jewers wrote on Nov 24, 2007 11:17 PM:
" I believe that one day, people will be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin - Martin Luther King. Using Race as a factor flies in the face of those who fought so hard for it not to be a deciding factor to keep people out. If Race is used, then those using it are no better than those who used it to keep those people out. "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 31, 2007 9:47 AM:
" Thank you. Just try to use past mistakes as a learning experience, not as something we should keep doing. take care. "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 30, 2007 7:43 PM:
" I guess racism is no lonber the black/white thing. I'll try to grow up and see it as that thing that was done and so what. "
Observation wrote on Aug 30, 2007 12:49 PM:
" It looks like Rick isn't capable of adult thinking. Hopefully, he doesn't expect serious people to take him seriously. "
To:3:46pm wrote on Aug 30, 2007 9:24 AM:
" I think because we as a society have moved past that type of thing and have come to realize how horrible it was to treat fellow humans that way. It's like momma always used to say: two wrongs don't make a right. Seriously, I think you are too stuck on the black/white thing. Look at it as human beings forcing other human beings into slavery. By all means be saddened and outraged by this. But, if you look at it as human/human as opposed to black/white I think you will be able to see more clearly how we need to move forward. "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 29, 2007 3:46 PM:
" So an issue is an issue because it is brought up. Okay, I defer. It (grades) is an issue I cannot solve. But I will bring up another issue that must be treated as an issue because I am bringing it up. Why not have whites live as slaves for a couple hundred years then undergo Jim Crow and lynchings and separate but equal and then let them go through a civil rights movement and then we meet back at the bargaining table. "
To:Rick Harsch wrote on Aug 29, 2007 9:30 AM:
" Well, the issue is there because it was brought up. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Go ahead and take the last word. Peace. "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 28, 2007 4:14 PM:
" See post...all of mine...all of welch's...This is an absurd approach. Nonetheless I will repeat my answer to that question: there is no issue of grades--try this cliche: red herring. "
To:Rick and Michael wrote on Aug 28, 2007 2:17 PM:
" I suppose an answer to the question posed at the end of the 8/27 9:24am post would be out of the question. I mean, it could actually cause you to examine the merits of your position. "
Rick Harsh wrote on Aug 28, 2007 11:20 AM:
" To all you lofty souls with brains in the ground: I was right, you just aren't bright enough. See 8/28,959. "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 28, 2007 9:59 AM:
" You were debating the merits of affirmative action regarding admissions versus grades with another poster. They questioned why admissions is valid but grades aren't. You threw in a silly cliche about does it make sense to level the playing field before or after a race. Given the discussion, a rational person would take that to be equating admissions to "before" the race and grades as "after" the race. Maybe if you can't use cliches in the proper context, you shouldn't use them at all. Also, name calling is indicative of weakness in your arguement. "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 28, 2007 4:18 AM:
" I tried a little condescesion because you seem to understand cliches better than thought. the 'level playing field' refers to the beginning of life, and the race is the proceeding of that life. anyone dumb enough to read that the beginning is college and the end is the grade should not be attempting to conduct a discussion at this adult level. My disgust has been posted all over these two posts--on the other post there was one that was quite direct, but on both you may find it perhaps a dozen times expressed unequivocally. "
To:Rick Harsch wrote on Aug 27, 2007 4:55 PM:
" Answer to your 2:42pm post: Your 8/24 7:18pm post implies that you think the beginning of the race is admission to college while the end of the race is the grade. If that is not what you were saying, please explain that post. I also believe the comment about your scary racism referred to the same post where you appear look at life as a contest(or game or race) between the Blacks and the Whites. I think you are getting your comments confused. You made the comment about White Americans disgusting you on the other board. Maybe if you can't keep up, you should stick to one discussion. "
To:8/24 11:52am wrote on Aug 27, 2007 3:40 PM:
" I think that is a wonderful idea. I also think we should do the same with prisons. If the population of an area surrounding a prison is made up of 10% Blacks, we should make sure that no more than 10% of the inmates of that prison are Black. If there happens to be more than 10% Black inmates, we would either have to let some Black inmates go, or round up some whites and lock them up so things are equal. After all, there aren't many opportunities to better your life in prison. "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 27, 2007 2:42 PM:
" I have no idea where anyone got the idea that I said the race ends with the grade. For that matter I don't even know what that means. Those who want a level playing field from the beginning should say as much rather than simply saying that affirmative action on a small scale is racist. And as far as my scary racism, what I am saying is that you white Americans disgust me at a very deep level. You quote Martin Luther King to try to prevent programs he would consider obviously necessary thouogh hardly enough and then you think you are color-blind, or claim you think so when you are actually struggling to maintain the status quo. No one besides myself and Welch has written of socio-economic reform--leveling the playing field, as it were. So if I scare you, you are simply scared of what is inside you. "
To: rick harsch wrote on Aug 27, 2007 9:32 AM:
" How can you claim not to be racist after your last comment? Your whole premise that life is just one big battle of the races reeks of racism. This is more harmful than the name-calling "cliche" racists that we see on television and movies. Your kind of racism is more real-and more scary. "
To:7:L18pm wrote on Aug 27, 2007 9:26 AM:
" My arguement this whole time has been to level it before. Yours has been to do so in the middle. "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 27, 2007 9:24 AM:
" Are you saying the "race" ends with the grade? How short-sighted. As the 8/24 2:59pm poster pointed out, that is just a means to an end. There was a good response to Michael on the other board. What about those who really do disagree with all of us regarding the grades? They could accuse all of us of the same things you and Welch are accusing me of. Would they be correct? "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 24, 2007 7:18 PM:
" Those ignorant of socio-economic factors should bow out of this discussion. Should ten percent of blacks get As? What asinine attempt to provoke. The point is where to (watche for the cliche) level the playing field: after or before the (watche for the double entendre) race. "
rick harsch: a new cliche wrote on Aug 24, 2007 7:16 PM:
" Defending cliches is indefensible. "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 24, 2007 3:01 PM:
" Cliches are not necessarily bad. They have become cliches for a reason. One must be able to think in order to determine which cliche would best apply to the issue at hand. Therefore, your 12:47pm post is without merit. "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Aug 24, 2007 2:59 PM:
" You are waffling. Why should grades be earned the old-fashioned way, but not admission to the colleges? They are part and parcel of the same package. You need a college education to get the opportunity at good jobs, but you also need the grades. If one went to inferior schools, how can they be expected to be able to pull in A's at a good college? You are contradicting yourself(which in this case is a good thing). You see, most of us feel the same way about college admissions that you do about grades. "
Michael Welch: Last Post!... wrote on Aug 24, 2007 1:50 PM:
" A's would be earned in the old-fashioned way; the point I make is that one ought to have the opportunity to earn one no matter the sad state of one's educational background. Many blacks try to be good students but attend inferior schools; of course the schools should be 'fixed' but those who are there right now can't be compensated but by greater opportunity. We've gone over this; I say some race-conscious 'pro-action' is necessary even if it offends the 'ideal.' This is my last post on this site; the subject however WILL come up again but I think we need a hiatus... "
Rick Harsch: I love it wrote on Aug 24, 2007 12:47 PM:
" The writer threatens to leave me with a final thought and--fill in the blank--adds to the list of cliches. For the uninitiated: the definition of cliche precludes the presence of thought. "
Could I get everyones opinion? wrote on Aug 24, 2007 11:52 AM:
" I am interested in opinions on both sides of this discussion. Should we take this idea a step further? Maybe grades should be based on race also? For example. if 10% of students in a particular class are Black, at least 10% of A's given out should be given to Black students. Obviously, depending on who actually earns A's, the percentage of Black students in this scenario RECEIVEING A's would be 10% or greater. Any feedback is appreciated. "
To:4:21am wrote on Aug 24, 2007 11:42 AM:
" Of course they can. Because you are still judging people on the basis of race. And, though you attempt to help people of one race, you do so at the expense of other races. It becomes a vicious cycle. The best course of action is to heed the words of Dr King, and judge people for what's on the inside as opposed to the outside. Hopefully by doing this, the conditions stemming from past racism will eventually disappear. But, EVERYONE must be willing to do this. "
Michael Welch: Long And Winding Road -- To The Same Place... wrote on Aug 24, 2007 11:27 AM:
" As I said -- I don't believe my opponent read my posts (ALL his/her points have been addressed -- repeatedly!) but to discover a word or phrase to twist to purpose. Yes my opponent is adamant about the view he/she/whoever takes but that's NOT communication. I wrote (over and over!) that the result of this 'color-blind' facade would be to have FEWER dark-skinned students at Madison and elsewhere and that history, experience and the results of slavery etc. REQUIRE more 'proactive' opportunities like affirmative action. I do agree though that this uh 'exchange' has gone on MUCH too long because there's only we three (plus poor ol' Marc who HAS to read this) and it's become just futile repetition. Nevertheless affirmative action policies will continue because they are necessary and morally right... "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 24, 2007 8:54 AM:
" Which post ignored the historical arguements? It seems we all agree on what the history states. The only disagreement is how do we move forward? Your answer is continued racism. I will leave you with one final thought: Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 24, 2007 4:21 AM:
" racism, I believe, refers to the denigration of a people's humanity because of their race. programs that identify people of races that have suffered suffered from racism in the past and still endure conditions stemming from said racism and try to help them cannot by definition be racist. "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 23, 2007 4:41 PM:
" no sense in being too humble. i made more points than anyone but welch and almost none were responded to. so i agree to disagree about agreeing. i don't like cliches and i don't like people who read historical arguments and ignore them. i also don't like people who think people can be reduced to numbers or dollars. coloonialism and neo-colonialism impoverish and aid is fundamentally a stability balm that does nothing to make up for past inhumanitarian actions. as an empire america is only racist when it suits their interest. americans, however, are basically racist. "
To: Michael wrote on Aug 23, 2007 1:58 PM:
" The repetition was because you never addressed the points being made, and just went on your long tirades that never answered 1)How affirmative action is NOT racism(with a fancy, PC name)or 2)How this continued racism will change the past(which we ALL AGREE was bad). "
Michael Welch: "What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate"... wrote on Aug 23, 2007 11:31 AM:
" It's been a curious experience as Harsch indicates: this has gone on LONG beyond a thorough explanation of the subject but curiously there is no sense of communication -- e. g. the 'racist' judgment about RH and me is only ideological, arbitrary, resentful and without basis other than that we disagree with this new 'color-blind' fundamentalism. I enjoyed some of my postings because I was able to speak of history and experience and Rick enjoys his off-beat humor but I had no sense of 'feeling' from the other side (the one? two at the most? who continued); it's seemed only a relentless repetition of the same-old litany, as if it were all just an 'exercise' -- which it was: in futility... "
To:4:19pm wrote on Aug 23, 2007 9:19 AM:
" Well, your idea of race relations is to attempt to change the past by combating past racism with more racism. "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 23, 2007 9:15 AM:
" Well, unless you agree with me or will agree with me, we must agree to disagree. No need to see 19 posts without ideas. Just take a look at the ones mentioned on the other board, particularly the one encouraging you to use this exchange as a learning experience, instead of a battle of words. As far as being responsible for peoples poverty, lets take a look at how much aid the united states gives as well as how much it receives. This would also be a good exercise in addition to the task suggested by the poster in the 2:39pm post. Check these things out then get back to me. "
rickk harsch wrote on Aug 22, 2007 7:01 PM:
" One cannot agree to disagree on whether M Welch and me are racists. That's the color in your own eyes. As for the rest of the world, the desperately poor do try to enter the empire that is to a large extent responsible for their poverty. It's a vicious irony, but life and politics and history are far more deep than you seem capable of comprehending. Or should I see 19 more posts without ideas? "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 22, 2007 4:19 PM:
" Sure, what would I know about race relations. "
To:Michael wrote on Aug 22, 2007 2:39 PM:
" I believe the posts made by you and Harsch indicate that you are racists, so we will just have to agree to disagree on that point. As far as how the world sees us, I think we should take the very simple solution of another poster. Compare the number of people trying to get into this country versus the number of people trying to leave. Then, do the same with other countries. Actions speak louder than words. This should be a good indicator of what people REALLY think of us. "
Michael Welch: Me? I Love Brock And Bergman!... wrote on Aug 22, 2007 11:32 AM:
" The discussion re: Slovenia is not JUST I think to say Slovenia's somehow 'better' -- it is, obviously, in certain ways but that's not unique to it alone and e. g. I'd love to be say a Canadian or a Swede but those nations are very cold AND both countries don't readily accept immigration for the bennies or because one admires Sir Isaac Brock and Ingmar Bergman. The problems most Americans have in SENSIBLY discussing their own country is that they're incredibly defensive and as Harsch notes abysmally ignorant of even a world map. (Where's Greece, much less Slovenia!) There are racists in S as there are anywhere else but neither Harsch nor I are racists -- that's merely your ideo-illogical attack and it's really boring now. Talking about how the world sees 'US' however IS quite interesting... "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 22, 2007 9:25 AM:
" Not at all. In fact, I am very sorry for the racism she experienced. What I was laughing about was the irony of YOU complaining about race relations. "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 21, 2007 5:42 PM:
" my very dark-skinned Indian wife sufferred extensive racism in america, none in Slovenia. I hope that, too, provides you a laugh. "
To:12:58pm wrote on Aug 21, 2007 4:46 PM:
" Then why does everyone want to come here? Compare how many people are trying to get in and out of our respective countries. Then let's have a discussion. Also, do you see the irony in YOU posting about being divided by race? "
To:10:21am wrote on Aug 21, 2007 4:43 PM:
" That's too bad. I am really broken up, because I really value your opinion and that of your 18 year old nephew. "
Question for Rick wrote on Aug 21, 2007 2:37 PM:
" Are most of the people of Slovenia racists such as yourself? Or, is racism reserved for only the most "enlightened"? I must confess, I have shared a good many laughs with others over your posts also. "
rick harsch: re Slovenes wrote on Aug 21, 2007 12:58 PM:
" In a way you're right that Slovenes can't grasp what you're discussing. They can't believe anyone would, for instance, be dumb enough to suggest bombing at all, much less Mecca and Medinah; they can't grasp the contradiction that the world's great democracy is riven with hatred, divided by race, without health insurance for all (I just got a rebate from the state health fund here, by the way), and has a staggeringly unequal distribution of income, that anyone believes anything on Fox News, that you Americans really don't know where Manitoba is, much less Slovenia, that you somehow see yourselves as a cut above while the rest of the world views you as in need of a cut in the head (read lobotomy). "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 21, 2007 12:46 PM:
" there is no slovene word for yeak. "
Michael Welch: The Fascinating Balkans... wrote on Aug 21, 2007 12:42 PM:
" Also MANY Slovenians speak and read English (as well as Italian) and are really as fascinated with the USA (favored foreign destination of choice) as most other folks in the world are. There is an older more rural Slovenia (just like Vernon county huh?) with the old folks and medieval churches and/or fortresses on the high hills but you have to know this country is 'newer' than the US -- Slovenians have never had a formal nation before; they were part of Tito's 'communist' version of Yugoslavia which eventually invited in western tourists, movie companies and capitalist buckies and made a habit of saying 'Up yours!' to the Sovs. It's an intriguing part of Europe and you shouldn't make stupid, ignorant assumptions about it... "
Michael Welch: Slovenia! Not "Ruritania"!... wrote on Aug 21, 2007 12:14 PM:
" Why such contempt for Slovenia? Harsch chose it; it didn't choose him. I've been there; it's hardly a comic-opera country but is full of rather serious folks with banks, automobiles, bad drivers and -- casinos with tall blond Ukrainian prostitutes! (Hey just like 'US'!) However the old medieval squares and streets still retain a quaint charm and usefulness; the food is varied and good and corner tavern-cafes abound; the great strange city of Venice you can see (and visit!) vaguely across the north Adriatic and then there's the Italian Alps and Austria not far. Bus service is MUCH BETTER and more comfortable than here all in all. Yes Slovenia's a civilized place AND it avoids 'intervening'... "
To:3:33pm wrote on Aug 21, 2007 10:39 AM:
" So, why don't these folks in Slovenia that "look in", join us in the discussion? "
rick harsch: the people in slovenia wrote on Aug 21, 2007 10:21 AM:
" This could be a long post, but I'll leave some out for later. First, the people of outscore Americans on intelligence tests from age five through adulthood, but most countries do that. Second, I just cashed my health insurance rebate check of 466 euros. The health industry did not use all available taxpayer funds and gave back what they didn't use for the year 2006. Third, I was just in India for 7 weeks and my 18 year old nephew laughed repeatedly at posts like yours. The world understands the wattage lacking in your bulbs, not just Slovenes. "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 21, 2007 8:56 AM:
" Yeak, like the people in Slovenia could even grasp what we are discussing. "
rick to mike wrote on Aug 20, 2007 3:33 PM:
" that outsider makes a good point--let's have a free conversation. yes I think we outlasted the gasbags, and yes this space, as you imply, is good for stiff heads to flex their verycosy veins and nightmares. but i take it very seriously, enough that I often get folks over here in slovenia to look in so they can gasp and say you're right, they ARE demented, or stupid, or something, but something FUNDAMENTAL, which is ultimately what terrifies even me. "
To:Michael wrote on Aug 20, 2007 12:45 PM:
" Not everthing is a joke, but I do consider people and policies who judge others on the basis of skin color a joke. And, since that is what is going on here, forgive me if I don't take you seriously. "
Michael Welch: Are "Conservatives" REALLY Nuts?... wrote on Aug 20, 2007 12:25 PM:
" Maybe Marc will permit me another observation: I genuinely LIKE to discuss and I take this blog seriously; compared to Rick I know I seem even 'stuffy' but I don't know what the purpose of this 'game' of perverting things I say for 'points' has led? My critic (criticS????) has convinced him(her???)self of his(her???) position but not addressed the matters I brought up about the history of blacks in the US. There COULD have been much more of substance to say, on both sides. And on other boards there's so many 'cartoon' positions -- nuke 'em! -- that one wonders Is this all a gag? Do 'conservatives' REALLY believe this idiocy they pump? Can't ANY of them go beyond cheap sloganeering? 'Nuke Mecca!'? That's insane, not to mention a crime against humanity AND Bushian economic benefit. Is everything a 'joke' here?... "
Michael Welch: Mike To Rick -- Over... wrote on Aug 20, 2007 11:41 AM:
" They are tired of themselves -- note the 'Bucko' discussion has apparently ended and self-styled 'blog stalker' has vanished 'like a Rick Harsch cab fare!' -- blog stalker stalked? On this particular board (bored?) the repetitions and phony baloney are from -- let me tell you Rick: I think this character is that teenager from last year who SO hated us he planned some elaborate ruse and at one point announced Surprise! You're 'debating' with a kid! I fooled you I sure did! Talk about basements, what time 'Star Trek' appears AND Doctor Freud's theory of projection! Maybe I'm being much too fantastic in imagining this but this IS cyberspace, a new dimension of personal fantasy islands... "
To:Rick and Michael wrote on Aug 20, 2007 8:54 AM:
" I guess when you cease responding to the other sides posts and questions, it becomes an exercise in futility to respond at all. So, this board can be your own little playground. Have fun. "
rick harsch to michael welch wrote on Aug 18, 2007 5:50 PM:
" We're the only two left. Is this armageddon? has the racial nuke been fired? has arizona browned you? who is left to tell us to shut up? "
Michael Welch: The Edge Of Sadness... wrote on Aug 18, 2007 11:46 AM:
" I think the argument based on claiming to be black is either hypocritical or re: Harsch a 'joke.' I still see my arguments as much more understanding of the actual past and my opponents' as mere dessicated 'theory.' They are not convinced and I have not been convinced by them. They believe they are 'right'; I believe they are merely right-wing. I think none of my critics actually READ my posts but only perused them for a phrase or idea which they would inevitably distort. They think they are clever but they are only superficial and ultimately irrelevant to anything real... "
rick harsch re 903 post wrote on Aug 17, 2007 4:54 PM:
" Yes, it was convenient. "
rick harsch--shut up wrote on Aug 17, 2007 2:45 PM:
" Wow, my last post had the image verification op5ow. But anyway, I just wanted to point out that we all really love Michael Welch, either because we appreciate his mind and writing and humor, or becuase we love to hate, to fight...nobody really wants mw to shut up. "
rick harsch: oprah is black, too wrote on Aug 17, 2007 2:41 PM:
" This has all been very enlightening. I never watch American television so I am just now finding out that Oprah is black. Was Opie black, too? And if so, does Welch have to shut up if THEY tell him too? I remember an interesting corollary to the shut up different man circumstance here. A woman in a college seminar told me that i could never understand the existential properties of a woman. At the time I argued--now I would just laugh--that if we take that approach no one can understand anyone. And of course, in the depths of philosophical tomes, that is the end we reach. But meantime it sure is fun to talk with, drink with, have sex with other people, even without a perfect depth of understanding. "
To:Rick Harsch wrote on Aug 17, 2007 2:03 PM:
" I see you conveniently did not respond to the 8/14 9:03am post.
"
To:Michael wrote on Aug 17, 2007 1:26 PM:
" The person who stated she was a black woman made the remark in passing--you could almost have missed it if you weren't looking real hard. You are the one who took that little, tiny remark made in passing and made it a huge issue, with name calling,etc. "
Michael Welch: Fatal Distraction... wrote on Aug 17, 2007 11:47 AM:
" Why should one say 'I am a black woman and you are a white man and so YOU must shut up when I tell you to. And by the way I am "color-blind" and nothing should be decided on the basis of race at all'? With 'reasoning' like that I can make fun of people who are so obviously making fun of themselves but frankly I don't care at this point if he/she is black or not; but I do see that this 'debate' has crossed into the Glenn Closean 'bunny boiling' stage; yet anyone sincerely interested in my point of view has MANY MANY posts below with which to examine it... "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 17, 2007 8:39 AM:
" Interesting. If I recall Dr King said he longs for the day when men would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I wonder what he meant by that? I wonder what he would think about this? "
rick harsch: I am a black woman wrote on Aug 17, 2007 3:16 AM:
" I am Spartacus. I am Spartacus. I am Spartacus...In this debate 'I am a black woman' has about the same authority as 'I am a white man'. I happen to be a farter. Still, the whole thing comes down to which cliche has been repeated most, and the award goes to 'content of character', which white bloggers have made a repulsive line extracted from a great speech, sucking the content of it so that it desquamates into blog after racist blog. "
Question for Michael wrote on Aug 16, 2007 3:46 PM:
" If this person does prove to you she is a black woman, would that make her arguements more valid? If you prove she is not, would that make the arguements less valid?(note to all reading: knowing Michael, we won't be treated to simple yes or no answers) "
Re:Michael Welch wrote on Aug 16, 2007 3:34 PM:
" Why are you suddenly in attack mode? Why not answer this woman who is willing to prove she is what she says she is? Would you like to apologize to anyone who might have been offended by your "black woman" same as "Oprah" comment? "
To:Michael wrote on Aug 16, 2007 2:25 PM:
" Again, if we could arrange to meet so I can prove it to you? "
Michael Welch: No, You're Not "Oprah" -- Definitely Not... wrote on Aug 16, 2007 11:23 AM:
" No I still don't believe you. Besides YOU'RE the one advocating a 'color-blind' approach right? Why then pull out your own supposed 'color card' as a trump? MILLIONS of blacks agree with what I've written -- MANY MANY would be black women, including Oprah by the way -- and they show that every election year. Democratic candidates supporting affirmative action regularly receive 90%+ of those blacks who vote. Of course not all black people believe the same things -- Clarence Thomas for instance seems to be a black man who doesn't much like black people -- but when you cry 'color-blind' for posts and posts and THEN attempt this ruse you're just making your argument and yourself pathetic... "
Re:Michael Welch!!!???? wrote on Aug 15, 2007 3:22 PM:
" The poster claims to be a black woman, so she MUST be Oprah!!!??? Nice. "
Angry Ernie wrote on Aug 15, 2007 1:19 PM:
" It looks like the racists of old would allege that all black people look alike. It looks like the racists of today allege that all blacks think alike. Michael seems puzzled that the poster he attacked doesn't share the same views as Colin Powell. That makes about as much sense as saying Michael shares the views of George Bush because they are both white. "
To:11:57am wrote on Aug 15, 2007 1:05 PM:
" Since this seems like such a preposterous idea to you that a real actual black person(a woman no less!)would want to make it based on her own merit, what if we could somehow arrange to meet face to face so I can share my views with you personally? I would even bring a couple of my friends(who are also black women(GASP!). That way you won't be able to accuse me of being a liar as well as not capable of making it on my own. "
Michael Welch: So You Are -- Oprah! WOW!!! Right Here On The Trib Blog!... wrote on Aug 15, 2007 11:57 AM:
" I don't believe you are a 'black woman'; I think that's only a device you employ as an anonymous poster in order to augment your ideological view. And so? Colin Powell, a genuine black person, doesn't know what he's talking about either I suppose? I've repeated again and again the historical reasons -- blacks and other dark-skinned have been treated COLLECTIVELY as 'inferior' as well as individually; consequently collective as well as individual compensation (even of this modest type) should be available. A black person KNOWS this is yet a racist society directed against the darker-skinned; you don't seem to have any knowledge, only ideology. Nope! I'm not convinced and I doubt if Gen. Powell would be -- especially that you are a 'black woman'! (Not just 'black' of course!) What a scam! C'mon! You can make up a more convincing fib than that!... "
To:Michael wrote on Aug 14, 2007 3:40 PM:
" You just don't get it. The fact you acknowledge that nothing you can say can change my perception is indicative of a perceived weakness(rightfully so) in your premise. For one, you don't clearly state WHY specific blacks today should be compensated for what was done to their ancestors yesterday-you only state that they should be. Keep in mind I am not against any need based programs that would, by design, address residual affects of past racism that still linger today... "
To:Michael wrote on Aug 14, 2007 2:26 PM:
" No, you still don't grasp the point the other side is making. They would not be entitled to more compensation unless more was taken from them PERSONALLY. The other side even addresses your point about the EFFECTS of racism still being felt-which would be addressed by need based programs that DON'T take race into account. I made a comment yesterday about the irony of you(a white man, I presume)trying to lecture me(a black woman)about racism and discrimination. For whatever reason, my comment wasn't posted. Basically, I say to you "Thanks but no thanks". Stay out of issues you know nothing about. "
Michael Welch: Turning And Turning In A Widening Gyre... wrote on Aug 14, 2007 12:18 PM:
" Okay there's a parallel 'universe' in the Marc Wehrs column but actually I've 'answered' the points on both boards: blacks and other brutally exploited and oppressed darker-skinned peoples deserve more compensation and opportunities because US history clearly shows how much has been taken from them. Not even the reputed '40 acres and a mule' came their way after the horrible civil war and their LEGAL suppression was a fact within my own lifetime. Anti-poverty programs are repeatedly cut and subverted these days and resources for affirmative action programs are limited too; it's just that they are a modest improvement and the object of removing them is I believe that FEWER dark folks get 'in.' That the critics here are so ideologically opposed means nothing I say can change their perceptions but then they haven't changed mine either... "
To:2:12pm wrote on Aug 14, 2007 9:03 AM:
" No, that specific point was never addressed. By the way, how are things in the basement? Is Star Trek coming on soon? "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 14, 2007 8:37 AM:
" Nor will continued racism affect any change. So, if neither option affects change, lets at least do what is fair and judge people by the content of their character. It will still be a long road, but we would at least be moving in the right direction. "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 13, 2007 2:12 PM:
" The famous simple-minded 916 post was answered before it was written and after it was written and has been answered repeatedly. But thick heads have little impetus toward learning, and little ability to digest ideas deeper than those they write in one line. So I will add one more argument. If it were so simple and the people of the U.S. were generally color blind, this issue would never have come up. Sociologists have long been putting out convincing studies regarding the perpetuation of racism through societal structures. A few racists calling for sudden color blindness is not going to effect any change. "
To:Michael wrote on Aug 13, 2007 12:51 PM:
" No, you can't change that becaue you are wrong. You aren't willing to answer the pointt that even your ally Harsch acknowledges engage your arguements. If you leave a key point of your critics unanswered, you won't change many minds... "
Michael Welch: I Again Re-state My Argument... wrote on Aug 13, 2007 11:27 AM:
" I believe that the actual objective of a so-called 'color-blind' approach is that FEWER dark-skinned people would be admitted to universities etc. and moreover I believe that is the REAL reason behind these arguments against affirmative action. I don't know of course if the posters below are themselves cynical or idealistic but I believe the result of what they endorse would indeed end up as detrimental for blacks and other non-whites. I believe that the truly terrible history in America of exploitation and brutality vis-a-vis darker-skinned people requires a consciously more favorable approach and that, considering that past, that is appropriate and yes just. My critics (whatever their intentions 'good' or 'bad') reject that for what I believe would prove harmful to furthering racial justice. They reject any nuanced understanding for what I see as rigid ideology and I obviously can't change that... "
To:11:23am wrote on Aug 13, 2007 8:43 AM:
" Well, if you really want to make that arguement, opposing a system that favors whites over blacks would also be wrong because it would result in fewer whites admitted to major universities...come on, Michael, you can do better than that.. "
To:Rick and Michael wrote on Aug 13, 2007 8:39 AM:
" And oddly enought, the arguement presented in the 9:16am post is the only one that remains unanswered.... "
rick harsch to Michael Welch wrote on Aug 11, 2007 1:10 PM:
" See 916 post--that seems to be the only hint of willingness to engage your arguments. "
Michael Welch: No YOU'RE The Racist, Even Inadvertantly... wrote on Aug 11, 2007 11:23 AM:
" In the gospels Jesus says 'by THEIR FRUITS you shall know them.' MY point is still that the 'fruits' of the anti-affirmative action movement would result in FEWER darker-skinned people permitted entrance into, in this case, a major university. I believe in affirmative action and so does Colin Powell who certainly benefitted from it -- so even I can agree with him on something! -- and the opponents say we're both 'racists' by their contortions. I can't remove that perception -- I can't make the 'scales' drop -- but Doc Freud tells us what 'projection' is and I believe they are accusing me of their own weakness. I am not saying that 'a a' MUST go on 'forever' but I remind people that just because they don't recall the VERY RECENT history of entrenched racism doesn't mean it isn't important AND still relevant... "
To:Michael wrote on Aug 10, 2007 1:29 PM:
" Again, see 8/9 9:16am post. I submit the goal of those who oppose affirmative action is to judge everyone by the content of their character as opposed to the color of their skin. I submit that just because we aren't there yet, and the goal of color-blindness seems "too lofty" to some, that it is STILL a goal worth striving for....and that those who don't even want to TRY are the racists.... "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 10, 2007 1:24 PM:
" Well, if I am simple for wanting to judge people for what's on the inside, so be it. "
Rick Harsch wrote on Aug 10, 2007 11:47 AM:
" I've been responding to three types of postings. The first is exemplified by the bizarre 'toughen up buttercup' fellow, who is clearly a specific psychiatric profile: overcompensation via simple tough-guy front, probably few friends, clearly no ideas, a patriot, never won a fist fight in his life. Second, there are the sincere responders who simply cannot accept that history is fluid, can be cumulative, and feel that they are not racists but are on edge, could go either way--one push, one black over white scenario and its pinned in their minds for good. Third, those who find comfort in simplicity, don't grasp the argument beyond the obvious, lame 'color blind' and can not string together the sentences for an argument. I hope sometime to engage a higher quality blogger here. "
Michael Welch: No, YOUR View Is Still The Racist One... wrote on Aug 10, 2007 11:25 AM:
" My point has been that the history of the United States shows no 'color-blindness'; indeed the darker one's skin the more one has been made to suffer, socially and even legally. Being of dark skin had always been a disadvantage; but then at long last in some circumstances it could afford a modest advantage and THAT is when platoons of folks arose, objecting that this is a neo-'racism,' i. e. against lighter skins. Yet we see that American power and wealth are clearly still dominated by the lighter-skinned -- as are ALL levels of society. SO I say the REAL goal of those who oppose affirmative action is that FEWER dark-skinned benefit and that's the 'old' racism yes, 'polished' as the metaphor goes... "
To:9:25pm wrote on Aug 10, 2007 8:21 AM:
" Yes, history has been acknowledged. The disagreement is, GIVEN the history, what should be done? I again refer you to the 8/9 9:16am post. "
To: 10:19 pm wrote on Aug 10, 2007 8:18 AM:
" Re the question posed at the end of your post: Yes, if for no other reason than because of what happens when people AREN'T. "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 10, 2007 8:14 AM:
" Toughen up, buttercup. Can we make this a "no whine" zone? "
rick harsch: back to India wrote on Aug 9, 2007 10:19 PM:
" How about another example. The British (whites all during the period under review) utterly destroyed India's trade and industry, and did great damage to their traditional craftsmanship. Now India remains mird in poverty you wouldn't believe if you didn't see it. The average (though I admit average is a difficult concept in this context) works a great deal harder and a great deal longer than the average American and makes, if lucky, from 2 to 4 dollars per day. I referred early in another blog to the tailor set up in front of my in-laws house. He is a tailor by day and night watchman by night. I don't know when he sleeps. He's trying to get his daughter in college and he barely made it, with the help of my father-in-law, who secured him a loan and pays him to watch this house. Should I be color blind? "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 9, 2007 9:25 PM:
" The 916 comment is called bottom line, which is always a warning sign. In less than two lines it mentions blacks twice. The alternative question is if Blacks are disadvantaged due to historical reasons why not mention race. It's a little more complicated than a few programs helping a few black people--it's a cultural catastrophe, a socio-economic complex of issues. Race should be at the forefront of the discussion until it is no longer necessary. Further, there is the question of whether blacks should be entirely assimilated or not--this is a question long debated by black intellectuals. Given their history, cultural assimilation probably cannot entirely work. The historical context properly understood reveals far too complicated a scenario than one solveable by a sudden call for color blindness. No, history has not been acknowledged. "
To:Michael and rick wrote on Aug 9, 2007 4:37 PM:
" See 9:16am post. No one is ignoring history or historical context. "
rick harsch, an apology wrote on Aug 9, 2007 2:14 PM:
" I mixed a baseball metaphor--i guess i didn't come to play. "
rick harsch on being out wrote on Aug 9, 2007 2:12 PM:
" Well,i play baseball in the Slovene 'majors' and I have stolen over 20 bases and been caught just once (I am 48--you steal on the pitcher). so I know something about being 'out'--a throw must be made, and I see no throw to my polished turd pitch. "
rick harsch's unproven assertion wrote on Aug 9, 2007 2:10 PM:
" Changing in mid-stream. Yet another cliche. In a discussion some change should be lauded. But, unfortunately the one you refer to is taken out of context, context being the shortfall of my critics as Welch points out (history is meaningless to you real racists). However, my assertion is a very good guess--be honest, if possible. "
Michael Welch: "Race" 'Round The Clock... wrote on Aug 9, 2007 11:43 AM:
" I did make a mistake: as Harsch pointed out the title of the poignant, ineffably sad story of 'Bigger' Thomas is indeed 'Native Son' while 'Black Boy' is Richard Wright's own autobiographical work. Also, American society is not 'color-blind' nor is it possible to be so; 'color-blind' is a ruse employed to thwart attempts like affirmative action (Colin Powell by the way is a firm supporter of such) to assuage centuries of brutality, exploitation and injustice so that black and minority history in the US can be minimized, limited to a vague 'antiquity' meaningless to those hordes of 'patriotic' Americans who really have read almost nothing about their nation's history. So: we simply go 'round the clock but I note that my opponents don't regard history as relevant; that's a topic they assiduously avoid... "
Sounds like... wrote on Aug 9, 2007 11:29 AM:
" Rick is changing the argument in midstream with his unproven assertion that those against affirmative action are also against programs for the poor. You're way off base on that one, Rick. In fact, you're "out." "
Rick Harsch: I forgot to add that wrote on Aug 9, 2007 10:56 AM:
" those who use cliches are doomed to repeat them. "
harsch specifically to blouserdorfen wrote on Aug 9, 2007 10:55 AM:
" If you want to use someone else's argument, so will I: please tell me one thing Michael Welch has written that is not accurate. "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 9, 2007 10:53 AM:
" Actually you can polish a turd--I've seen it work. You wait til they turn white, freeze them, and go to work. It works similarly with racists--you have to sort of freeze their minds and go to work on them. Regarding all these color blind posts, the irritation is that you are so insistent on calling yourselves color blind and calling for a color blind world. If America could actually show itself to be color blind, who would argue that that would be a good thing? The problem is the same people who argue against affirmative action tend to be against any social program that helps the poor. If the U.S. were truly an egalitarian society the argument would be over. Until then, yes, you turds can be polished. "
To:Bottom Line wrote on Aug 9, 2007 10:05 AM:
" Exactly! If Welch,Harsch, et al. continue ignoring this point, why continue responding? Sometimes, you just have to realize you can't polish a turd. "
Bottom Line wrote on Aug 9, 2007 9:16 AM:
" This should be the last word. If Blacks are at a disadvantage due to past racism, more Blacks would qualify for need based programs anyway. So, why make race a factor at all? "
To: 4:29pm wrote on Aug 9, 2007 9:07 AM:
" Who said anything about forgetting? The arguement is to just not make the same mistake twice. We can't reverse what the institution created long term by making the same mistakes. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe instead of looking at it as "Blacks and Whites" you should try looking at it as "human beings". I don't look at it so much as tragic that Blacks were enslaved. How I look at it is that it was tragic that human beings were enslaved. "
Rick Blouserdorfen wrote on Aug 9, 2007 8:58 AM:
" Re 6:06pm post: All you have to do is scroll through the board to see your points being refuted. If "our side" refutes the points you make, but you do nothing to refute what we say, "our position" simply has more credibility, and is likely more valid as a whole. For just one example(I will use the comment of another poster in order to be unbiased), see 8/7 4:23pm post. "
rick harsch: troll to troll wrote on Aug 8, 2007 6:06 PM:
" Your post is quite typical in that it claims my arguments have been refuted without saying how. And of course you call my points ridiculous without explaining how they are. If you are white and think the way you do (if could be called thinking) that I don't like you. Am i a racist? Are you a troll? "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 8, 2007 4:29 PM:
" so we should resurrect dead slaves and forget about what that institution created over the long term. "
Rick Blouserdorfen wrote on Aug 8, 2007 4:15 PM:
" Re Rick Harsch 1:15pm post. Those who oppose you are very good thinkers who refuted your points again and again. If you are saying you happen to dislike more whites than people of other races, yes, we get it. And that in and of itself does not make you a racist. I guess it depends on if you are telling the truth now and were indeed "just teasing" by claiming to be a racist, or if you have simply found that admitting to racism was ill advised and makes your points(which are ridiculous already) even more ridiculous. One could argue that supporting these policies by definition makes you a racist, whether you admit it or not. Another poster brought up the saying "If it looks like a duck.... "
To: RH1:07pm wrote on Aug 8, 2007 4:06 PM:
" Yes, if you are speaking about those specific Blacks. If you just mean Blacks in general needing the redress, no. "
Rick harsch, racist wrote on Aug 8, 2007 1:15 PM:
" Calling myself a racist was an experiment in seeing if opposing arguers could think their way out of a used condom. They cannot. The point is that I don't like whites for their racism, past and present. Am I really a racist? No, I just don't like white people who are ignorant of their past and give themselves a break in the present to justify continuing racism while hypocritically arguing against racism. As a matter of fact, I don't like black people who sold their rival tribesmen into slavery, but that is by far a lesser issue at this point, and it was obviously not racist. Also, I don't like Indians who try too hard to cheat me. But as I see more damage to the world having been done by Europeans and their former colonists, I do tend to dislike more white people. Get it now? "
michael from harsch wrote on Aug 8, 2007 1:09 PM:
" Finally a true flaw in your writing: Bigger Thomas was the protagonist in Native Son. "
rick harsch to yet another dolt wrote on Aug 8, 2007 1:07 PM:
" If the wrong was perpetrated against blacks, they would be the ones needing redress, wouldn't they. "
To:Michael wrote on Aug 8, 2007 11:56 AM:
" Rick Harsch himself acknowledged being a racist. I realize you didn't admit to being a racist, but you are very rigid in supporting this policy of racism despite the fact that strict need-based assistance(not involving race)would address your concerns.....that is, potentially right the wrongs of the past without the further use of racism(which will only hurt).....so, you know what they say....if it looks like a duck.... "
Michael Welch: Intellectual "Decay" Here Also?... wrote on Aug 8, 2007 11:39 AM:
" Oh gee we're now at the point when the critics ask us to stop posting while they dig in to say that anyone defending racially affirmative action programs IS a 'racist' and that's that! So there! Well I predicted that nothing about the history of American racism could alter that peculiar article of faith didn't I? Now they've (sigh!) segued into the personal attacks too, having abandoned any potential interest in their country's past. The best book on slavery I think was written by a white Virginia novelist named William Styron; the title is 'The Confessions of Nat Turner' and it is based on -- history! For post-slavery with a northern urban 'Jim Crow' aspect I recommend Richard Wright's equally striking 'Black Boy,' the story of 'Bigger' Thomas' descent. Books are good for understanding and removing rigidities -- IF you approach them openly... "
To:Rick Harsch wrote on Aug 8, 2007 11:30 AM:
" Your arguement falls apart when you state "redress would therefore have to involve race". Neither this article nor any of the comments explained why this would necessarily have to be the case. On the other hand, many comments explained why this course of action is ill-advised. Past wrongs are never an excuse to perpetrate a current wrong "
rick harsch to sleep therapist wrote on Aug 8, 2007 10:16 AM:
" I slept eleven hours last night, missing out on a fine morning in Chennai. But I thank you for your concern, for I actually do have sleeping problems on occasion and feel warmly towards those who sympathize. "
rick harsch trolls out a response to a troglodyte wrote on Aug 8, 2007 10:14 AM:
" re: 303 post. First of all, racism tends to be specific trait that is contagious. Do you think everyone at a lynching is really a racist. People do tend to go along with the crowd. Second of all, I have explained that the racial aspect enters in when the victims are of one race and the perpetrators of another. Redress therefore would have to involve race. To employ racism and then conveniently claim racism is wrong so nothing can be done about it is to obfuscate in order not to rationally or intelligently challenge yourself to honestly approach the issue. I have also indicated that I don't believe racism was the only ism involved... "
Perry Mason wrote on Aug 8, 2007 9:52 AM:
" I had Rick Blouserdorfin over to the house last night. Naturally, we grilled out, though it was a bit muggy. Two huge Porterhouse steaks, medium well, with potato salad and ice cream cake roll for dessert. A fine Merlot accompanied the meal. Afterwards, we adjourned to my den for cognac and cigars-Havanas, smuggled into the country by my friend, Bugs Raplin. At any rate, we both agreed that things are getting out of hand here in America. Rick suggested it was sort of kharmic. I disagreed. We left it at that. A pleasant evening by all accounts. "
To:Rick Harsch wrote on Aug 8, 2007 8:43 AM:
" For crying out loud, man! Get some sleep! Don't you have anything better to do in the middle of the night??! "
To:RH 2:15 AM wrote on Aug 8, 2007 8:42 AM:
" You did not provide a historical rationale for racism. See 4:23pm post. Also, I noticed you avoided responding to the 3:03pm post. As another poster pointed out to Michael, you guys are simply wrong. There is never any valid reason for racism. "
Rick Blouserdorfen to Rick Harsch wrote on Aug 8, 2007 8:38 AM:
" Yes. "
"rick harsch" as rick harsch to rick blouserdorfen wrote on Aug 8, 2007 2:20 AM:
" By your logic I am therefore against this policy and am ingeniously using this blog as subterfuge. Not a bad idea, but I doubt policy makers make much of this blog. By the way i really don't know what a troll is, but i will tell you some of what i am. I'm writing a book on the computer for the first time (usually I write long hand, but I have a severe deadline), and I take breaks to amuse myself with this cite from my old favorite town in America. So, is this what a troll is? Please advise. "
rick harsch: distortion wrote on Aug 8, 2007 2:15 AM:
" I provided an historical rationale to support affirmative action and I believe it is obvious that blacks suffered and continue to suffer from grotesque policies and discrimination. (It seems weak to call slavery discrimination--it's a bit worse than that.) I also wrote at one point that blacks of Africa colluded in the slave trade. It's money that we're looking at as a culprit. I despise white people who deliberate wear blinders and refuse to consider history in order to cover up their own deep-seated racism. So, troll that I am, I say that I don't like white people in general. I potentially like the one's who are not racist. And even if I hated all white people, what I have to say about the origins and perpetuation of racism in the U.S. would still be valid anyway. "
Rick Blouserdorfen wrote on Aug 7, 2007 4:37 PM:
" Wake up, people. "Rick Harsch" is a troll, out to make this ridiculous policy look even more ridiculous with his anti-white rhetoric. Your responses only encourage him. "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Aug 7, 2007 4:23 PM:
" No, you are wrong, and you will just have to trust me on that. If what you say is true, more Blacks would benefit anyway-- but not BECAUSE they are Black. Helping the poor, the disadvantaged, and the average is a very noble goal-as long as you don't make it contingent on race. Again, the key is that if society is the cause of Blacks being at a disadvantage even today, more Blacks than whites would still benefit from these need-based programs. It is not necessary to make race an issue. We must at least strive to be race neutral, and not make policies that are counterproductive to that goal. "
To:RH 2:23pm wrote on Aug 7, 2007 3:03 PM:
" No, because for you to accuse whites IN GENERAL of being racist because of the actions of some SPECIFIC white people IS racist. Racism is a specific, individual trait(as you well know). It is not something that can be applied "in general". I encourage you to stick around, though. You may learn something. "
To:2:27pm wrote on Aug 7, 2007 2:54 PM:
" How were your words distorted? You don't like whites in general because of the acts perpetrated by some people who happen to be white. You are an admitted racist. I don't need to give up. You dug your own hole, and at this point lack any credibility. "
rick harsch to re my 340 post wrote on Aug 7, 2007 2:27 PM:
" I never said that skin color caused the events in question. But they were perpetrated by whites, weren't they? you tell me why. your deliberate (if not pathetically simple-minded) distortion of everything I wrote suggests that you can learn nothing at this point and should simply give up. "
rick harsch to to Rick wrote on Aug 7, 2007 2:23 PM:
" As a formula it does seem odd. But if the reason I don't like whites, again--in general--is because they are racist, then perhaps, yes, it would make sense to listen to me. "
Michael Welch: Responsibility Not ONLY To The "Exceptional"... wrote on Aug 7, 2007 11:51 AM:
" Blacks and other racial 'minorities' (now on their way collectively to 'majority' status in this century) have OF COURSE had achievements in spite of racism; racism has even motivated many to prove they are 'as good and better' (for a racial minority to be seen as 'as good' he/she MUST be 'better') than whites in their fields. Jazz, rock 'n' roll, movies and other entertainment-sports industries clearly show blacks' and browns' prominence but also blacks have considerable accomplishments in science and invention etc. Exceptional individuals CAN 'overcome' but a 'great society' is one that seeks to help the 'average' and in particular the poor and disadvantaged and affirmative action is a good way to start... "
Michael Welch: Racism Is Endemic To US History... wrote on Aug 7, 2007 11:38 AM:
" What is wrong about a 'race neutral' stance is that it isn't but only appears to be. There is a great deal of black history that whites have never heard of -- few know that throughout the south in the first half of the last century POST CARDS of lynchings were sold at counters just as you would of Gran'dad's Bluff or the Grand Canyon. The pitiful squalor of tar-paper shacks and swollen bellies from serious malnutrition were common even as late as 1967 as Robert Kennedy discovered. Black tenements in urban areas were also occupied by rats as well as replete with peeling lead paint, both of which led to many deaths of children. Racism has created a sub-culture of endemic violence, escape via drugs and alcohol etc. Compensation in some forms is necessary, humane and extraordinarily 'just' -- if only you knew... "
Re 8/6 3:40pm post wrote on Aug 7, 2007 8:34 AM:
" Do you really think it is the color of these peoples skin that caused them to do these things? Something in the pigment(or lack thereof)? You don't think other people(regardless of skin color) may share your dismay about things? That Black people agree with everything other Blacks do? Same with whites? WOW. Re your conclusion that you may be more sane than the poster you address: I think not. "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 7, 2007 8:26 AM:
" Well, let me rephrase. Taking an admitted racists advice on achieving racial equality simply lacks common sense. "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 6, 2007 3:40 PM:
" Does insanity really have an epitome? I know we have a cliche: 'the height of insanity'. But does insanity really move vertically? I know black people don't and white people generally do. Does that mean white people are insane? All right, probably taking you too literally. Yes, I don't like white people in general, and one reason is because they are racist; another is their history of degradaion on the world scale from breaking up the flourishing Indian Ocean trade in the 16th century, to the age of colonialism, to the age of American imperialism. Why should you care what I think? Maybe I know more than you do and maybe I am more sane. Otherwise, I really don't know. "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Aug 6, 2007 3:12 PM:
" I disagree with your characterization of the position of "your critics". I maintain and have always maintained that a policy like this that would benefit whites as opposed to black or brown would be just as wrong. "
To:12:04pm wrote on Aug 6, 2007 12:51 PM:
" Why would it matter what you think? You already outright admitted to racism in your 8/3 5:42pm post, after making it obvious you felt that way with your other posts. Taking a racists advice on achieving racial equality is the epitome of insanity. "
Michael Welch: "Us" VS "Them" -- Old Story, Still Plays... wrote on Aug 6, 2007 12:47 PM:
" 'It is' or 'it isn't'? Well it's ALWAYS 'wrong' when black and brown folks are benefitted -- and NEVER wrong when white folks are! That's the explanation for 'negative action'; 'negative action' might be helpful say re: foreign adventures but within our own nation it leads to, well, collapsed bridges huh? White folks: at least you're not black! was the old racist Bilbo-Pitchfork Ben-Stennis-Eastland-Thurmond et. al. posture that ever maintained elite power by playing the poor against the poorer. This is the same thing: Hey! black folks are taking YOUR kid's university education! As if your kid can't get into ANY university cuz 'minorities' (and platoons of 'illegals'!) are pushing him/her out. This is 'racism' indeed and yeah as noted below it sure does still exist... "
To:Michael wrote on Aug 6, 2007 12:47 PM:
" I do understand. It is you who does not. You don't understand the ridiculousness of the university saying, in effect-"Some of your ancestors have been mistreated in the past because of the color of their skin. We will make this up to them by allowing you special privileges since you happen to share the same skin color as them. What's more, these special privileges will be at the expense of people who happen to share the skin color of those who tormented your ancestors." "
rick harsch to patriot wrote on Aug 6, 2007 12:04 PM:
" Patriot? Job performance and school performance occur after affirmative action. What would you know about a black person's sense of achievement, other than that to refer to it is a flimsy excuse to perpetuate a socio-economic system that is intrinsically racist, as you, being a patriot, certainly must know. "
Michael Welch: History "Stops" In 1865?!... wrote on Aug 6, 2007 11:40 AM:
" Well! Yes indeed the 'old' racism does exist! my critic finally acknowledges but it has a 'time lapse' barrier for compensation -- not after 1865? What then about (re-read some of my posts below) the century from 1865 to 1965 when blacks were brutally suppressed, segregated into squalid poverty without but intermittant and desultory 'opportunities' for education under an elitist system that baited ignorant white rednecks by promising them that at least they'd always be 'better off than --'? But history didn't stop or start at 1865! Race riots, lynchings, the simple inability to stop at roadside cafe or relieve oneself in a public bathroom continued -- all these things have EFFECTED people's lives and perceptions. A little grace is offered by a great university and termed 'racism' because those that got don't want to share? You need to READ more and understand more before you glibly label... "
Patriot wrote on Aug 6, 2007 10:09 AM:
" It is either wrong to treat people based on race, or it is not. You can't have it both ways; but that of course is exactly what some are trying to do here. Affirmative action for one group is at the EXPENSE of another, so don't let the propaganda terms like "affirmative" fool you into thinking it's all good. In fact, it really isn't even good for the minorities it is supposed to help, because then anyone that makes it has the stigma of not having earned it on merit. In other words, it can take away the sense of achievement for those who legitimately earn their own way. All we need to do, is make sure no one is discriminated against based on race. After that people have to earn their own way. "
To:Michael wrote on Aug 6, 2007 8:30 AM:
" Preferential treatment now is not going to change the centuries of slavery and exploitation. I may agree with you if we just freed the slaves last month-I would definitely agree that those particular people would deserve preferential treatment. But to say an ancestor of someone who was mistreated centuries ago should receive preferential treatment simply makes no sense, is counterproductive, and only adds to the already existing racial tension. And it is too bad I must speak of "already existing racial tension". I wish I could argue there is none, and it is policies like this that will not allow me to argue this in the near future, I am afraid. "
I have said it before wrote on Aug 5, 2007 6:14 PM:
" You want diversity? Go to Lacrosse County Lock-up! "
Michael Welch: "Conspicuous By Its Absence"... wrote on Aug 4, 2007 11:29 AM:
" Again I can't see that a modicum of preferential treatment for the descendants of racist slavery and societal oppression after centuries of cruelty and exploitation is 'racism' but my critic insists it is and in his mind obviously it shall ever remain so. He seizes usually on one word or phrase that he can turn to polemic advantage but ignores all else in my observations. I am proposing a society that does grant preference -- for people who are not wealthy and who lack basic human needs including a chance for a good education. My priorities were I capable of effecting them would surely concentrate on a redistribution of wealth that would benefit ALL racial groups based on income; but in the absence of such a 'great society' this really small effort seems more than reasonable and entirely just... "
Incidentally, (rick harsch yet again) wrote on Aug 3, 2007 5:42 PM:
" Incidentally, i did not admit to any kind of racism; what i said had an if attached. But i will now--i don't like whites in general. "
rick harsch on abhorrence wrote on Aug 3, 2007 5:39 PM:
" tax payers footed the bill whether i smoked or not. I footed the bill for choosing cigarettes, because i had less for food. anyway, why is it that tax payers froth over petty things and not enormous military expenditures? As for race issues, how do you feel about foreign students at your universities. they often get preferential treatment, including in-state tuition and work-study jobs. Or am i out of date and have the taxpayers eliminated those 'affirmative actions'? "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 3, 2007 4:52 PM:
" I appreciate you sharing some of your comments and being honest regarding your type of racism. You see, no one is saying wealthy Black families would apply for aid without needing it. No one is saying Blacks would act any different than whites. The point is, all other things being equal(poor black or poor white),to give ANYONE preferential treatment based on race is racism. No one is saying poor Black people should not get help-only that their needs should not be considered MORE important than poor people of any other race. As a side note, I think it is abhorrent that you would take advantage of the welfare stystem by forcing the taxpayers to foot the bill for your cigarettes. As another side note, I am sorry for the racism your wife has experienced in this country. "
rick harsch wrote on Aug 3, 2007 3:34 PM:
" Another factor. I've noticed throughout my life that black people behave the same as white people in the same circumstances. I doubt a well enough off black family would apply for special help, beyond ordinary student loans, to get a son or daughter into college. i remember the days of blatherings about welfare, which occurred at a time when i worked with a lot of people on welfare. what was overlooked was that people on welfare overwhelmingly did not like being on welfare. they were under strict control and were provided a bare minimum of help for living. smoking cigarettes was considered a luxury for others and they were not allowed to buy them with food stamps. so they (and I, when I was on food stamps) would get change for a couple of small purchases and then buy a pack. "
harsch part two wrote on Aug 3, 2007 3:29 PM:
" In Slovenia, people stare at my wife, but openly, and as far as we can tell without judgment--she's just exotic to them. Many frankly approach her and talk about her skin color in a way Americans would be afraid to do. Presently I am in the darkest state of India regarding skin color and am on most days the only white man around. I get a lot of stares, but people are remarkably friendly to me and respond with quick smiles when I smile or salute them. Racism is a deep-seated problem in America, and postings here suggest it will remain that way. By the way, asking if I work for the government is moronic in more ways than one, especially considering I posted my highest salary, which is far less than a government job would provide. Besides, humane people work both in and out of the government. "
rick harsch, part one wrote on Aug 3, 2007 3:28 PM:
" I submit that none of the posters here besides Michael Welch and a couple others who seem to understand 'affirmative action' measures know what racism is. For a white person it takes empathy, something sorely lackinng in too many Tribune bloggers. Even the 'black' posters doesn't seem to know what it is. Having a black wife, I've seen it in many forms, none worse than in America. "
To:Michael wrote on Aug 3, 2007 2:07 PM:
" Re the last sentence of your post: Not with policies like this it doesn't. "
Michael Welch: The World Turned Upside Down... wrote on Aug 3, 2007 11:39 AM:
" I think that 50 years from now we are yet likely to have discrimination on the basis of being a darker race and of being just poor but it will be dismissed as totally an individual's failing; any societal blame will be characterized, well the way it's characterized below, as irrelevant. My larger contention is that EVERYONE who needs it deserves a hand up from society, meaning the state in its organizing and especially financial capacities. Helping through affirmative action disadvantaged blacks and other minorities to a better life is not 'racism'; it's compassionate, empathetic and sensible. Of course the white poor MUST also be helped and I wish we had a societal structure that was fully committed to real equality. Doesn't seem likely at the moment... "
TO: Rick, One question? wrote on Aug 3, 2007 11:19 AM:
" Do you have a government job? "
To:Rick wrote on Aug 3, 2007 8:38 AM:
" Okay, as another poster said to Michael, as long as you are willing to call it what it is(racism).Being judged on economic need has nothing to do with it. If the sole criteria was economic need, and most of the people who qualified happened to be Black(perhaps due to past racism), that would not be racism. But to specifically judge someone by the color of their skin is, obviously, racism. "
rick harsch, I am not black wrote on Aug 2, 2007 10:38 PM:
" How is the policy not racism? I don't know. Maybe because eligible blacks would he judged economically so the emphasis would be based on need and recognition of past racism. Or maybe it is racism. Is it racism when a poster says 'I am Black', as if that makes his (or her) opinion more valuable? I am circumsized, but I don't generally mention it because it seems to have little bearing on any of the posts. Was slavery racism? Not to Africans who who colluded in the trade, for whom it was tribalist. In fact, for many involved in the trade it wassn't purely racist--they had a populatino problem after so many caribbean islanders died from diseases. They seemed willing to enslave anyone, those enlightened colonists. "
To:Rick Harsch wrote on Aug 2, 2007 3:58 PM:
" You still didn't answer the question posed earlier: How is this policy is NOT racism? "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Aug 2, 2007 3:24 PM:
" It doesn't matter what you're calling it. It is what it is. "
A hope for the future wrote on Aug 2, 2007 3:19 PM:
" It is my hope that 50 years from now we will look back on policies like this and wonder how we, as a nation, could have ever allowed this to happen, and how we could even entertain the ramblings of Michael and Rick. My hope is we will look at
Advertisement
