The answer would be dividing them into inferior/superior.

 

That does not answer the question I asked you. Some white nationalists claim to not be white supremacists, and not to believe other races to be inferior but merely incompatible. If they speak the truth, do you still oppose them?

You seem unable or unwilling to view people as individuals rather than as representatives of race, interchangeable with others of the same race. Do you realy think that a history of people who look like me being treated good or bad should entitle or disentitle me to something I had nothing whatsoever to do with? Why? Should my dark skin tone really determine how I am to be treated? Why? And how is that not unjust prejuice? I say it wrong when white supremacists do it and it is wrong when so-called "anti-racists" do it.

According to the "safe space" crowd, to give people of colour (which is somehow not the very same thing as coloured people) refuge from white people. Are you saying they feel themselves superior?

 

I am not against grants for improvished. If native Americans tend to be improvished, they will naturally benefit more greatly from it. Making it a race/ethnic based grant is unnecessary and even counter productive.

 

Yes. Help the needy, regardless of race. It's amazing that this is even debated.

 

If one believes the races are “incompatible” I would ask them what is the positive rationale for this incompatibility, because I have never heard it and they are not offering it, therefore it must be negative which is racism.

You are unwilling to view people that identify with a group as willing members of that group, with group concerns and wish those concerns be respected, because of your situation. An individual should not be treated good or bad because of skin tone, but groups are not individuals and not a matter of skin tone, although the line is often blurred, but you seem to have trouble differentiating the two.

African Americans have a high incidence of hypertension because of diet, genetics and decreased medical access. This means they have a higher incidence of stroke and kidney failure, which costs society a lot of money, besides the chronic disability of the victim. To you, targeting that population for blood pressure screenings would be racist. You can’t see how your rigid ideology, if there was widespread agreement with you, would be destructive to a needy group?

Why is it unnecessary and counterproductive? I've not heard that one.

 

Imagine you adopted two children and one was native American and one was white. You decided that you should give your native American child 50k for college but your white child you are giving nothing on the grounds that they are already benefiting from white privilege. What kind of emotional responses would you be creating between the children and towards yourself as their parent? This is propogating hatred towards a particular group due to a precived favoritism and injustice.

Second, these policies, based on race, sometimes give to people who don't need it and sometimes fail to help the people that do. Just because they are native American doesn't necessarily mean they are poor. Failing to recognize that is not just stereotyping a person unfairly, but it also means spending the funds in an inefficient way. It is better to simply target the poor without regards to race so that every dollar is going to places it is needed.

 

If they are willing members that's fine. That's how we get political and ideological groups. I'm perfectly willing to view such people as such. What I'm unwilling to do, and what you seem to be doing, is insist that people must do so because of their skin tone. My skin tone does not dictate my beliefs, opinions or concerns. To insist that it does is prejudice and racism. There are no "leaders" of skin colours, and some guy who has the same skin tone or eye shape as me does NOT thereby get to speak for me or represent me.

No. You seem to. Skin tones and eye shapes don't have opinions, concerns or beliefs. Individuals do. Those individuals can them come together if they wish and form groups with those opinions, concerns and beliefs. Those groups are not races.

It is unecessary because you can do it based on need rather than based on race, and directly address those suffering rather than attempting to do so by proxy. It is counterproductive, because you waste resources on many who don't need, exclude many who do need, and create or amplify tension along racial lines, while pushing the message that race matters and that it is ok to discriminate based on race, playing directly into the hands of white racists who push that same base idea.

It truly astounds me that anyone concerned about racism can't see that. You can't defeat racism with racist policies.

 

That is an excellent point. Pushing the message that Race X = Y, to the point that you presume anyone who is X must be Y, can do a lot of harm both to individuals who are X and to society at large. It encourages people to presume that Native American guy can't have afforded that fancy car, so he must have stolen it, or that the asian lady (who actually can't do math) must be a great accountant.

 

The civil rights movement was originally inspired by the belief that blacks were intrinsically equal to whites, and that this would become obvious when they were given equal rights.

When it did not become obvious, liberals quietly recognized that most blacks really are less intelligent than most whites. This was when they choose efforts to force economic equality, such as affirmative action programs. Now they are talking about reparations.

 

Nothing racist about that comment.......

 

In the contemporary use of the word "racist" a racist is one who is willing to mention unflattering facts about Negroes.

 

Stormfront must be down today.

 

Stormfront banned me for pointing out that a charge Hitler made in Mein Kampf about German Jews during World War I was not true.

 

Damn @Esau, time to get me those lottery numbers!!! Damn you were on the money!

 

You've got to give the man credit for admitting it.

 

And what was it that Hitler supposedly said in meinkampf?

 

Hitler wrote that during the First World War German Jews shirked combat duty. My edition of Mein Kampf documented,with data drawn from the German Army, that the participation and casualties of German Jews were proportional to their number in the German population.

I could have added that Anne Frank's father was a German officer on the western front.

 

I joined Stormfront to see how long it would take them to ban me. It only took two weeks. The first week I contributed to a thread about pre Christian Germanic pagan myth and legend. That is a top about which I know quite a lot, because I have read the surviving works along with Wagner's Ring Cycle.

The second week I became more daring and contributed to a thread about Mein Kampf. I know about that, because I have read it.

 

I don’t suppose you’re open to the possibility that you’re wrong. But just incase you’re objective, here is an excellent dissent by Jackson. It proves you and all the anti-affirmative action crowd are completely wrong.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...firmative-action/id1364113251?i=1000619399367

 

Tell us what the web address says. Affirmative action means lowering objective criteria of excellence for blacks. I do not see how that can possibly be justified.

 

This is a confusing post!!

I know of nobody who thinks that some underprivileged white person deserves no help in attaining a slot in a high quality school or other possible support.

But, we certainly do have a significant percent of our population who think "criminal" when they see "black".

 

I could see giving slightly more preference to a black couple over a white couple in adoption of a black kid - regardless of wealth, for example . After all, that black family IS better prepared to help that black child grow to understand how to live as a black adult in America.

The black family will be better prepared to give that kid "the talk" concerning police, and other survival skills.

 

Harvard admits NOBODY who isn't fully believed to be capable of success at Harvard - and that's not some triviality.

Numerous schools (including Harvard) do not admit students purely on the basis of some numeric value. There is room for considering challenges met, leadership, and other such accomplishment that might have even resulted in slightly lower grads - had the kid focused solely on grades.

Considering that leadership and accomplishment is what YOU call "lowering objective criteria".

Do you really believe that?