Very true!!!
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

. . the result of segregated education and a segregated society. There are those who have experienced closeness to those who have kindred taste - and a different skin color. More of our young are finding that because of their experience with Americans of different colors - there are those, of another color, who have kindred tastes. Thanks for making it perfectly clear how you feel and why. Fortunately, I was raised in a different environment - and just celebrated my 50th high school reunion with classmates who represented Americans of different races and creeds. If we are to ever live up to the words of our Constitution, we must overcome bigotry. If it requires walking on eggshells for some - so be it. Many of us have moved beyond that.

No Love is greater than the love expressed towards someone, something, or a government that has had a history of not loving you.

Who was the leader of your 'diversity facilitation' class? Your experience with 'reverse racism' IMO clouds your perception of 'racism' or discriminatory remarks. Making any 'general' statement about a group of people - no matter how you want to 'color' it - is perceived by many as bordering on discriminating based on sex, race, gender, class, nationality, etc. Because some 'whites' make racist statements and react in a perceived racially motivated way - does not condone any person stating that 'whites' are racist. Yet your reasoning regarding why a person who makes a 'general' statement about women or blacks or Irish, etc. should not be considered 'racist', 'sexist', etc. is difficult to understand. I too have experienced racism and sexism - but I also know that if I make a statement that all male whites are chauvinistic - it is not an honest statement based on experience or truth. As long as well-meaning people who do not want to be considered ‘racist’ continue to allow themselves to think that making statements regarding a group of persons based on their race/sex/nationality is justified – we have a long way to go in healing our stereotypical thinking in this country/world.

A statement like – those citizens who live below the poverty line; have less than a college education; and do not provide a stable home environment for their children are undesirable as neighbors – is better than saying the black citizens of Clayton County who do not provide a stable home environment for their children are undesirable as neighbors.

Don't give credence to the thoughts of idiots! Most Americans don't think like idiots in 2008! It doesn't matter if their name is David Duke or Kamau whatever.

I categorically deny that my views on the essence of racism stem from any of my personal experiences.

And when I see "diversity facilitators" coming in the front door I leave through the back door.

Actually (and, perhaps oddly), I hold the views I do because of work that I have done in environmental ethics and animal rights. Peter Singer, who is often the villain in these posts, actually makes a good point in discussing the sort of principle of equality that is implicated when thinking about racism. People of good will must be committed to the moral equality of persons, but not necessarily to their factual equality. Suppose you are confronted with the following argument:

(1) People of race A, on average, have a higher IQ than people of race B.
(2) Of any two individuals, x and y, if x has a higher IQ than Y, then x is of greater worth than y.
(3) Therefore, people of race A are, on average, of greater worth than people of race B.

How should a "person of good will" respond to such an argument? Should she regard premise (1) as false? Is the belief that premise (1) is true sufficient for the charge of racism? This seems to be a common assumption. Indeed, researchers who have had the audacity to delve into the question of whether there is, say, a genetically-based difference in IQ among the races have typically been regarded as racists or white supremacists just for raising the question and taking it seriously.

But, Singer asks, WHAT IF IT IS TRUE? There is no commitment here to its actual truth. Rather, whether it is true or false is a contingent matter. It is something that COULD, in principle, be discovered.

Would we then have the grounds for justifying attributions of unequal worth based on race?

Of course not! And the reason is that it is premise (2) that should be the chief target of anyone who rejects racism. The sort of equality that matters is grounded in the intrinsic worth of the individual, and so it is in no way contingent upon such things as IQ (or beauty, or usefulness to society, or wealth, etc).

Definitions should be formulated so as to handle all possible relevant instances, and the definition of racism that sees it strictly interms of prejudice does not satisfy the requirement.

I believe it was my fourth grade teacher whjo told us, "One ought never to make generalizations." Indeed, I have heard that in various forms all of my life. But I have never seen why anyone should subscribe to it. Induction is the great guide of human life, David Hume said. But induction involves making generalizations from experience. Meet a doberman and he bites you, you are wary of the next one you meet. If he bites you as well, indceed, if every doberman out of a dozen, that you meet, makes a lunge for you, you begin to entertain the proposition, "Dobermans are dangerous." It is a generalization that may very well allow for exceptions. Perhaps your friend, who is a doberman owner, will be able to persuade you that her dog is as gentle as a lamb, and perhaps she is right.

Insurance companies uniformly think in terms of classes of people, based on age groups, gender, education, etc., when they give quotes for automobile insurance. It does no good to protest, "But I am a safe driver." They have found that it works best to base their policies on the probabilities that arise from considerations of groups of people.

IN PRINCIPLE it could be true that, as a rule, Liliputians are gullible, Carpathians are amorous and Terebinthians are ill-tempered. The observations might be borne out by extensive experience. In that case, there can be nothing morally objectionable about "prejudice" upon encountering, say, a Terebinthian for the first time. (One thinks to oneself, "Better be on my guard. These folks are known for flying off the handle.") Perhaps over time that expectation will be overcome by the happy realization that this is a congenial Terebinthian. But the expectation is (a) natural and (b) rational and (c) not necessarily immoral.

I categorically deny that my views on the essence of racism stem from any of my personal experiences.

I totally respect you expertise as a philosopher. My minute expertise is human behavior (psychology). The views of a human are usually based/influenced by ‘personal experience’.

And when I see "diversity facilitators" coming in the front door I leave through the back door.

Again – who in the world was your ‘diversity facilitator? ☺

The sort of equality that matters is grounded in the intrinsic worth of the individual, and so it is in no way contingent upon such things as IQ (or beauty, or usefulness to society, or wealth, etc).

Agree! I hope you’re not too surprised. ☺

"One ought never to make generalizations." Indeed, I have heard that in various forms all of my life. But I have never seen why anyone should subscribe to it.

All of your arguments and rational thinking make sense. But Muddle, in the world of ‘the people’ – not the world of theorists – you’d better take the word of your 4th grade teacher if you don’t want to appear racist.

Statement: (non- racist): A higher percentage of black men than white men are in jail.

Statement: (racist): Most black men are in jail.

My father taught me the danger of making general statements regarding ‘white’ people. As an adult, he pointed out that for every stereotypical statement he had made regarding ‘white’ people – there was an exception in my personal experience. He advised me not to make statements based on generalizations regarding race, sex, politics, or religion – because there is always the exception. I may offend, or make extremely uncomfortable the very person who before had a very high opinion of my worth and honesty. If I didn’t have the facts to be specific – I was advised to keep quiet until I spoke from a factual foundation – rather than expressing my opinion based on ‘induction’.

Basing thought on generalizations is not ‘immoral’ – but in many situations, it will be considered ‘racist or any of the other ‘ist’.

(racist) Most black men are in jail

This is not racist, per se, it just a wrong statement based upon your apparent facts. I'm not so sure I understand your arugments on this matter at all. If one were to "spread" wrong information to injure a race, then yes, it could be racist, if one knows it to be false, or one makes a generalization without making sure it was accurate.

As to David's Grandfather's refusal to generalize, well, that's nice, but I'd suggest that Generalizations are an appropriate way to live.

Let me ask you Mother of David. You are on a dark city street. Your car has broken down, no cell phone, no where to get help.

Walking down the street toward you is a band of five or six white boys. They have purple hair, tatoos, nose and eyebrow rings, and they are carrying a boom box, blasting the worst sound you've ever heard.

In the opposite direction approaching you is a black man. Dressed in a business suit, clean cut, with a brief case in his hand. Now, who do you turn to for help. Well, if you were my daughter or wife, I'd tell them to ask for help from the black man.

This is based upon a generalization, a prejudicial decision, based upon what we consider normal or proper. There is nothing wrong with that.

The Truth might be though, that the black man is a drug dealer getting ready to make a deal, and the punk rockers are undercover cops, staking this man out, but at this point in your life, you have to make a decision based upon the information that you have. You can't investigate, so you make the correct decision based upon your own prejudices that clean cut black males in business suits can be generally trusted. There is nothing at all wrong with that.

However, generalizations should always be weighed against both time and the individual and the context of the facts as we have come to know them.

David Duke is a racist. REGARDLESS of the evidence that he denies much of these charges, I can see a pattern of how he lived to make a generalization that he is scum.

Why is that so hard to figure out? So the same thing applies to the Obama's racist white grandmother who expressed fear at the prospects of being accousted by a young black male who disporportionately commits crimes at a higher rate that is significant, such as to warrant her prejudice.

Maybe thats why there is so much black on black crime. Because so many blacks refuse to acknowledge this generalization, and therefore are then well suited to be another crime statistic. Even Jessie Jackson bemoaned his own fears of hearing footsteps behind him as he walked on a vacant street one time, only to turn around and see a white guy, which cause him to make a sigh of relief.

So, your father was wrong in not teaching you about "white" people. But at least he wasn't sitting in a pew for 20 years listening to out right lies about Whites spreading HIV and Crack Cocaine to kill blacks, something that your cherished Obama did without objection. . . until he was caught.

Look up the word 'exception'.

Why is that so hard to figure out? So the same thing applies to the Obama's racist white grandmother who expressed fear at the prospects of being accosted by a young black male who disproportionately commits crimes at a higher rate that is significant, such as to warrant her prejudice.

Obama NEVER called his grandmother 'racist'. She, like many of us, harbored some fears based on race,

You're absolutely right - I would go immediately to the well-dressed 'black' man. My experience has always been that a 'black' gentleman would treat me with respect - even if he were a 'drug dealer'. Cops have not always been reported to do that!

Maybe thats why there is so much black on black crime. Because so many blacks refuse to acknowledge this generalization, and therefore are then well suited to be another crime statistic. Even Jessie Jackson bemoaned his own fears of hearing footsteps behind him as he walked on a vacant street one time, only to turn around and see a white guy, which cause him to make a sigh of relief.

There is black on black crime because blacks are more easily accessible to the black criminals than are whites. There are more poor ‘drug users’ in the black communitiy who need money to support their habit than in the ‘white’ community. There is also ‘white on white’ crime – but it is reported by the media as ‘crime’. Jesse’s comment was describing his fear of ‘today’.

In the past – he would have crossed the street if confronted by a group of ‘white’ footsteps. Today – one should be aware of their surroundings and those around them – regardless of their color. Read the newspaper without ‘racial’ blinders. There is scum in both communities – white collar/blue collar – crime is crime perpetrated on those who are accessible.

David's mom,

Again, I'm sorry but I have not the apparent grey matter to understand your logical analysis, so, I'll opine further.

You have ranted and raved about racial problems on this website and about your boy Obama. You have strange definitions about how racism is applicable.

Now let me see if I get this right from your argument.
There is black on black crime because blacks are more easily accessible to the black criminals than are whites. Huh? Do you understand the words that are coming out of your mouth?
If this statement were accurate, at least in what I assume you are trying to say, then the proportion of crime of white on white would be the same as black on blacks, since Whites are more easily accessible to white criminals.

But that is not what happens, in fact the criminal disparity in the differences between blacks and whites is huge, and I'm not just talking about drugs, which arguably is a separate issue we could debate.

While African Americans comprise 12% of the U.S. population, (black males represent 5% of the population) 45% of all murder victims in 2002 were African American, 91% of whom were killed by African Americans. Nationally, homicide is the leading cause of death for black men and second leading cause of death for black women ages 15-24.

This means that blacks are about 12 times more likely to be killed by a black male, then any other sex or race. 12 times more likely!.
That whites on average will likely kill blacks at a rate 7 times LESS than their numbers are represented in the population as a whole.

Facts are stubborn things.

http://allcountries.org/uscensus/120_death_rates_by_age_sex_and.html

The death rate for blacks from birth until they are are into their 60's is twice that of whites. And the number one
killer is not cancer, not auto-accidents, not HIV as Reverend Wright seems to suggest, but the number one killer of blacks is blacks killing blacks. Regardless of the reason behind it, the number one reason in this black culture for dying is themselves. This culture that blames whites for their dilemma, but does not look to the root causes. The greatest is the INDIFFERENCE the black culture places upon single parent families. More black children are raised by either their mother or grandmother than any race in the U.S.. A culture that promotes and encourages a RAP culture of violence. A culture that promotes itself as a VICTIM at every turn. Hells bells, David's mom, you even are fearful of cops.

I'm not suggesting that there isn't still systemic examples of racism present in our society today, what I'm suggesting is that the liberal policies that Blacks have adopted, are the root to your problems. For God's sake. Promote strong two parent families. Support education over athletics. Support INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. I know, I know, the Democrats are there to tell you that you have a perfectly good reason why you can't make it. Why crime is so rampant in your culture. They are there to blame everyone but yourselves for it. And that might make you feel better about it yourself, but the fact is, . . . THE FACT IS, Democratic/liberal policies are literally destroying your society, and all you can do is ignore it.

Your black culture needs Obama like a crack addict needs an unlimited supply of drugs. What you need is a strong black influence like Bill Cosby, Condi Rice, and many other blacks who are fed up with this ridiculous liberal theology of "blaming America first" and "blaming Whitey always".

Obama will hurt your culture because he will endorse it and not denounce it as he should. He could have gotten up and denounced the evil from Wright and others in his black community, but as he has said, Wright is family, part of his black family and experience, and he will never denounce the black racists that is killing, literally killing your own kind.

I've wasted enough time on this subject though. I fear you and Hack and the other liberals on this blog are just so naive and willing to find someone to blame for the crisis that is destroying your culture

Your subject suggested it. But the comment itself seemed only to interact with DM.

Do you agree with the following argument?

(1) Sometimes prejudice is rationally warranted.
(2) It is never immoral to believe anything that is rationally warranted.
(3) Racism is always immoral.
(4) Therefore, sometimes prejudice does not amount to racism.

My defense of (1) is found in the observation that there are possible circumstances in which one's experiences yield reasonable generalizations about whole classes of things (e.g., biker bars, dobermans) or people (e.g. Swedes, California surfers, Martians).

I take (2) to be a necessary truth.

I suspect that (3) will be granted by the main people who want to disagree with my argument.

(4) follows from (1) through (3).

If this argument is sound, then it shows that racism must involve something other than prejudice. This conclusion really goes against the grain of the popular conception of what it means to be a racist.

Sorry, but when I re-read you comments, I intepreted your quotation of David's Mother, as yours.

Which I guess is why I was puzzled. It seems that I am in agreement with you quite a bit, and that's appropriate since we are both angry white males.

But I digress.

One thing that I consider when I'm trying cases, is the theory callled AVAILABILITY HEURISTICS. I'm sure you are familiar with it.

The reason I mention it, is that it plays very well into this Black reverse Racism that the likes of Obama and Rev. Wright thrive upon.

For those who are not aware, this theory states that that people tend to predict or give greater weight to it's frequency, of events occurring based not upon the facts, but how easily available those memories are to the listener. e.g. sharks kill swimmers, especially surfers. . ., every year, but so also does lightning. If we would ask the general population which they believe caused more deaths each year, and they will almost always say shark attacks, even though lightning is bar far more dangerous. The reason, shark attacks are always reported in the news, and they make for great movies. Which means we remember them more.

I'll sequae now to Rev. Wright and his sermons of hate and bigotry.
He tells his parishioners that Whitey is poisoning their community with drugs and with the HIV disease. He says the whites are the real demons out there, and but for whitey, blacks would be in a much better fate.

Now, the average black in his church apparently has had this victimization drilled into their heads since birth. Everyone in the black community talks about their slavery roots and of examples of how whitey got ahead, on the backs of blacks. So when Wright or Obama makes some ludicrious charge about HIV or Crack, or even how evil Israel is, they are ready to jump on board, because for them, the slavery issue is still part and parcel of their existence.

Mind you, the average black living in America can not be at all compared the average black living in Africa, but all they are taught, apparently, is that Africa is the motherland, raped by whitey.

So, that memory is the first and easiest for them to remember, and therefore, anything, ABSOLUTELY ANY DRIVEL spewed out by the likes of Wright and Obama are given full weight with no scrutiny, because it "rings true" to them.

Just my final thoughts while I prepare to watch John Adams on HBO oppress the blacks in the Southern States as they right the first American Constitution.

We have rabbit ears on top of the TV, with little squares of tin foil attached to the tips for better reception.

No cable.

No satellite.

It is on occasions like this--the airing of John Adams--that I am tempted to recant on my opposition to cable.

I have watched the first two parts almost five times. It's hard to explain the emotion and the pride one gets from watching these old white male oppressors fight for the creation of a true Republic, and oppose a Democracy. So, when the DVD comes out on June 10th, you will be able to enjoy it all, but get there first, because I will buy the first copy I see.

I've made my young'uns watch the first one, --through all the hems and haws, now they can't wait to watch the third one. Its tremendous, absolutely wonderful. Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers were wonderful, but this is even better.

And what is this about the TV? My God how do you survive without the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, the National Geographic Channel and of course my favorite, My Name is Earl, the quintessential sitcom on philosphy. (You can watch them on NBC.com, so give it a look see.)

Oh, and get a darn TIVO too. I don't know how I survived without my TiVo. A surf board is for young guns, you're an old fart, so sit down in the lazy boy, grab your remote, and start living!

My daughter bought me the whole first season as a gift. I loved it.

Then, the second season seems to have involved either different writers or the same writers having been injected with perverse ideas. It began to be smutty where it used to be funny.

When Steve Martin's character in Planes, Trains and Automobiles has absolutely had enough and unloads the F-bomb multiple times on the rental car lady, it is hilariously funny. I've seen the edited TV version that tames the F-word. Not nearly as funny. The humor is in the incongruity between the character he plays (a classy family man) and the language to which he is reduced (F-ing this and that). I can appreciate the role that obscenity can play in humor. But "Earl" seems to have become obscene for the sake of the obscenity itself. I stopped watching.

Muddle,

I can truly relate. I dumped Comtrash about 3 or 4 years ago. I recently heard so many good things about the Ken Burns program on WWII. I was so excited when I purchased it at Sams a month ago. I was awaiting the proper time to watch it with the Gitlets. My oldest just happened to be studying the Great War and we were all excited about starting the series late this past Friday night. If you could imagine how upset we were to find that what I had actually bought was a four CD set containing the Soundtrack to the series and other music of that era. Arrrgggghhhhh! I felt like I had been duped.

Richard, I feel like I've been deceived. Will you sue Sam's for me? LOL!

I am missing the John Adams series and have heard much good about it also. Please keep us posted. I intend to purchase a copy of that program also. Along with a real copy of the WWII program which aired on PBS. June 10th eh?

Something I discovered on the History Channel today was they air encore presentations of Battlefield 360. That was recommended to me today and I plan on kicking back and watching one of those after I get the little people to bed.

Happy Easter guys!
________

"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs

Thanks for the reply. I'll try a bit of point-for-point reply.

Again – who in the world was your ‘diversity facilitator? ☺

Nobody. Unless it was my mom, who taught me that people are people, regardless of race, etc.

All of your arguments and rational thinking make sense. But Muddle, in the world of ‘the people’ – not the world of theorists – you’d better take the word of your 4th grade teacher if you don’t want to appear racist.

Statement: (racist): Most black men are in jail.

Thanks for saying that my arguments make sense. A part of what I am sugghesting here is that the popular understanding of what constitutes racism is simply misguided. Consider your statement "Most black men are in jail." This is, I am pretty certain, false. And the "racism" comes in, presumably, when a dislike for "black men" clouds an individual's judgment to the degree that they are willing to utter a known falsehood.

But suppose that, contrary to fact, it was TRUE that "Most black men are in jail." Assuming that the prison terms are not themselves evidence of injustice, and assuming that the speaker is not in some direct or indirect way implicated in the injustice, how in the world could it be racist for someone to mirror reality with their language by stating the fact?

I'll try to state my point even more forcefully than before: It is, in principle, possible, that prejudice is justified by experience.

I spent several years in a small midwestern town of great diversity: it was a mix of Swedes and Norwegians. Now, so far as I could tell, individuals of both groups were pretty tame. But suppose that, all other things being equal, if you met a Swede you met a scoundrel.
COuld it possibly count against a Norwegian if he harbored the expectation that the next Swede he met would be a scoundrel? This is, by definition, prejudice. But I am arguing that, under such conditions, the prejudice would be rationally justified. And I am also arguing that it does not make sense to say that one is immoral in harboring a rationally justified belief. But I think that racist attitudes are immoral. And so it follows that, possibly, prejudice is not sufficient for racism.

What I am arguing for is a definition of racism that is rationally defensible and not politically motivated.

Muddle, you directed this at David's Mom, and I'm interested in her reply. But I've thought about this a lot, and you are absolutely right that we HAVE TO make generalizations just to get through our daily life. Your example regarding aggressive Dobermans was right on the money.

The catch is that if we agree that generalizations are necessary, then it sets us up to become racists who think that all whites are "A" and all blacks are "B". Which is clearly wrong. So the challenge becomes one of making necessary generalizations while still realizing that there are exceptions to all generalizations. You must be willing to put the generalization aside and judge an individual on their unique merits, once you get a chance to know them. However, it's unrealistic for "diversity" types to say that we should always start off with a completely blank slate with each person we meet. You have to make some sort of initial assessment based on first impressions and previous experience. It's impossible not to, and dangerous as well. (aggressive dog = danger)

One good example of overusing generalizations is the discussion in another thread about whether Yankees are rude drivers or perhaps Southerners are actually more rude than Yankees. Personally, I'm convinced that most drivers are becoming more rude across the board, regardless of origin. But I will assume each driver is probably "average" until that driver shows me otherwise. Then I'll act accordingly.

Good point River. That was my point in my answer to Richard.
Muddle: Unfortunately we all don't use 'logic' in forming our opinions of others.

An aside: Having just returned from driving on LA freeways - I, based on experience, unequivocally state that Georgia drivers are more courteous than LA drivers. (But LA drivers have greater skill!)

Muddle: I just can't believe that your mother formed your opinion of 'diversity facilitators'. You once gave a definition given to you by a 'facilitator' of the word 'racism' - as only 'whites' can be racist. I just can't believe that came from
your mother. I'm interested because so many have received diversity training from those who are full of bitterness - and this only opened the festering sore of racism rather than healing it.

First, read again. I wasn't implying that my mom taught me what I identified as the "diversity facilitation view" (or whatever).

Did you have a chance to see my blog titled "The Moral Courage of the Human Mind"? It is about the kind of diversity facilitation that takes place on campuses across the country. It features the likes of Shakti Butler and Jona Olssen.

You seem to me to be a very healthy corrective to this widespread trend. Why not write on the topic? I mean, like, a book.

Just a question. Did you read the authors you suggested? Thanks.

I'm not sure which ones you mean. The links to Shakti Butler and Jona Olssen? To the degree that they qualify as "authors," yes. Or is it something else that I mentioned?

I'm reading Butler and Olssen now. I'll get back to you. Contrary to popular belief - I don't spend that much time on this issue - but I do want to explore this with you. I want to be sure I understand what concepts of theirs you disagree with. Have a nice day!

Good.

I'll be happy to talk about it.

Oops - posted it twice. Sorry

Sorry about the mis-read. Books by Dr. Beverly Tatum cover the subject. A good read!

My experience in diversity training was in the mid-60's. I'll take the time to read the two 'trainers' that you mentioned - and get back to you.

Dr. Tatum's books can be found on amazon.com - for a review of titles and content.

"muddle" call me a racist so I asked "beaver" if that was so and he said no.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

LOL! What do they say about 'in the eye of the beholder'?

So, again, its not about race, its about culture and its about fairly defining the terms so that we all can understand what it is that we have so much division on.

How about beginning with what we have in common? First, we would need to get a consensus on the vocabulary/definitions.

OK Richard, you are a racist.

Are you happy?

This seems to be a title you are aspiring to.

It is amazing how one minister in Chicago can get you and other white males in Georgia quaking in your boots. You seem to be such a sensitive soul. You take pride in being a bigot, for prejudice, and cannot understand how the N-word used by African-Americans is different than when used by whites.

I do not want to get into any long debate with you. I could not change your mind and you could not change mine.

I just want you to know that not everyone who lives here agrees with your pontifications.

All I want is my case of beer. Where can I pick it up?

A balanced education from schools and churches, an exposure to humans of other cultures who have kindred tastes and goals, and the attempt to honestly judge a person by their actions rather than their color would be a start.

And don't forget the home.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Most of the hard core racists I've ever met had parents that were the same way it's learned at home first and maybe later reinforced in the community but it mostly starts at home.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!