Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Racism in the USA

0 helpful
181 replies

by jardinier

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

A couple of days ago I had the good fortune to meet an Afro-American. He is an IT Pro who works in Sydney, but retains his US citizenship. He was able to satisfactorily answer all my questions regarding the status of Afro-Americans, and explained in detail how the racial tensions between black and white actually manifest.

Incidentally, he found no problem in my using the term "black," and frequently used this term himself in his description of the status quo.

I would be most interested to hear the opinions and personal experiences of any American of any shade of color, on this subject or, for that matter, anything else about racism in general.

181 replies

by av .

I think there will always be racism no matter where you go in the world. Today though, its not limited to black and white. I would like to share some experiences that I have had over my lifetime in Northeast America.

I am white. When I was a child, I made a friend at school that was black. We used to play together and sometimes I would go to her house and have dinner. After a short while, my mother told me I couldn?t see her anymore because she was black and I was white. My mother thought it didn?t look good. That was the mindset in the late 1950?s or early 1960?s when I grew up.

By the late 1960?s things changed. Black people gained more acceptance and status in society. At that time though, I was a friend of an interracial (black and white) couple. They were only semi-accepted by society and if we went out to a public place together, people would stare. There was always a stigma, to the point that they couldn?t find a place to live. Neither race liked this arrangement.

After the great rebelliousness against the establishment of the late 1960?s and much of the 70?s, a renewed consciousness grew (I like to think of it as a cultural renaissance) that allowed for acceptance and tolerance of all people of all races. America became even more diverse. People from all countries came here to establish a better life. Both good and bad, they helped create a country where diversity was acceptable. I don?t know if this could have happened in another country at the time.

Today, racism still exists, but so does the opportunity to make a different life no matter what race you are, And be accepted.

by jgoth1

You mentioned the interracial couple. Did they have any children? I am a multiracial person and have had an interesting life, observing all the stereotyping and wondering where I would fit in. When people would meet my black/East Indian dad, they would have that "I never knew you were black!" look on their faces. I think there are more and more people like me out in the world now who check OTHER on all the forms and applications. Maybe when enough people are mixed we can move forward and get past the race thing and enjoy this amazing planet and each other much more.

by hal 9000

When the races have been mixed all up there will be no more racial hatred like in China when it kept getting invaded they simply just breed out the invaders.

But unfortunately we have seen numerous cases of the same race killing each other off in alarming proportions so I'm not at all hopeful.

The best that can be said for racism is that it gives a reason for some form of dislike between different races but when you see the same race set about on genocide like in Africa or in India where the only difference between India and Pakistan is a "religious" one that was brought about by simply drawing a line on a map by the retreating British.

To me at least the more things change the more they stay the same the only difference is that new ways are found to hate others. While it makes absolutely no sense to me unfortunately that is just how it is maybe when man kind grows up all this stupid junk will be left behind.

Well I hope so anyway but as neither of us will be around by then it's really a moot point isn't it?

Col

by jardinier

you vindicate the words of my Afro friend, who has visited his homeland quite recently. He said that, apart from the appointment of a few token judges and police captains, blacks in general were looked down upon and treated as inferior.

A friend who used to spend 6 months of each year in Beverley Hills, also told me that racism was alive and well in the USA.

And what about all you guys who are proud to have served your country in Vietnam, fighting alongside Afro-Americans on whose lives you were mutually dependent; do you have nothing to say?

Replacing the terms "nigger" and "black" with "Afro-American" does not change attitudes.

Now there is an interesting example of racism in my own back yard, so to speak. In the particular area of Sydney in which I live, there are many South African immigrants, and especially of the Jewish persuasion. These people grew up under apartheid, and have brought that attitude with them. For the most part they are extremely rude and arrogant, and look down on people who are not in some skilled profession.

by maxwell edison

.
...that many people, myself included, are growing weary of the few TR contributors who continually put the USA, for whatever reason, in their sights for continued criticism.

(A "little voice" in my head says, "Ignore it, Maxwell. Just ignore it.")

by hal 9000

Putting the USA in some ones sights?

If you where to carry on that way almost any question that some one cared to ask could be put into that category.

What if I was to ask which people considered better Intel or AMD CPU's? An person who feels paranoid could take this simple honest question as a possible opening as an attack upon all America which if I was to ask something like that it certainly wouldn't be.

Or the discussion about the loss of a "Space Shuttle" was that another attack upon the USA?

These things are "NEWS" and are topics that are talked about at least for a short time anyway.

When Jules originally asked the question he specifically stated that he had meet someone who told him something and he asked was this typical or only one persons observations.

A frank and open discussion in no way can be construed as an attack upon America or its Citizens.

Col

by cactus pete

I don't really like talking about it, but fine, here's what I'll contribute.

Am I a racist? As defined at dictionary.com, no, I am not. But I do hold prejudices. I try not to let them get in the way, but they have an effect, I admit.

I derive prejudice from the perceived intelligence of those with whom I am engaged. Trying to put a label on this [I believe that's the correct term, however stereotypically American of me] that conforms my prejudice to a similarly descriptive term like "racist" I thought of "intellectualist" and was pleasantly greeted with that definition at the same site.

by surrealx

Well this is a topic on Racism in America, but you, being the topic creator, have brought up South Africa and Australia. So as a former South African living in Sydney, I feel the need to further discuss your comments. Firstly, don't you think it racist to say, "For the most part they are extremely rude and arrogant, and look down on people...". Are South Africans not a race, and were you not saying derogatory things about them.

Now I haven't taken any offence to what you said, I am merely pointing out the irony of your post. I have heard many bad things said about South Africans, about white people, and about Australians (now that I am Australian), and none of that bothers me, if that is what people feel and want to say, I'm not going to go and cry racism about it, I am comfortable with who I am, and don't want to waste my time winging about it. But what really gets to me is the racism in Australia. A lot of Australians that I have met really pride themselves on Australia being one of the least racist countries in the world, and are boasting the fact that there are so many different cultures living here in harmony.

Now beside the fact that what they were saying was obviously untrue, I would forgive these people their naivety, if they were themselves pure of racism. But then these are the same people who are openly racist, about Aboriginals, "Wogs", Indians, Islanders, Asians, etc... And when I try and point that out to them, they still will not see it, or are just unable to admit their prejudices.

From what I have found, the only difference in racism between South Africans and Australians, is that South Africans are honest about it, while Australians lie to convince themselves that they are not racist. When I am "racist" about something, I am honest about it, and will put up an argument as to why. However I am not racist by race, but by how people behave. I have friends of many races, and I don't even see them for their race. And then there are many people of many races that I would never want to be friends with or even associate with.

South Africans are labelled as Racists, a stereo type I have found time and time again since moving to Australia. I don't really care about it, and will sometimes play the racist card, as it is great fun to see how shocked people can become when talking openly about being racist, as they are not used to hearing it in this country. But back to the point, South Africans are labelled as Racist because of Apartheid. Now I may have lived under the latter part of apartheid, but it had nothing to do with me, I was not enforcing it, and I knew nothing about most of the atrocities that were carried out under apartheid. Yes, I was privileged being a white South African, but I treated black people the same as I treated anyone else. Now why don't Australians carry the same label when they practically obliterated an entire race? Yes it wasn't you, and you weren't around when it happened... but then I can argue the same point.

As far as racism in general, the only way I can see it going away, is for the world to be honest about it. If we can stop just saying that we are all the same, because we are not, there are differences. We need to be open about these differences, about the weaknesses, or strong points about either race, and then work out how we can make this work in our world, and how we can strengthen the weaknesses in our own race, or just accept it as who you are. Yes it will take many generations, but why not start now. The game of political correctness only serves to justify racism.

And in closing I just want to say, if someone calls you a "Derogatory name" or says bad things about you, it is only true if you choose to accept it.

by hal 9000

Was to say "Sorry" things might improve a lot quicker over here instead of the way our current federal Government carries on.

What I really find offensive about the "Race Relations Act" is that if I find some one who is an out and out crook but comes from a non white English descent I can't say what I really think about them but people who are not white & from English descent can say whatever they like about any one else. I talked about this to a friend from Vietnam and he thought it was a stupid ruling as well.

It is only when "Positive Discrimination" ends that we will all truly be equal and while I do accept that some areas of the population are a "Special Case" I still don't see exactly how handling them with kid gloves in any way improves their lot. When I mix with any one from any race I can cal them what I like and they return the compliment but if ever some one outside of my circle of friends was to make a complaint I do know what would happen.

Col

by jardinier

My reference to South Africans is based partly on my own experience, but primarily on the statements made to me by UNBIGOTED South Africans.

I am not racist ( I suppose you will find that hard to believe) but in my experience particular races may have a predominant trait which distinguishes them from other races.

I will add that certain coffee shops which I patronise are owned by South Africans, and all these lovely people treat me like one of the family. Many of the NICE South African waiters have expressed to me the view that MOST South Africans who live in THIS PARTICULAR AREA have brought their apartheid attitudes with them.

Another South African family which owns a publishing business was kind enough to scan my novel, which was created in C/PM format, into Word 97 format, and print and bind two copies for a ridiculously low price.

So please read my posting more carefully and you will see that I only refer to a specific group of South Africans: ?In the particular area of Sydney in which I live, there are many South African immigrants, and especially of the Jewish persuasion.?

And in case you are now tempted to label me as anti-Semitic, you would be totally wrong. Some of the loveliest people I know are Jewish. I actually belong to a rare breed as I am in fact a "Jew lover."

by orpheum

Jews DO NOT look down at other races, idiot.
If anything, the Jew is one of the most, and most recently persecuted people of our time alive today.
Please don't confuse racism with classism. Racism is defined as:'prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races'.Oh, you must have seen the mel gibson movie. The only reason the Jew still exists is because he constantly strives to arrive at the top - proffessionaly, financialy and spiritually. If this makes him a racist, then you had better check your jealousy meter my friend.

by hal 9000

I can however offer some observations about "Racism" in general. Several years ago when I was in North Queensland I got very friendly with the Tribal Aboriginals in the area and from them I was told several funny jokes that I would never dare repeat as well as one item that brought me to my knees.

Now the Government appointed peek Aboriginal Group in Australia is called "ATSIC" and ever since I was given the interruption from one of the Tribal Elders I can no longer remember exactly what it is supposed to stand for but the "Real" Aboriginal interruption is "Aboriginals Talking Shit in Canberra" which to me seems fairly correct as it is these few who gain any benefit from these organizations and not the general population that they are supposed to represent. These organizations get granted a budget from the Government/s and then proceed to spend it all most of which is consumed in the administration of the Agency and very little actually ends up where it was supposed to.

From my observations the only Aboriginals here in Australia who are doing all right for themselves are the ones who don't expect handouts from anyone but get off their Back sides and do it themselves. And it is hard work as every possible obstacle is put in their path to prevent them from succeeding.

A good example is the community on Palm Island one of the elders donated the land to build an air strip, Hospital and road ways so that the people who lived there where not as vulnerable to diseases or accidents and where more likely to survive whatever happened. Well the Government willing took the land built the infrastructure but then claimed all the land for themselves as there was now "Public Works" on it so the original owner who thought he was doing the right thing now finds himself penniless and doesn't even own the house that he was born in.

There are two distinct groups those who are very loud and aggressive {about 5%} of the population and then the rest who only want to get on with their lives but because of the ruckus that is caused by the minority everyone suffers.

Now sometimes a bit of a demonstration is a good thing particularly when more than just the affected people get involved but those who demonstrate just for the sake of demonstrating with no real intent to improve the lot of the many are the real trouble makers who always seem to be hogging all the news reports and giving a particular race a bad name because of their activities.

Col

by maecuff

I hear racist comments from many people. And for the most part, these people are uneducated. They listen to their parents spew hatred or contempt for people different from them and it just goes on an on, from generation to generation. But it doesn't have to. My husband's father is extremely bigoted. It's difficult to be around him, because eventually, he will begin making racist comments. I've told him that I don't want to teach my children to hate anyone, but it falls on deaf ears. His reply is always this..Oh, I have a lot of black friends.. Well, aren't they just the lucky ones? I can't stand that comment, it sounds like he's doing them a favor.

I moved to a small town in Ohio three years ago and there is a large Amish community here. I was astounded at the backlash against the Amish. I hear people at work bitching about the Amish, making fun of them, whatever. When I ask for specifics, I never get a really good answer. (They hate having to drive behind the horse and buggies, they smell bad, they'll rip you off if you aren't careful)

I think the problem is, they are different, and most people HATE that.

I'm ready..y'all can tell me how wrong I am :)

by oz_media

But I must be too because I agree with your views.

Most people don't have a reason for racism other than a solitary experience that didn't work in their favour, now everyone of that race is blacklisted like a virus.

I think this is due to not knowing and the fear associated with not knowing. Not TRYING to learn from another and then simply forming an uneducated opinion, or simply feeling like your toes are being stepped on. If you lose your job and the company replaces you with w white guy, you will slander him as an A**hole or whatever. If you arereplaced by a black man or chinese man, then you complain in a racial way. You can't explain it as you don't know, therefore you simply go for face value as you can SEE they are black or brown or whatever and it's an easy target.

I think this also coincides with your discussion about people being jerks in public. I think population density and comfort zones play a large role in fuelling racism.

As much as the Amish are not really a different race, they are a different culture and the change in culture goes against everything that America is built upon. Big business, big consumption etc. As they choose to live very simple lives without modern inventions that make OUR world go around it just doesn't fit with your culture and therefore it is not unsderstood and is targeted as a slur.

Racism stems from ignorance, whether white on black or black on white, we don't know therefore we fear. If ti invades OUR space, it must be repelled, we don't know HOW to repel it so we attack it with face value slurs, color, religion, appearance etc.

by mlayton

I spent many years with a telecom company traveling through Africa, Europe, and other countries. And it made me wonder who came up with the term Afro-American, because it seems like a silly term when you are dealing every day with Africans who are not Americans. And there are plenty of those in America. If I need to distinguish one of these from another, I point them out the same as a Caucasion - "ask that tall, distinguished looking, dark-skinned man with the graying hair on the temples." Probably still gets you in trouble, but more polite than pointing!

by oz_media

It is not used as a slur, it is not used to demean anyone just a description, like saying the guy in the red hat. The man with the BLACK skin, and it is not seen as a racial predjudice in anyway.

My former neighbour came over one day and my roomate had put up a rebel flag on the wall. (Only because it had the Trooper on it that looked like an old Iron Maiden picture). When he came and sat down, I noticed the flag and started to apologize and explain it was not a racial statement at all. He didn't care in the least, he ahd seen it bad befroe. After becoming friends I asked him one day how he preferred to be referred to, black, negro etc. He said he really didn't care because he hadn't faced racism here (mind you, blacks are not as widespread here as much as Asians and East Indians are) .

In conversation I referred to people as black and I think it was more uncomfortable for me than for him.

I think racism and the words used are only scathing if used in a scathing way or put into negative context. There's nothig wrong with referring to someone as black, just as I don't care when someone says 'white guy'. I AM white.
If they said stupid white huy or 'whitey' it is a little different.

by hal 9000

I'm happy to participate in quite a few of the threads here but I don't want to be seen as bashing the US in any manner most times anyway.

While the country is a nice place there are problems and I would hate to feel that by commenting on any of the listed threads I was seen as "Bashing the US!"

So I guess it is alright to add some more to the current Outsourcing debate that is currently running?

Col

by hal 9000

It would be a fair thing to say that the only real thing that I see to attack from America is all those stupid soaps that are produced in your country.

But while I dislike them intensely you can always say just don't watch them which by the way I don't BUT and here is the big one those absolutely silly soaps do give the impression that every American only wants to get even with someone who they consider has crossed them and make a fortune at the same time out of anything that they do nefariously.

Now while I know this isn't true others do actually use this trash to brainwash younger members of their community against America and its citizens and they are taught that all Americans behave this way. Granted these people are bigots but your country is supplying the ammunition to continue this cycle. I don't know if you remember but the guy who built the Delorian's was importing heron to support the company building the cars as they where not at that time a viable proposition or at least not a big enough production run to make the vehicles or company viable. Now I really do have a problem with things like this like most sensible people do but at the time of the Court hearing there was a poll run by one of the networks that received wide coverage as to weather the guy should get off as he was only trying to keep his business running.

What was the scary thing here was that the poll reportedly claimed that as JR {at least I think that was what the character was called as I've already said I don't watch these shows} did things like this it was acceptable to the majority of those poled that the person in question was doing the "right thing" in attempting to keep his car company afloat by being a drug runner. It could also be said that the cars where only a cover for his drug operations but it was never covered this way.

Now when trash like this is put out it is only supplying your enemies with further ammunition that America is a decedent lot who are best got rid of. This is not a new thing but has been going on for a very long time but has been brought home to most Americans by what happened on Sept 11. I dare say if you where to run a poll right now that most of the people responding would say that these people only started to hate America just prior to Sept 11 or since that time. But in actual fact they have hatted America with a vengeance for a very long time and only recently had the means of doing anything about it and I do mean here in the last 50 or so years not in the last few years.

Currently it is the Muslim Countries who are thought of as the current enemy and even then it is segregated to the Middle East area and not the Muslim community in general but in all of the Muslim countries there are a few radicals who go along with the outlandish teachings or I should say rantings of the minority who are well cashed up and are in a position of being able to do something about their beliefs. They also have an ever increasing following as a direct result of the actions that America is now undertaking as those actions are not being portrayed in the Muslim press as anything but an attack on Islam and the reasons are glossed over. If you do not believe me about this just look at the disgraceful actions of the general community in that city north of Baghdad where 4 American Citizens where not only killed but militated and their body parts taken through the streets as trophy's. What made this even worse was that on the TV reports the next night here there was not one member of the community who thought it was a disgraceful action.

Until this circle of stupidity is broken unfortunately these things will continue to happen what needs to be done and I certainly don't know exactly how to do this, is to educate the people so that they realize that what they are told by their religious leaders isn't necessarily correct when it comes to declaring a "Holy War" on the infidels {America.}

Anyway I'll cut it there as I'm beginning to rant on aren't I?

Col

by maxwell edison

.
dpetrak, Remember this? (Go back about 5 months.)Don't ask me why, but I decided to post it here. (Regardless of that little voice telling me to "ignore, just ignore".)

Greetings,

I suppose I can best explain my position on race relations with a couple of illustrations - one real, one fiction.

The fiction one:

I'm a child of the 50s and 60s, and I grew up watching a lot of television, including the original Star Trek series. If you're familiar with the crew of the original Starship Enterprise, you'll know that the crew was made up of a wide range of races and cultures, but it was never discussed - or even pointed out. It was just there. Lt. Uhura wasn't the "black" communications officer, she was just the communications officer. Mr. Sulu was not the "Asian" Sulu, he was just Mr. Sulu. Captain Kirk wasn't the "white" captain, he was just the captain. The same applied to the whole crew. I suppose the Vulcan, Mr. Spock, was singled out for being different, but never for being "different", if you know what I mean. All were accepted for themselves and for their expertise. That was a "color-blind" environment, and race just wasn't a factor.

The only racial story was the episode, "LET THAT BE YOUR LAST BATTLEFIELD" where a white/black slave runs from a black/white man (colors reversed). The race issues illustrated in that episode showed not only the destructiveness of racism as it targeted a person of another race, but also how it caused personal battles within them both.

Wouldn't it be nice if we just didn't make race a factor in judging others - or even labeling them?

The real one:

I hire people for a department of our company. On one occasion a few years ago, I went on a marathon interviewing session, talking to about six people a day for three days straight. My supervisor (a staunch Democrat, by the way, while I'm the Republican), asked me about my potential candidates. "I think we should consider George", I told him. "Which one was George", he asked? "George was the guy who was here at eleven o'clock on Monday", I said. "Oh, the Mexican guy", was his reply. I can honestly say that I didn't even notice George's race. I really didn't - until it was pointed out to me.

Here's another interesting tid-bit. I suppose I've filled out 3 census forms in my life (1980, 1990, 2000). On the 2000 census form, I left blank the "race" question. Isn't it a coincidence that in that year, I got a knock on my door to "verify" the information. Coincidence? I think not.

This obsession with race is something I don't want any part of. I just want to deal with Lt. Uhura, Mr. Sulu - or George.

Regards,

Maxwell

P.S. By the way, racists come in all colors, not just white. And racists live in many countries, not just the USA.

by oz_media

I agree and think the whole thing is targeted to the USA merely because of the size and diversity of the population. Whereas MOST or even MANY Americans have no racial predjudices there are still many that do.

With the history of the USA being formed around racism (even if it was to FREE others from racism as in the civil war)the focus has always been racism. Therefore there is a much greater attention paid to the USA when it comes to racists.

My former neghbour was brand new to Canada from Alabama, he said racism was rampant there. He did note that other parts of the US were not as racially focused but added that most of these communities, cities, states or whatever were mainly white, therefore it wasn't an issue.

I see the exact same thing here (especially in Vancouver where elbow room is tighter) with Asians and East Indians. Now they ALL get lumped in as 'chinks' or 'hindus' even though many are Vietnamese, Korean, Pakistani etc.

The cultural differences brought by SOME immigrants speak for ALL immigrants, just as the racial slurs by SOME locals speak for ALL locals.

In India it is quite normal for several families or extensions of families to live in the same house and everyone puts their income into a community pot for sustaining the household. In caucasian Canada, this is not the way we live. When you're old enough or able to, you move out on your own. Now people complain about large characterless houses that house 15 -20 people who all work under the table delivering flyers, newpapers, security jobs etc. For his they are resented as it is not the way mainstream Canadians live and it goes against the grain. Enter, racial slurs about East Indians, or anyone brown for that matter. And so it goes for all immigrants here, I went through it as a British immigrant, when I still had an accent, we are known as snotty and pompus (thanks to TV). Canaduans are known as laid back dopers who just want to save the trees. Americans are seen as arrogant yet uneducated. Australians are known to not take anything seriously and just party.

We ALL have our stereotypes, it is just a matter of how the population is mixed in a given area as to how they are perceived. In a Latino neighbourhood, whitey is the fool. In a black neighbourhood, same thing. In a white neighbourhood it's whoever the minority is (black, chinese, indian etc.)

Population creates racism and segragation of class. The tighter the population, the stronger the segragation, we do it to form our comfort zones and it's normal worldwide. My old Fijian best friend used to tell me all the white jokes when I went to Fijian birthday parties etc. with him. Whites are racist, so are blacks and everyone else. BLack neighbourhoods have as much racism against whites as whites do against blacks, WE have segregated ourselves do to our comfort zones and population density.

Just the USA? No.

More noticable in the USA? Yes.

Why? Population density.

Where I live now, there is NO racism whatsoever, I live in a mixed society in a small neighbourhood and everyone has room to move and accept each other for what they are.

Conclusion? The US MAY have more racisits than other countries but that is due to a larger and more dense population, proportionatly I think they are no different than other countries in this respect. Just like people being a**holes in public places or parading like peacocks in bars.

by generalist

I seem to recall that Barbara Jordan, a black woman who, among other things, was a state representative from Texas and a keynote speaker at the 1992 Democratic Convention, spoke about racists of all colors and got into trouble for it.

I can also say that racism exists, but things are a lot better then they were for African-Americans and for other races. I'd give it another forty or fifty years before things reach the point that it is rare.

Unfortunately the national media tends to fan the fires in search of stories. For example, in the Spokane area we had a group of white supremacists called the Aryan Nation. The image we got from the national media was one of being a hot bed of racism.

It also didn't help that Mark Furhman, of the OJ Simpson case, moved to the same area not long after the case was over.

Oddly enough, the national media never seemed to notice that the Spokane City Council had a black woman and a woman that was part American Indian as members. And they never mentioned the Chase Awards, given to kids who show community spirit, named after the first black mayor of Spokane.

I have to heartily agree with what Oz_Media has pointed out about racism in general. It covers all races and is a function of culture, population and people in general.

I can say that I myself try not to be racist and I have done my best to teach my kids the same. If enough of us think that way, racism will fade over time.

Unfortunately, I doubt it will totally disappear.

by jardinier

"Australians are known to not take anything seriously and just party."

Now this is the greatest load of codswallop I have ever heard. Early immigrants toiled against the merciless climate and landscape to develop the country. Believe me, as we are subject to periodic droughts and floods, our primary producers take life VERY SERIOUSLY.

Australia is indeed the Luckly Country, and I think we take this for granted probably because we have never had to fight a war on our own soil (apart from the unsuccessful attempt by the Japanese in WW II).

Surely you can't be serious. Relative to the size of our population, I would estimate that more Australians make serious postings to these discussions than the people of any country other than the USA ... oh, except for a certain Brit turned Canadian.

by hal 9000

You are perfectly right the USA doesn't have any monopoly on Racism. There are several Asian Countries who openly practice it as a way of life take Japan for example!

Col

by rabbit_runner

I was raised in central US. The community was all 'white' but my parents never taught us to hate or look down on anyone of a different race. When I went off to college, there were several students from other cultures and they were treated with respect as individuals. There was no 'racial' undertones at school. Shortly after graduating from college, I spent some time in Tanzania Africa. We worked at a remote location and had occasion to visit 'town' across the boarder in Zambia. On one 'town visit', I was at the hospital and talking to three medical doctors, whom I knew. A funny story was told and we all laughed. On the trip back, I related the story to some of my other friends. They asked me which doctor had told the story. I could not remember which one and was asked "Was it the Chezk (sp), Ugandan (black) or the Indian (Asian)?. I honestly did not know. I was then ridiculed because of not noticing the 'race' of each doctor.

Later I spent 10 years in Southern Africa and worked with people from all different backgrounds, Asian Indian, White Afrikkaner, White English, White American, Coloured (Mixed), Black Sotho, Black Swazi, Black Zulu, Black .... This was during the Apartheid era. Politically I had to remain neutral. But socially, culturally and spiritually, I treated everyone as an individual and as a person, regardless of their culture. I saw first hand real strong racial bias and it made me sick. Each person I worked or talked with, was treated as a close friend and their background did not affect any relationship.

Now, after having returned to the USA, and working in IT, I have lots of contact with persons of different cultures. But after having been in Africa for 12 years, it was a big shock coming back home and finding the 'racial' feelings had changed. I found that the racial climate (in the news) was far worse in the US than in South Africa. The folks I interacted on a daily basis were well accepted and they accepted me. However, what the news media reported, the racial climate 'stank'. The apartheid I witnessed in Southern Afica was 'milk and creame' compared what was being reported here. Racial tensions is alive and well in the world today. After 9-11, there is a shift more towards persons of Arabic descent. What is really interesting is that in both Africa and America, the racial tensions are more often with persons of the 'same' culture. Black with Black, White with White, Arab with Arab, etc.

All of this makes me sick. I guess it is human nature to want to 'put down' others.

So much for my rant. These are just my observations. Probably there will be some 'flames' coming my way. But these are what I have seen and experienced.

Michael R.

by oz_media

You shared an observation more than an opinion in fact you even said that you said it makes you sick.

Good points though, from both sides of the fence.

by john_wills

All the remarks made so far seem to assume that there is ony one knd of racialism, supremacy, and taht of Whites over Blacks. A very common racialism in the U.S. is assimilationism, and there is also something called diversity, which may be just assimilation in disguise. In my book Albatross 0-595-19418-4 is an attempt to classify all kinds of racialism by ideal, but the attempt is not completely successful, notably because I cannot well characterize the different kinds of assimilationism.

by tomsal

I just think this topic will never die (I mean to say the topic of racisim in society, not just on this TR forum). I think that people should shut up about thinking the world owes them based soley on religion, race, sex, etc. -- in fact this is one of my biggest peeves in life. Don't get me wrong, if you are a good person with a caring and concern about you -- I am not without sympathy for a hard lifestyle you lead..but don't whine to me that I owe you something because I'm one race or religion and you are another. Don't blame ME for your life.

I can get along with anyone -- so long as they give an effort to get along with me and show equal respect.

I am a realist though meaning I don't ignore statistics - if crime stats say such and such a race is guilty or more probably of committing such and such a crime, I will be more aware of said folks who fit those stats and who are strangers to me.

If that's bad or morally wrong...then so be it.

Its me.

Take care.

by oz_media

YOu say that as a realist you will be aware of stats regarding crime etc.

Now you also have to see the facts that if WE are repressing such cultures and failing to accept them into our 'white' mainstream society, then they are forced to turn to other means to support their families. Now, I agree 100% that this shouldn't be an EXCUSE for criminal behaviour but it is often a result of racism and inacceptance.

A black guy driving a nice car to work that has a nice family and home in a respected neighbourhood is accepted, yet the same person walking to work befoer walking to a second job just to make ends meet is somehow not accepted into our society. THese people are then dismayed that no matter what they do, they aren't acceted or treated equally, we then put them down as criminals because they live a different lifestyle. They are forced to live in low income housing areas or gheetos, then their children will ultimately follow suit, it is survival not choice. We then fuirther repress them by avoiding relations with these 'lower' forms of life and fuel the fire.

So even though you do admit to SOME form of racial fear, I also think you are not seeing the big picture, we have created this, not the immigrants who fight to survive in our society.

by tomsal

I see what you are saying now. Yes I understand.

Thanks for putting your spin on it.

I really do try to give folks a "fair shake" so to speak. However, I also am a cynical person -- and I sometimes struggle not to be so cynical.

Well said, I have considered your point you made and will try to be more open minded.

by hal 9000

My son had a friend at school who was of Torres Straight origin and he was one of the nicest kids you would ever run across.

After I knew him for some time I learnt that the Family Services Department had removed him from his family and I made vigorous attempts to "Foster" him as he would have been considered as an adult within 2 years but because I was white we where refused and he was placed with a Aboriginal family who left something to be desired. Over the next few months I saw a rapid decline in his manner and eventually he stopped coming over to visit.

It was only latter that I found out that his foster parents where discouraging him from associating with us and it even went as far as him helping his foster father in an armed robbery for which he is now in jail. Now there are several kinds of racism acting here firstly there was the racism from the State Government which couldn't allow a black boy to be placed with a white family, then there was the racism displayed by his foster parents against everyone white.

The boy that I first meet would no more harm a fly than commit any form of violent robbery and I feel very strongly that the whole system let him down and has contributed to his present circumstances. He was originally removed from his family because his father was picked up for drink driving which was actually being in control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol but in actual fact he was in a different city after a plane trip and was picked up in the airport and arrested. To me the whole system stinks when I see something like this happen and what is the worst thing here is that it is the kid who suffers and not the "BLEEDING HEART SOCIAL WORKER" who was responsible for his removal from his family and who has been directly responsible for wrecking his entire life. It is when you see things like this first hand that you begin to question the system and come to believe that it is the system that causes these abnormal statics in the first place which then makes most of us wary about associating with certain members from different races.

Col

by jennifer.gardner

I think it's safe to say that there won't be any new race of humans found on Earth - people with green tinted skin, for example. That being said, it will only be another couple hundred years before we all pretty much look the same. If the earth is still around by then, the people living here will need to find another way to distinguish themselves.

by maecuff

My son spends most of his free time in front of his computer..he's a bit green tinted. And you are right, sooner or later, everyone will be a lovely mocha shade.. Then we can hate people based on the size of their feet or the length of their hair (0r does that happen already?)

by oz_media

BIG feet and long hair and beards down to their .....

Michael Jackson made a great statement to racism by trying to become white, I actually think he's whiter than I am. Oh no , that was to try and NOT be black, how can someone like that become a black hero?

I hope I met a green girl one day, I hate all the hum drum women that all look the same these days. They wear the same clothes as if it was a uniform, the one that kills me is all the IT guys that buy those trendy leather car coats. A pub in Vancouver's Gastown is the ultimate trend house, I love to sit there in my jean jacket and Daytons while chuckling at the guys in
uniform' all wearing the exact same jacket as if it makes them unique. "Hi, I'm Joe IT guy, ya like my coat?" Do these guys actually think people take them seriously when they can't even dress themselves without calling each other in the morning?

Sorry bout the rant, I despise conformity and pressure to be alike, it is the weakest and most pitiful form of existence known to mankind..

by generalist

There may not be any new races of humans found on Earth, but wait until genetic engineering gets a running start and humans become subjects of cosmetic genetic engineering.

I suspect that there are some people who wouldn't mind green tinted skin IF it provided the benefit of not having to eat meat or plants.

And if it turns out that blue skinned, scale covered people with gills work out well in the oceans, then some will choose that option.

Of course, you could keep things simple and just differentiate between groups by body decorations.

Hopefully humans, as a race, will mature in ways that will result in racism and related activities will be considered to be mental problems and perhaps may even be curable.

You might even consider the variations of Star Trek to be a start in that direction...

by hal 9000

Mankind progress as shown in Star Trek I'm also a realist and I still remember the racial hatred that led to wholesale genocide in Africa between people of the same race but of different wealth backgrounds.

Once the color issue has disappeared we will continue to find different ways to hate one and other kind of reminds me of an episode of the original Star trek where the guy painted black & white was at war with his other half because he was black on a different side.

When you think about it in an educated sought of way and divorce your self from the reality of the situation it really is a stupid thing isn't it?

Col

by thechas

Racism still exists in the US.

It has become much more subtle though.

What happens, is that the intolerant whites move to areas that lack Black and Hispanic people.
As Blacks and Hispanics move into an area, the intolerant whites move again.

A bigger problem in the US is economic discrimination.
Through zoning and other restrictions, affluent areas keep poor (Black and Hispanics) from living in their towns.
This in turn results in a majority of the "best" public schools being predominately white.

Realtors and banks still practice "red-lining". But, they hide it in the way they score prospective homeowners.

Where I live, we have ongoing friction between the police and the colored population.
On a national level, there is the "crime" of D.W.B. (Driving While Black)
In some places where statistics have been tracked, Black motorists are stopped and ticketed for traffic violations more often than whites.

The US prison population is almost the opposite racial demographic of the general population.

So yes, racism still exists in the US.

On a personal level, I was much more tolerant of Black and Hispanic people until I entered the work force.
The majority of Black and Hispanic people I have worked with have several chips on their shoulders. They feel that society in general owes them a free ride.
It is okay for them to break work rules. And it is discrimination if you even suggest that they should spend their time at work working.

So, rather than helping them, the middle managers do what they can to get them to quit.

My point here is that in some respect, the bad apples of each race make it more difficult for the other races to accept even good people of different races.

Chas

by hal 9000

Isn't it sad how a few rotten apples can spoil it for every one else?

In this I take it for granted that every side has these people in them and it isn't only the province of one side no matter what race they come from.

But what I have found interesting in this thread is that there has been no mention made of the Native American Indians. Do they just not mix or are they accepted?

Col

by maecuff

He is an American Indian author (His view on the Native American label is that he was an Indian when he was a kid and didn't ask for any new label). Anyway, his work very poignantly shows the racism against American Indians. I believe this is something that is very often overlooked.

by thechas

To be honest Colin, I have had very little interface with Native Americans.

In my area, the most common interface occurs when they desire to build a new casino.

With the growing number of Native American owned cassino's, you could say the the white man is in the process of paying the Indians back for all that we stole from them.

Chas

by jardinier

It is nice to know that at least one American member of TR has the integrity to make an honest and realistic comment on the discussion topic.

by oz_media

I'd go toe to toe with him anyday. He was a lover not a fighter and a tacky one at that. OOOps I just commented on ST and I hate that show, I'm not into Sci-fi at all, I read the robots of empire books and they were a snore (for me) I'm into crime fiction/non-fiction, forensics (not the CSI fluff)and criminal/humanpsychology.

But green girlies, neato! Does the carpet match the drapes? I wonder what...anyhow...
:-)

by hal 9000

And I may be wrong here as it was a long time ago and there have been many TV/Movies since I think the green girl in question had three breasts as well.

Col

by dwdino

Racism, at its core, is the seperation of a group or culture based upon the inherent properties of that group; skin, religion, culture, etc.

This can be done both internally and externally. While the Blacks/Indians/Chinese were brought into slavery in early America by white land owners, this is not the case today.

Today, many ethnicities shoot themselves in the foot. I know many persons of varying races which hate all the whining. "This isn't fair, that's not equal". But if you analyse the core of the complaint, 50% are focusing on outcomes. The Constitution promises equal oportunity, not equal outcome.

Quotas are bad in both directions, hire who is best. Fire when someone under performs. Except into college those who are most qualified, not those necessary to "equal the spread".

Communism promises that all will "end up" equal. That everyone will get an equal share. But communism has always failed and will always fail. So, if you feel that you don't have the same opportunity, then yes, let's work on it. But because the outcomes are 20% white, 20% black, 20% asian, 20% mexican, and 20% blonde (:D sorry, had to make something funny), doesn't mean there is discrimination.

Heck, if that where the criteria, every major professional sport would be guilty of racism:
Basketball: 90% black
Football: 80% black
Baseball: -Not really a sport- :P

Anyway, back to my core statements:
1) Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes!
2) Quit whining, and work to a solution.

Oh, and P.S. get rid of the ridiculous predicates!
"Afro-American"
"Asian-American"
"Whatever-American"
That is racism! It is saying that I am not a part of America as a whole. I am a segregrated group, set apart by some heritage or skin color. Being an American has absolutely nothing to do with where you come from, it is the drawing together of unique persons with a common goal.

Anyways, rant complete....

by hal 9000

I don't really care in the least what race they are from or what the crime statics show I just take people as I find them and if I don't like an individual I don't associate with them but I hardly ever make blanket statements about individual races either unless of course there was the old one that I used to say "Well I really don't care what color, creed you are from but if you happen to be purple with pink polka dots well then you would have to expect me to at the very least look twice." But I've stopped using that one after a black English friend who attended a fancy dress party that my family went to went dressed in body paint {Purple of course with pink polka dots} and some form of costume claiming that he was the Purple People Eater.

He claimed that I gave him the idea with what I was constantly saying I however just called him "A Mad Bastard" and had several drinks with him and spent most of the night telling him just how silly he actually looked.

Col

by tomsal

To quote from Ferris Bueller's Day Off .. I generally think that "an -ism in my opinion isn't good".

But there was a thing me and a friend of mine would say when/if the topic ever came up about racism...we'd say "Yes we are prejudice against race"

The person would look either extremely mad for a moment or outright shocked, after a pause my buddy would say "yeah..the race we hate are a$$holes."

And that pretty much sums it up.

Even today.

PS. I am a horrible speller so I apologize for my typos..lol

by maxwell edison

.
Whether all of these are "good" isms, is, of course, a matter of opinionism. And, I further suppose, that some are simply neutralism.

Some of my favorite "isms", not necessarily in any particular order:

Monotheism

Instrumentalism

Optimism

Capitalism

Libertarianism

Individualism

Conservatism

Republicanism

Deism

Personalism

Antidisestablishmentarianism (Yes, it's really real)

Monophysitism

Monopsychism

Illuminism

Pragmatism

Eidolism

Naturalism

Romanticism

Intellectualism

----------

Two that tie-in together (perhaps even in the context of this thread):

Self-determinism - belief that the actions of one's self determine the outcome for one's self

And I really love this one:

Objectivism - belief that all reality is objective (Hey, you have your reality and I can have mine.)

The tie-in: Why is it that one person might be hindered by "racism", whether that "racism" is perceived or real, while another person under absolutely identical circumstances will not be hindered in any way?

Is one person's reality different than another's, i.e. objectivism?

Can "racism", whether that "racism" is perceived or real, be overcome by self-determinism?

----------

Personal opinion:

It is my opinion that any form of "racism" in America today, and I use that term with great reluctance (because of the questions above), or at least the perception that one may be a "victim" (another word I despise) of "racism", is all a matter of objectivism. If everyone, and I mean everyone, truly believed in self-determinism, then no one could possibly be a "victim" of "racism". It's kinda' like all those recessions that are "declared" from time to time. Personally, I choose self-determinism and objectivism instead, and simply choose not to participate in someone else's "declared" recession.

But since it's quite obvious, at least to me, that while some people believe in self-determinism while others do not, then that fact alone confirms the legitimacy of objectiveism. Therefore, in many cases, people "choose" to be "victims".

by dwdino

I believe you mean subjectivism.

The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

objectivism

SYLLABICATION: ob?jec?tiv?ism
PRONUNCIATION: b-jkt-vzm
NOUN: 1. Philosophy One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events. 2. An emphasis on objects rather than feelings or thoughts in literature or art.

subjectivism

SYLLABICATION: sub?jec?tiv?ism
PRONUNCIATION: sb-jkt-vzm
NOUN: 1. The quality of being subjective. 2a. The doctrine that all knowledge is restricted to the conscious self and its sensory states. b. A theory or doctrine that emphasizes the subjective elements in experience. 3. Any of various theories holding that the only valid standard of judgment is that of the individual. For example, ethical subjectivism holds that individual conscience is the only appropriate standard for moral judgment.

by oz_media

"Objectivism" denotes the thesis that morality is objective.

There us a really interesting and quite well written theory of "Moral" Objectivism here.

http://tinyurl.com/3epup

Just thought you'd find it interesting as it also refers to several other 'isms' you have mentioned.

by pgm554

Racism is everywhere and in every culture.

My EX was a woman of color and even within the black culture, how light or dark one was, meant something in the social hierarchy.

Being called "ghetto" is the white equivalent of being called white trash.

Whether or not you had good hair (straight, silky) and if your skin tone was lighter that a brown paper bag (paper bag test) counted in the social pecking order.

It just so happens that the US with its mighty media coverage micro focuses on the subject with great regularity.

You can count on Hollywood to produce with great regularity, movies about: racism, predjudice, misogogeny, and the holocaust.

So the impression that one gets if you live outside the US and judge us by our movie pop culture, is one of racism and prejudice.

As for the PC racial labels, NPR (our national public radio) has a racial PC term for everybody that they think may take offense.
Asian American= Mongoloid race
African American = Negroid race

But the last time I looked, Russia and India were a large part of Asia.
So is Asian American a fit?

As for African Americans, aren?t Egypt, Morocco and Libya parts of Africa? But they don't fit the label.

My ancestry was of Eastern Europe, but am I referred to as a European American?
No, I am just an American and leave it at that.

What a strange world we live in.

by pgm554

I worked with an Asian fellow (Chinese by ancestry) ,who, when asked by one of our customers if he was Filipino, took great offense at being asked so.

His reply was? I am Chinese!?

There is a racial hierarchy in the Asian races that goes a bit like this:
Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, SE Asian (Vietnamese, Cambodian), and Pacific Islanders (Filipino, Samoans).

The Asian slur for white folks is "gwai lo".

Racism is everywhere and in every culture.

My EX was a woman of color and even within the black culture, how light or dark one was, meant something in the social hierarchy.

Being called "ghetto" is the white equivalent of being called white trash.

Whether or not you had good hair (straight, silky) and if your skin tone was lighter that a brown paper bag (paper bag test) counted in the social pecking order.

It just so happens that the US with its mighty media coverage micro focuses on the subject with great regularity.

You can count on Hollywood to produce with great regularity, movies about: racism, predjudice, misogogeny, and the holocaust.

So the impression that one gets if you live outside the US and judge us by our movie pop culture, is one of racism and prejudice.

As for the PC racial labels, NPR (our national public radio) has a racial PC term for everybody that they think may take offense.
Asian American= Mongoloid race
African American = Negroid race

But the last time I looked, Russia and India were a large part of Asia.
So is Asian American a fit?

As for African Americans, aren?t Egypt, Morocco and Libya parts of Africa? But they don't fit the label.

My ancestry was of Eastern Europe, but am I referred to as a European American?
No, I am just an American and leave it at that.

What a strange world we live in.

by dc_guy

1. The Washington Post just printed a representative anecdote from a reader. Her 7-year-old came home from school with a picture he drew with crayons. It showed a large person and a small person, both colored in with brown. She assumed it was two black people (yeah I agree, we whites are more uncomfortable with that word than they are) and asked who they were. He said it was him (a white boy) and his teacher (an Asian-American woman). The actual color of their skin was so unimportant to him that he didn't think to represent it in the drawing. A few days later in a shop he said to his mother, "Oh look at the pretty hat on that black lady." The mother couldn't spot a black lady and asked, "Where?" He said, "Over there, talking to the green man." It was a white lady in a black coat talking to a white man in a green coat. She suddenly realized why her son always seemed so confused when she would talk about black people, when nobody within sight was wearing black clothes.

2. It's hard to measure racism, but let's talk about violence, which is measured. There is very little racially motivated violence in the USA now. For all that we have not quite managed to establish the Kingdom of Equality, that some of us prefer to live in enclaves with people of the same color, that some of us take color into account when awarding a promotion or acceptance into an organization, that some of us toss around racial epithets without thinking it rude... for all of that, we generally stop short of violence.

I say that regardless of how you treat people in other ways, if you don't harm them physically you've made great progress by the standards of this sad planet.

Yeah it happens, but even in a huge cosmopolitan city the occurrences are so rare that they all make the front page of the newspaper and cause the city to search its soul for weeks. Even immediately after 9/11, when a few Americans of European ancestry were so overcome with rage that they began to wonder whether all Americans of Mideastern ancestry were their enemies, the incidences of violence were nonetheless so rare that each individual face made it to national TV.

I believe that statistic puts us in the very top tier of non-racist nations. Yes, Canada, Sweden, et al. lead the pack. There's something about that brisk, fresh air, I guess. ^_^ The Antipodes don't get a lot of press here but I've no reason to doubt that the Aussies and Kiwis are in the same rank. But we really are not that far behind them.

When I see what's happening in Europe these days, it makes me sad.

Nobody said it better than Bob Marley: The color of a man's skin is no more important than the color of his eyes. With every passing year, more and more of us Americans live by that maxim.

by oz_media

patriotISM, capitalISM or are you referring to the International Solidartity Movement (ISM).

individualISM, hedonISM, liberalISM, activISM, conformISM, poletheISM, theISM, secularISM, pantheISM, platonISM, epicurianISM, aesceticISM...

They all describe human/religious beliefs or lack thereof.

by maxwell edison

.
In a political and/or economic context, my definition was derived from the Ayn Rand school of thought.

The following were taken from various pages from the Ayn Rand Institute Web site.

----------

The philosophy which is the basis of her novels - objectivism - offers the individual a rational philosophy for living on earth, by means of which he can achieve the best within himself."

Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current ?mixed economy? notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

Objectivism offers a radical alternative to the ideas which dominate today?s culture and universities: mysticism, altruism, and collectivism - and their results, such as nihilism, environmentalism, ?multiculturalism,? and statism.

The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force ? i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force.? Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current ?mixed economy? notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

My (Ayn Rand's) philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute ? facts are facts, independent of man?s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man?s senses) is man?s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man ? every man ? is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man?s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

>>> end of Ayn Rand's comments

Therefore, my suggestion that objectivism is related to creating one's own reality, has a basis in a philosophy larger than just a one line definition found in most dictionaries. Ayn Rand's thoughts, if taken in their totality, and especially when emphasis is placed on how man might "reason", would suggest that man is capable of creating his own reality regardless of what others may have deduced under similar circumstances. It's a very interesting subject indeed, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to expand on my thought process a bit.

I just might have to start an Ayn Rand thread. That could be an interesting discussion indeed.

"Objectivism.......offers the individual a rational philosophy for living on earth, by means of which he can achieve the best within himself."

by oz_media

It all makes complete sense to me with the exception of "laissez-faire capitalism" which I am sure your are not surprised at.

As much as I think ideally we would live in a money free world and simply provide for each other as needed through fair trade and barter, how does this effect those who are ill or unable? I know you can elaborate on this further and I welcome your comments without challenge. The reason I am stuck on this one is because you know that I will go to great lengths to trade my way through life, I build websites, create ads a promo's to help local businesses without even discussing payment or expecting it. This is usually reciprocated by the company offering to provide me with services that they offer in return for mine. As much as I agree that we should not let the government decide who gets to spend MY income, how do we cater to those who are unwell or unable if we do not have a (sorry about this) 'social' system in place that will tend to the needy with funding from those who are able bodied and working. I know that you strongly oppose in the bastards who sit on their ass playing Nintendo until welfare day, as do I, but how do we de;egate funds to those in need without such a system in place? I agree that there needs to be a lot more descrimination before such benefits are received but how do we do that without creating minority or racial feuds?

OM

by oz_media

Isn't that still the longest word in the dictionary?

I remember getting that one in my grade 7 spelling bee, I had learned it sometime before because it was the longest word in the dictionary and was able to spell it, much to everyone's amazement. Perhaps we've come up with something new since then though.

by maxwell edison

.
The misconception usually attached to someone (like me) who doesn't believe in government forced redistribution of income is that we therefore don't care about the poor and the needy. That's not the case at all. In fact, I would suggest that we might even care MORE than those who want to create a myriad of government controlled social programs.

Some points:

I would suggest that government forced transfer of income is just plain wrong because it's tantamount to a government seizing a person's personal property. If the seizing of a person's personal property is not a blatant violation of that person's liberty, then nothing is. My definition of a government includes the need to protect one's liberties, not violate them.

Where's the "rule" that says the government must manage any necessary social programs. In North America (whether it be Canada, Mexico or the USA), government forced redistribution of income didn't really start until the 1930s. What happened to the poor and needy before that? Well, they weren't dying in the streets in droves because their needs were met by family, friends, churches, private charities, etc. Charity's not a bad thing; it's a good thing. But forced charity is a bad thing - and an unnecessary thing. Most people are basically good and will gladly help others in need. But for a government to "force" charitable giving is wrong. Moreover, a government managing such social programs is too costly. Whereas a well run private charity might return 75 cents, or more, on the dollar to those it serves, the government's "overhead" is much higher, and it may only return only 50 cents, or less, on the dollar. And the more regulation and the more overhead, the less goes to those for whom it was really intended.

In the USA, our "war on poverty", which was President Johnson's abysmal idea in the 60s, did no more than create a bottomless pit of dependency. The percentage of people living in poverty was in steady decline in the USA from 1900 through the 1950 and into the 60s. This especially holds true for the black population in America, the population that built itself up from the nothingness of slavery a century before. But contrary to its intentions, poverty won the war. Poverty won the war because of a little thing called human nature. All too many people, when given the choice between a free dollar or an earned two dollars (or more) will always take the buck. What incentive do people have to improve themselves if they can rest easy in the knowledge that the government will take care of them? Five trillion dollars later, there's a higher percentage of people dependent on the government now than there was in 1960. Keep doing the same thing, and we'll keep getting the same results. It's been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and America's war on poverty illustrates that quite well.

Go to any drug abuse center as a family member of a drug abuser and they will tell you to not "enable" this person's destructive behavior by helping him get along. You have to let that person choose between life and death itself, you will be told, if there's any hope for him to break out of his self-destructive lifestyle. In fact, if you help him, you'll be an enabler, a co-dependant, they will say. You have to resist the urge to help those you love, but who choose not to help themselves. It's called "tough-love". We've become a nation of enablers by supporting the self-destructive lifestyles of millions of people. It's not fair to the ones paying the bill, and it's not fair to those who are being enabled. We need more "tough-love".

I believe that if you tax something, you'll get less of it. If you subsidize something, you'll get more of it. We are taxing production, thereby getting less of it. We are subsidizing dependency, thereby getting more of it. Isn't this bass ackwards?

It's worth repeating: I would suggest that government forced transfer of income is just plain wrong because it's tantamount to a government seizing a person's personal property. If the seizing of a person's personal property is not a blatant violation of that person's liberty, then nothing is. My definition of a government includes the need to protect one's liberties, not violate them.

By the way, it took 70 years to get us into this mess, and I'm not suggesting that it would be wise to chop it all off at once. But a change in dialogue, a change in the way we look at human nature, and a change in expectations as it relates to taking self-responsibility and self-determination might allow us to turn the tide and start downsizing these government programs instead of feeding them even more. What took 70 years to put into place will, most likely, take 70 more to bring some sanity back to the system.

by hal 9000

How do we fund the Military Space Exploration or any of the other great things that our Governments do?

While I'm certainly no great fan of any tax system I do accept the need for one so at the very least whatever country that we live in is protected against invasion. If only we could get value for money from our Politician's then I don't think to many people would begrudge the tax system but when we see them as in Australia retiring on enormous lump sum payouts and then be provided with all the benefits that go along with them that is one of my greatest "Pet Peeves."

While I'm prepared to pay tax and even to subside the genuine unemployed I sure as hell am not willing to support an out of work politician who is already rich and only scrapping more cream off the top to line their own pockets.

Col

by dc_guy

You ask, "How do we cater to those who are unwell or unable if we do not have a 'social' system in place that will tend to the needy with funding from those who are able bodied and working. I know that you strongly oppose the bastards who sit on their ass playing Nintendo until welfare day, but how do we delegate funds to those in need without such a system in place?"

That's just the point. Having been married to a government social worker for many years, I (and she) can assure you that the government is absolutely inept at making that distinction. The welfare laws are just like the tax laws and all of our other laws: they are designed to train American (and resident aliens) to CHEAT!

The people who have learned to give all the right answers, hide their assets, work only for unreported cash wages, and in every other way to navigate the system, get the benefits. The truly needy people who are bewildered by the system get turned away.

Did you know that in Los Angeles, if you own a hen so you can at least provide occasional eggs for your own table, you are automatically disqualified? There are entire ethnic neighborhoods where everyone owns a hen or two or else they're considered slackers by their own community. They learn to lie and answer "no" to the question on the form, "Do you own a chicken?" Isn't that just a great way to teach them to be proud, mainstream Americans?

The Salvation Army and other privately run charities are not bound by these Byzantine rules. Their agents are allowed to look you in the eye, use their best people-reading skills, and say, "You're trying to scam me, you're not getting any of our money," or "I believe you even though you're not very articulate, come on in for supper, a cot, and a sermon."

Americans were historically one of the most charitable people on earth. Thousands of them even risked their lives to improve the lot of the black slaves and the displaced Indians. (Yeah, they prefer that label. I'm a "native American" because I was born in Illinois.)

This began to change when the government muscled into the charity business and took it over like a crooked mob boss in the 1930s. Today the government takes enough money to feed the poor many times over, but most of it goes into the pockets of bumbling bureaucrats who spend their days administrating each other. If all the tax money that is collected for the express purpose of helping the poor were simply divided up evenly and GIVEN directly to the poor, every family now poor would suddenly have an annual income of $40,000. (That's a 1997 statistic.)

It is of course wrong for people to blame the poor for this state of affairs, but it is understandable why they don't feel like throwing more money down that rat hole.

by jardinier

Yes Max, a discussion on Ayn Rand would no doubt prove very interesting.

However it would not be appropriate to the current discussion as the distinctions were not made by race, but by intelligence, creativity and self-determination.

"Objectivism.......offers the individual a rational philosophy for living on earth, by means of which he can achieve the best within himself."

by dwdino

If you wish to choose such an unstable and limited person on which to base your viewpoint, that is your choice.

Ayn Rand ... good riddens.

by maxwell edison

.
Well, I suppose all I can say is that I'm with some very distinguished company in that regard.

If you dismiss Ayn Rand's philosophy in the manner you did, one might assume that you more closely relate to the likes of Karl Marx and Chairman Mao. Who are some of the philosophers and/or thinkers with whom you share common viewpoints?

by jardinier

Regarding your posting "expectations" further down:

"I just pray that when the time comes, all who have been in contact with me, will have been influenced toward Christ, that we may all celebrate together for Eternity."

I was under the impression that humility was a required trait of a follower of Christ.

My idea of a personal hell would be to spend all of eternity in the company of self-righteous bigots like yourself.

As Jesus said: "In my Father's house there are many mansions," hopefully I will be in the company of people like OzMedia -- people who gain enormous strength from their inner faith, without proselytizing.

And don't presume that you are going to heaven, because you cannot possibly know how God will judge you.

by jardinier

You just triggered off about 40 years of accumulated angst against self-righteous Christians who think they know it all and of course KNOW that they are saved.

By the way, while I have your attention, after the person known as "boxwood" chimed into an earlier discussion, we exchanged a flood of personal emails. It turns out she is a landscape designer and designs gardens suitable for particular countries. She had NO reference books about Australian native plants, so I have bought a few and sent them to her.

As the hymn says: "God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform."

Sorry to have attacked you old chap, but I am sure you know the type of Christian to which I was referring.

by jardinier

[lies, damned lies and statistics.
Attributed to Disraeli in Mark Twain Autobiography (1924) vol. 1, p. 2]

You are very predictable Max, as you keep reminding us of your "pet peeves." Obviously, by your own standards, I cannot be expected to attribute any credibility to a posting that is based on statistics.

I regard it as unfortunate that a person who is relatively young, seems to have rigid views on many subjects. I am 63 years of age and continually adjust my viewpoints according to new information and experiences.

We also know about another pet peeve -- welfare payments. In any earlier discussion you totally evaded responding to my comments (which would be obvious to anyone including Blind Freddie} that when welfare recipients spend this money on goods and services, they provide employment and income to working people, who pay tax on this income.

Welfare money DOES NOT simply vanish into thin air.

Whilst you have qualified that some people who cannot cope on their own need assistance, you have never defined whom you considered to be genuinely needy persons.

Regarding the following excerpt from your posting: "interest on our debt is about another 15%," presuming that you are referring to national debt and not personal debt, then the USA must be in a bad way financially. Australia currently has a budget surplus.

You may regard the above remark as a racist comment on the USA because, as you have apparently overlooked, the discussion topic is about racism and NOT about taxation.

by jardinier

I didn't mean to be mean, I mean it's just that I have encountered so many mean-spirited "Christians" throughout my life -- people who loudly procliam their allegiance to Christ, but whose general behaviour is contrary to every Christian principle.

Whilst, as everyone here knows, I refuse to wear a label, in so many instances it has been I who have had to practise Christian ethics in the face of rude, aggressive, conceited "Christians."

by maxwell edison

.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Antidisestablishmentarianism:

Antidisestablishmentarianism is a political philosophy that is opposed to the separation of church and state. The term originated in the context of the nineteenth century Church of England, where antidisestablismentarians were opposed to proposals to remove its status as the state church of England. The term has largely fallen into disuse, although the issue itself is still current. (See: Act of Settlement)

"Antidisestablishmentarianism" is often quoted as one of the longest English words that has an actual meaning (as opposed to words that were made up for the purpose of being long ? see Longest word in the English language), although there is a longer word that falls in the same category: "Pseudoantidisestablishmentarianism", meaning false opposition to the separation of the state and the church.

(I included antidisestablishmentarianism in my list, not because I agree with the philosophy, but because I just like the word.)

by hal 9000

Perhaps one day the "White Man who speaks with Forked Tongue" will eventually pay off Manhattan!

I should add {Sarcasm Alert} I suppose shouldn't I?

Col

by jardinier

Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Genesis 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Genesis 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Genesis 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

It would appear that God originated racism, by deliberately dividing people into groups which could not communicate with one another.

by oz_media

I knew about antidisestablishmentarianism but have never seen the pseudo prefix added to it, nice touch! Maybe I'll use that one now.

by oz_media

I actually am well aware that you don't want to repress the needy and that was one reason I posed the question to you. Your explanation is just fine.

Yes it is wierd that we subsidize dependancy and I agree that we need to beter this. I also see a tougher world than it used to be, you being older than myself have seen this in a more than I have. As for private charity, I wholly agree and know first hand that they do provide more cvare and support per dollar than ANY government would or will.

The only problem I forsee is that these charitable organizations also have a real problem with turning down someone wit ha good sob story.

In the case of welfare, anyone can cry the blues and get a check, yet would this not be EASIER with a private supporting charity as they are more one on one and 'human' than governments are?

don't get me wrong Max, you know better than anyone how opposed to our governments I am, but I just don't see a more rational way of serving welfare dollars. I think the GOVERNMENTS are far to slack and should tighten the strings on welfare, they turn away those in need and give it to those who have the best scam going. The process should require a lot more work on behalf of the recipient, as it USED to (up here at least)they said they were tightening the process but I've seen more people scam welfare now than ever before. I think perhaps the government has given up tryng to regulate welfare and simply feels they have the cash so what the hell. I still don't think that if the government stopped welfare all together that we'd see any monetary breaks or reductions in our taxes, they'll just piss it away somewhere else as opposed to losing it.

I dunno, like I've said too many times, I cannot do anything about it except bitch and complain anyway so I guess I'll just let them do their thing. Now if I see a candidate come up with some good argumaents and changes then maybe I will take a political interest in it, but as it sits, all we can do is soapbox the issue really.

Now without implying anything at all, this is just another reason why I don't like OUR governments 9not just yours) there's too many political issues I can occupy my day with and get all riled up over that I have absolutely NO control over no matter who I vote for, so why should I let them occupy my mind?

I know in this case I was curious as you had some great points and one that I was unclear on, but on a political stand, I just don't bother.

by oz_media

Get a grip my friend, y'all sound like "Those Damn Yankees" when I mention 'America' followed by anything other than 'The Beautiful'. (sorry guys)

Canadians are said to be passive, dope smoking fawns wheras we are actually a very strong willed bunch who have stuck up for the rest of the world since day one. We always end up in war zones whether as medics and humanitarians or as soldiers. Aussies are known 'COMMONLY" as a fun bunch, I didn't intend that to be a negative but a positive. NO country would be around if they weren't able to support themselves and fight for what they deem is needed. Mankind fights to live, it is instinctive.

As a whole, ANY Aussies I've met are easy going and paid back. More interested in a pint and a game of darts than worrying about politics and life. This I see as a quality and I admire the ability to live instead of worrying about tomorrow.

Email me off TR as my comments are best kept off of this forum but I think you probably just stepped in something you didn't like.

Oh and I never turned Canadian, never will. I love Canadians (in many ways) but I am not legally Canadian in any way shape or form.

by oz_media

Those door knockers on Sunday morning are sure gonna be red faced !!!

Nah, they'll just interpret it as something else, like how Jesus walked ON water and not BY it.
How he who is without sin cast the first stone, yet we all deem ourselves free of sin so we are able to judge what is right or wrong for our church, yada yada yada. sigh.

by jardinier

The Biblical story of the Good Samaritan defines who is our neighbour -- namely, anyone in need of assistance. It occurred to me many years ago that if the command by Jesus to "Love thy neighbour as thyself" was actually carried out, in the context of our family members and next-door neighbours, there would be no need for Government funded welfare, or organised charities.

As you point out: "What happened to the poor and needy before that? Well, they weren't dying in the streets in droves because their needs were met by family, friends, churches, private charities, etc."

In Australia, as Government funded welfare has increased, donations to charities have decreased. Perhaps this is because wage and salary earners consider they have already contributed to the support of the needy through the taxes which they have paid.

Thus charities have to work really hard to gather enough in donations to carry out their work. People who collect for charities tell me time and time again: it is the people who have the least, who give the most.

Actually the Howard Government has done a lot to discourage welfare bludgers, as distinct from people who actually can't cope on their own.

Having at various times been on the receiving end and the giving side of various charities, it is marvellous how selfless are most of the people who engage in charitable work, and how appreciative are those who benefit from charity.

And to quote from the Bible again: "1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity."

by dwdino

Honestly, none. For a finite being to attempt to understand and completely outline the behaviors of humans is a futile project. Understanding certain traits is well and good, but full comprehension(sp) is not possible with or finite abilities.

But in researching 'philosophers', I always study their lives more than their teachings/conclusions. If the changes or behaviors in their lives are radically changed or improved, then their precdents may hold water. On the other hand, if they deam themselves above their own philosophies (dictators), then forget it.

There is only one model in my life which I could even call a philosopher, but to do so would so demean and insult that I will not assign such a title or reference.

My model is Christ, which I fall desperately short of, but continue forward in His grace.

by oz_media

Udders, what a concept! Bring a freind, hours of fun for the whole family and all that stuff!

Where do you rest your forehead so you don't have to look at her though. (OOOOOH big pig comment!)

by oz_media

That it takes times of sire need and distress before we reach out and help one another.

New York after 911 was a paradigm of people coming together to help one another. Can yuo just imagine how wonderful our world would be if we were like that EVERYDAY to one another, al countries all people!? Damn we'd be a strong civilisation, we'd be exploring the galaxy like Star Trek in no time.

The BC forest fires are another example of how people help one another. It just bugs me that these people help out in such hard times yet won't normally, not to demean their efforts but it's almost like they are posers trying to look good when in the spotlight.

I think this is what I value most about living in a smaller town, peolpe actually DO care and DO help withtou wondering if someone is gonna call them stupid for handing out all the time. I think the general fear of most people is that they are being taken advantage of or the charity is a fake etc. Nobody wants to be a fool or get caught in a scam. With so many scame around, it's hard to determine the good from the bad and people shy away from generously offering support in most cases.

With these terrible events that have happened recently, people KNOW it's not a scam and hold thier arms open wide to help each other.

As always, the bad guys have ruined it for the rest of them.

by oz_media

Now personally I don't think Maxwel was equating Ayn Rand to God at all. He likes her views and theories. You can do that without giving up your inner beliefs in what it is to be human and your duty in life.

Some people will focus thier energies on a single set of belifs as you have dnoe with your Christian beliefs. Others find that although religion gives them a set of 'rules' to follow in life, they will still find other philosophies apply to the way they view the world.

Everyone needs a source of faith, if it is a single set of beliefs or a collaboration of thought and quotes makes NO difference whatsoever.

Just as you would expect someone to acept your belief and faith in God, you cannot discount someone else's set of beliefs of standards.

what you have done in your post is extremely hyporcitical. You started by discounting the posters belief, then stated your belief in retort and expect your views to be accepted. Now what if Max's or anyone else's response to your post for that matter, was to say that the Bible is a bolk of lies with NO proof whatsoever. That Jesus was fictional to enhance the so called biblical story and that your God was a figment of your imagination, or perhaps mass hysteria as there are millions who also believe 'the book'. This would be completely out of line and inappropriate, so we accept one anothers faith.

You should know as well as anyone, practice what you preach.

by maxwell edison

.
There are really two kinds of taxes. Let's call them category A and category B.

Category A: These are the taxes that pay for the infrastructure required to keep the wheels of government turning, and the purpose of government functioning. This would include the costs of defense, police and fire protection, the building of roads and airports, the salaries of government employees, and so on. The "gray" areas of this category might fall into expenditures for space exploration, funding for various research and development, and other such worthy projects. (Although these "worthy projects" would be, for the most part, a matter of preference and opinion.)

Category B: The second kind of tax is the kind that takes a dollar out of the pocket of the person who earned it, and puts it into the outstretched hand of a person who did not earn it. This would include welfare, student grants, health care, including Medicare, Medicaid, and other free health services, housing subsidies, tax credits, school lunch programs, social security, and on and on and on.

In the United States, more than 50% of all taxes collected fall into category B. We currently carry a national debt of around 5 trillion dollars, and over the past 40 years we've spent WELL OVER 5 trillion dollars on such money transfer programs.

I would like to see, as a logical first step, to literally separate the two kinds of taxes. A second logical step would be to eliminate the payroll deduction. And here's why. If a person had to literally write two checks to the government every year, one to pay for the items in category A, and another for category B, then he or she could really see not only how much is really being paid, but how much is going where.

I would venture to guess that if you asked most Americans where the government spends the most money, they would answer on the military. Military spending in the USA is only about 15% of our budget; interest on our debt is about another 15%; money transfer social programs account for about 60%; and that leaves only about 10% for everything else. (Percentages may not be exact, but they're close.) If someone has to write a check for $10,000 for category A, and another $15,000 for category B taxes - each and every year - perceptions in this country would drastically change very fast.

And this doesn't even take into account all the other taxes collected. Let's call these Category C: taxes such as gas tax, cigarette tax, alcohol tax, road tolls, access charges on utility bills, sales taxes, personal property taxes, vehicle registration taxes, seating taxes (at sporting events), hotel taxes, and on and on. This doesn't include the money collected to park at the airport that we paid for, city parking meters, professional license fees, dog tag fees, and on and on. And what about the taxes others pay, especially businesses, who just pass on that cost to the consumer so we have to pay more for our products because of taxes.

When it's all said and done, many, if not most, Americans pay much MORE than half their income on taxes in one form or another. And then there are the double (and sometimes triple) taxes we pay. This includes taxes on capital gains and social security payments received. Consider this. If we earn $1,000 dollars, and pay income taxes on that $1,000, let's call it 20%, or $200. We then pay an additional 15% in social security taxes (7.5% each from employee and employer or all of it from the self-employed), or another $150 that is "supposed to" go into a figurative and non-existent "trust fund" so we can "save" for retirement. When that SS payment is received by a retiree, he or she has to pay taxes on that money AGAIN. So we pay taxes again on the money that we paid as in as taxes. The same applies to capital gains. (If you invest your SS payment and make a little capital gains profit, it's taxed yet again for a triple tax on the same dollar earned.)

Did I forget any other form of taxes? One that comes to mind is the inheritance tax which can literally rob a family of their hard earned wealth. (And "wealth" is a relative term.) What else did I overlook? I just rattled off all of these without even giving it much thought (or any research).

Geesh, we're being taxed out of house and home. It's no wonder so many people need government assistance to just get by. JUST GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE PICTURE, AND LET US TAKE CARE OF OURSELVES!

by dwdino

You and I will most likely never see eye-2-eye, that is well known.

I have been discounting Rand, not Maxwell. I believe Maxwell to a smart (hehehe) and well read individual. His choice of Rand as a constituant has caused me to chuckle though.

In my post I outlined my views of philosophers in general with a very large brush. Then I explained the model after which I attempt to follow.

"Now personally I don't think Maxwel was equating Ayn Rand to God at all. He likes her views and theories." - I agree. I was simply showing a reason why I do not philosophers in high regard. Maxwell, nor I ever equate Rand with God; and, that is my point.

In response to your "what if". That is their choice. Any man has freedom of will, to choose and to seek. But if a man, believes in his heart, that what he believes is TRUTH, then he will "shout it from the roof tops", defend it with his dying breath, and attempt to persuade others.

For instance, the Islamic Extremists hold their beliefs to be TRUTH and are willing to slaughter innocent civilians by it.

Anyway, rabbits are bouncing by ....

In plain english for Oz:
1) I don't care for philosophy.
2) I don't agree with Rand.
3) I follow Christ.
4) I believe others should also.

I don't know how much simpler I can make it.

by surrealx

Julian,
I do not think you are racist, nor do I think you are "anti-Semitic". In fact, that while I am a silent poster on TR Discussions, I am an avid reader, and have got enormous respect for you through your postings. I find that you are able to post with less bias than most, while at the same time being very insightful. And I often agree with what you have to say. So please don't think that I was having an attack on you. Racism is just something that irks me, and I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of racism wars. Where people cry racism, when in fact are behaving in the same manner as those who they are labelling as racist.

But just to go over what you said "These people grew up under apartheid, and have brought that attitude with them. For the most part they are extremely rude and arrogant, and look down on people who are not in some skilled profession." And in addition you have said: "but in my experience particular races may have a predominant trait which distinguishes them from other races"

Now i couldn't agree more with both statements, and as you may have noticed in my posting I noted that I believe there is differences between the races, but that these differences are not bad.

However, if I was to say: "While living in South Africa in the post apartheid era, I was exposed to a lot of black people. I found that these people carried the apartheid chip on their shoulder, using it as an excuse to be uneducated, violent and dirty." People would jump all over me about what a F%#$@ racists I was, when, in actual fact is very similar to what you said about South Africans. (And again I did not take offence, or think you racist with what you said). Also please note that the above statement is not something I am saying that I believe so please do not start a discussion on it.

And just to cover South Africans in Australia, I have to admit that I have not made any South African friends since I have been over here, partly cause I have not gone in search of south Africans, but also because none of the South Africans I have come accross are people I would wish to be friends with. (So yeah, if I wasn't from South Africa, I probably wouldn't think much of South Africans) So you see, I'm not about being around people because they are the same race as me, I am about being around the kind of person, who I enjoy being around.

by zlitocook

You can not be in the U.S. Afro-American where did you get this name? I am a computer consultant with alot of compamys and people of any color are needed. I like the green people alot better then the gray people! Oh my mother married a gray and my grandmother married a (black person) oh my, gray people, green people, and bears. Lions, tigeres and bears, oh my.
life go'se on!

by hal 9000

My nephew works as a senior investigator for the Australian Tax Office and never fills in a Tax Return. To make an example of him his employers took him to court to get a Court Order to fill in his Tax Return and naturally my Nephew being the person that he is didn't bother showing up and just continued working. When the Legal Department came back from Court they had a big smirk on their faces and took great pride in telling him that they had succeeded in getting what they wanted Cam on the other hand just said "So What?" He continued to ignore them and just continued on working well over the next two years they continued to take him to court and kept getting orders against him which he kept ignoring eventually they did force him into the Court and when he was asked why he didn't put in tax returns he just said "I work for the Tax Office and I can see daily just how bad things are so out of the goodness of my heart I refuse to file a Tax Return because if I did the ATO would have to give me a refund and I do not want to take away any more money from them. Also every time that they write out a check it costs them over $1,000.00 AU and it simply isn't worth it from my point of view as any return that I may receive would be far less than this and I would be removing money in two ways from a department who needs every cent that they can lay their hands on!" Well needless to say the little bastard got away with it and hasn't ever put in a Tax Return since but this time with the Courts blessing.

So I totally agree with you about the Government being a costly inefficient structure. A few years ago we had a round of "Tax Reform" over here and supposedly we where supposed to be better off with the removal of several taxes {like provisional Tax that in some cases could require you to pay 120% of your income in tax} to the more simple 10% GST {that's supposed to be Goods and Services Tax by actually means Go Slow Tax as it takes far more time to fill in and we have to do it every 3 months as well.}

So now we as business are paying to do the Tax Offices job and you had better believe that those costs are being passed on to our customers but the sad thing here is the more we increase our prices for labor the greater the tax bill so it becomes a ever increasing spiral effect if you actually want to keep your original income. While I can't speak for others I've just settled for a lower income and an easier life.

But on a better note two days ago it was announced that one of the "Tax Payer Funded" projects was finally finished which was a Smart unmanned Sub that could remain submerged for several months and was going to to used to map Coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef but it seems that while the specifics where scarce on the actual technical specs at least that project has created a lot of interest in overseas markets particularly the Military who see other uses for this technology so with a bit of luck it may eventually even pay for itself many times over but knowing our Government that are likely to sell the rights for $1.50 AU and then pay license fees of several thousand dollars to reuse or improve the technology that they originally paid for.

Col

by cactus pete

OK, it kinda melds two different discussions, but perhaps you are practicing "Conservatarianism"?

by oz_media

I've agreed with MANY of your comments, I may have variations in thought but in general you make sense to me on some subjects.

I was responding to your statement
"Okay If you wish to choose such an unstable and limited person on which to base your viewpoint, that is your choice.

Ayn Rand ... good riddens."

I apologize though as it was Julian's post and not Max's, I just get spun around sometimes when reading back and forth through discussions.

But you did discount the persons faith in Ayn Rand's philosophies, without explaining that you don't buy ANY philosophy, then expected to be validated by your faith in religion.

My point is, if someone had said " "Okay If you wish to choose such an unstable and limited person on which to base your viewpoint, that is your choice.

Jesus ... good riddens(sic)." I think all hell would have broken loose if not from you, from others.

The point isn't who you said your comments to it's just that you discount someone while expecting to accept your views (which are equally challenged).

by oz_media

You said in your reply "But if a man, believes in his heart, that what he believes is TRUTH, then he will "shout it from the roof tops", defend it with his dying breath, and attempt to persuade others."

I don't agree with this at all. I have VERY strong faith and convictions, they are mine though and I accept that most people have their own faith and beliefs. It is not my role to convince them I am right, with faith there IS no wrong or right, it is inner strength and wherever you get that is completely a uniques thing to each individual.

Nobody can prove ANY series of beliefs beyond a shadow of a doubt, if they could there would be no religious wars, everyone would be on the same page, except those that always stand alone.

It is wompletely wrong and , I think, quite ignorant to expect someone to follow what YOU believe and expect them to accept your faith over theirs. Many do, but many don't, I respect your right to have faith in your chosen religion, respect others the same way and don't try to imopse YOUR beliefs on them while discounting theirs, that's the main point. I have faith that one day I will be able to post without typos, I couldn't convince ANYONE at TR of that but it is in MY heart not theirs. Live and let live.

by maxwell edison

.
Conservatarians believe in the concept of small government, oppose excessive taxation, and want the government out of our everyday lives. The government's main objective is protecting the populace from foreign and domestic threats to our lives, not intrusion into our privacy and wallets.

Conservatarianism - Yep, I like that one too.

There's even a Conservatarian political party, albeit very small and insignificant.

I would love a strong third party, whether it be Liberation or Conservatarian.

I could, in principle, certainly vote Liberation or Conservatarian, but it would be a wasted vote that would only serve to strengthen or weaken one of the two major parties, and perhaps swing an election to one or the other. And I would prefer one - every time - over the other. I voted for Perot in '92, but I just shot myself in the foot because it only served to help get my least desirable candidate elected.

Democrats are "tax and spend" Democrats, and Republicans are no more than baby Democrats in that regard. Republicans are accused (by Democrats) of wanting to legislate morality, and maybe they do in some cases. But then, by default and definition, Democrats must want to legislate based on a lack of morality or to deny a person's desired morality. Democrat party policies will eventually destroy America as it was intended to be. Republican party policies will only delay the inevitable doom by some given amount of time OR have a better chance of turning things around. (Actually, America is already destroyed compared to how it was intended to be.)

The Conservatarian party web site:

http://www.conservatarian.org/

by dwdino

Thank you for your reply.

In response:

I do not expect anyone to do/except anything. To do so would be folly. Instead, I attempt to show the viewpoint I hold to, with the best support I can make, in hopes of someone being changed.

In fact, I expect the very opposite. As the viewpoints I hold are considered outside of societal norms, I would be overjoyed and completely shocked to have a massive following suddenly rise up. :D

"...Jesus ... good riddens..."
Well, hell would not break loose, more of sympathy. This has been said by many over the years, most notably of late is Media .... look at the bunnies... :D

One of the things I fear Oz, is that one day, when standing in Heaven, and the unsaved are being judged, that one will point to me and ask, "Why didn't you tell me?". This may or may not happen. But I want to know that I attempted to tell all who I can communicate with.

So, I will contribute to the discussions I can with the viewpoints I hold. I will attempt to point out views and facts I understand. And, I will link everything possible back to spiritual matters as that is the core of all we do.

I just pray that when the time comes, all who have been in contact with me, will have been influenced toward Christ, that we may all celebrate together for Eternity.

by dwdino

Well, I don't know what set you off. I am very confused by your response. How you pull an ego trip from that sentence, I don't know.

That sentence put simply is "a good influence".

I am completely befuddled by your response.

by it_mom

Your name calling and mean demeanor would make your mother ashamed of you. How dare you quote scripture while being so mean in the same breath. You should pray for forgiveness.

by maxwell edison

.
Julian, please forgive me for violating your rules by posting an off-topic message to an off-topic discussion. How inconsiderate of me. At least I didn't resort to name-calling, as you have. And to be consistent, you should also make the same observation about the others who have also posted off-topic messages to your off-topic discussion so you can maintain the appearance of not picking on only me. (Unless, of course, that was your intention. In which case, go ahead and pick away. I don't mind.) And also, I'm sure you realize that you, yourself, have posted off-topic messages to both off-topic and on-topic discussions, so give yourself a few lashes for being equally inconsiderate to others.

Besides, you know how these tangents can sometimes get started. In this case, someone said that any "ism" is bad. I posted a comment to that pointing out what I thought to be some good "isms". Someone questioned one of them, which compelled me to expound on my basis. Another person then asked me a question about something I said, and on it goes.

Now that we have that out of the way, I'll be glad to answer your questions.

----------

On "my rigid views":

There's a difference between having "rigid views" and being principled. Aaron Tippen wrote a song titled, "You've Got To Stand For Something". The lyrics are, in part:

You've got to stand for
something or you'll fall for anything
You've got to be your own man not
a puppet on a string
Never compromise what's right and
uphold your family name
You've got to stand for something,
or you'll fall for anything.

So tell me, what's the difference between my "being rigid", as you suggested I am, and "standing for something", as I suggest I am? (Rhetorical question, as you really don't know me at all, yet you must feel justified in judging me.)

----------

On "welfare recipients spend this money on goods and services, they provide employment and income to working people, who pay tax on this income."

For the record, by the way, government forced "money transfer" payments extend well beyond, and include much more than just welfare payments. Nonetheless, I have addressed this suggestion in the past, but you must have missed it. However, I don't mind addressing it again.

Your suggestion that welfare payments actually help the economy is a fallacy. It sounds like it might make a good argument, in theory, but it simply falls apart under even the slightest bit of scrutiny. One must first understand, of course, that the government can't give a dollar to anyone unless they first take that same dollar away from someone else. The person from whom that dollar was taken would have certainly put that dollar to work as well, either by spending or investing, either of which would "provide employment and income to working people". Therefore, the results of that spent dollar are, at best, simply redistributed, just like the dollar itself.

Moreover, you have to consider exactly what a dollar is - what it represents. When a person contributes something of value, he (usually) wants to receive something of value in return. For example, if you provide gardening services, which is something of value, to the doctor down the street, she might, in return, give you a frontal lobotomy, something else of value. Value received for value provided. In the old days, this doctor would have made a house call to attend to a sick child, and gone back home with a chicken. But instead of "paying" for goods and services with chickens or frontal lobotomies, we use money instead. Money is simply the instrument by which the exchange of goods and services are traded.

When a person receives money without providing something of value in return, the whole system is compromised. Moreover, it also means that somebody had to provide goods or services (in order to get the "money") for which nothing of value was provided in exchange. If you take money out of the equation, and look at what money represents, it means that the government, by taxing for the purpose of redistribution of income, is really forcing a person to provide goods and services for free. I thought slavery was abolished? What's the real difference between forcing someone to give money or forcing someone to give labor? There is no difference.

----------

On, how would I define "needy"?

In the context of taxing people to provide for the "needy", I don't think it really matters how I would define it. While one person might define "needy" as providing for someone so that someone can simply survive, another person might define "needy" as a 19 year old who can't afford college tuition. You might define "needy" differently that I, and a government bureaucrat will define "needy" however necessary to gain a vote. This also illustrates how our elected officials "buy votes" with their promises to redistribute someone else's income to as many people as possible. Isn't that bribery? And what's even worse, it's bribery using someone else's money (goods and services). So it's bribery AND theft.

So you should be able to define "needy" your way, and I should be able to define "needy" my way. In addition, you should be free to help "your" needy as you see fit, as should I. Why should some third party bureaucrat force you to contribute to my charity?

----------

Yes, the 15 percent interest is on our national debt. The US government has, up to this point, "borrowed" about 5 trillion dollars, maybe close to 6 trillion, on which they (we) pay interest only payments. These "loans" are in the form of treasury bills, savings bonds, etc. It's not as bad as it might sound, however, as our economy is growing at a pace to keep up with it. However, you'd need to discuss the intricacies of carrying such a debt with an economist much smarter than me to get the real answers. Even then, we would probably find that the "experts" themselves, even disagree.

----------

I hope I answered your off-topic questions that you posted to this off-topic discussion.

by oz_media

If you end up in the company of one like myself, whether in their heaven or hell, it will be a fun ride, I promise you.

I ca just see the devil's frustration as I laugh hystericaly while I burn, "Oh the irony, hee hee hee, woooooooooooweeeeeeeeeee!"

I see our friend IT Mom has returned once again with absolutely NOTHING to add to the discussion apart from a typical mothers wining about the posts. If you are reading Mom, please actually offer something to these discussions other than bitching at people, at least have an opinion. Bitching for no reason and without justification is just something I would get from my....well, my...mother.

by maxwell edison

.
Mark Twain on Taxes:

What's the difference between a tax collector and a taxidermist? A taxidermist only takes the skin.

-- Mark Twain

by oz_media

I am not going to jump in the middle here but you did raise some interesting veiws in your explanation, firstly:
"The person from whom that dollar was taken would have certainly put that dollar to work as well, either by spending or investing, either of which would "provide employment and income to working people". "

From my experience I have seen that those WITH money invest it, spend it etc. (as you had suggested) but they BANK a lot more money than those without. Those on welfare cannot afford to BANK welfare income, it is simply blown within a week at most, I mean at MOST. They are then usually broke for three weeks and seeking other ways to earn a quick buck, (now this applies MOSTLY to those that don't REALLY need welfare) those that have genuine disabilities are usually a little more appreciative of the support and will spend it more frugally as they will find int harder to supplement. IN short, by giving money to these people, I will promise you that beyond a shadwo of a doubt, more money dollar for dollar reenters the economy of ANY country. It's not invested, it's blown immediately.

Now we should all take care of our own sick and needy, what if we can't though? Who then helps these people, charity? That's just a spit in the ocean.

It is a humanitarian action forced by the government because not everyone would help others in need this way, as you've said yourself, your money is YOUR money. If you had a sick aunt I'm sure you would help, but what about Mrs. Walker with no family living down the road, somehow I think you would turn your back, but that's just specualation as I don't actually know you (too well) but you have offered your veiws here enough for us to get the idea of how you react to these situations (unless of course it was all BS).

I presonally think you MEAN well but in essence you just wouldn't hold your arms open if you didn't have to and would fill your mattress instead while letting parts of society suffer. What happens then? Crime rate soars, drug abuse soars, personal attacks and injuries soar etc. The people abusing the system are the ones we will have a problem with, a MAJOR problem as we already do by not giving them a fair living allowance.We also do nothing to help them either, I've seen SOME pathetic little get a job programs run in various offices but not real one on one counselling and help. No classroom training that follows you through the interview and right to the hiring process, just a sheet to fill out names of companies yo've allpied to, anyone can fill one out in ten minutes with a newspaper, it is known that these are rarely checked.

So from a distant perspective, what I see is you saying F***K 'em, I'll take care of MY family and they can help thiers (Assuming of course they are able too, if not, too bad). This is exactly WHY we need some form of government interaction to distribute this money (even if forcibly) to those in need, it just wouldn't get done if people like yourself had control, the able would be saved, the poor would perish. Now put yourself on the other persons shoe's and look at the guy who doesn't want to help out by sharing his wealth.

The guy who looks down his nose at those less fortunate then himself, that wouldn't even consider hiring someone who has been unable to find work for several years, the guy who just got released from serving time, the guy who just got over his drug addictions (brought on by drug addicted parents), the girl who's boyfriend got her pregnant and took off, the lady who's husband hit her so many times she finally left and is on her own with three kids, the list just goes on and on, and YOU feel you would help all these needy people n society? Either that or you feel you should look out for your own and that's it. Well what about the truly decent people who have noone of their own to reach out too?

Sorry max, it's a real piss off to see so many people , not just your self but not unlike yourself, who would simply ignore the issue in order to save a few bucks, as if it actualy makes a difference. I paid a little $12,000 in taxes last year, I don't care, if my taxes go up, I just earn more money or get a raise to compensate, I don't eat taxes myself. That's why you earn less money when working under the table, you aren't paying taxes, when the government takes a lump, we get paid more to compensate for the lower net income.

by maxwell edison

.
Death and taxes are still as inevitable as they were in Mark Twain's days. It was during his lifetime that income taxes became a hot subject. The first income taxes in the USA were imposed by the U.S. government to pay for the Civil War, but then repealed in 1872. A 2 percent income tax on personal income over $4,000 was enacted in 1894, but rejected as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court (Where are those justices now when we need their help on tax issues now?). A constitutional amendment, the 16th, was proposed to permit a personal income tax in 1909, it became law in 1913, and income taxes have been collected ever since.

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself"

--Mark Twain

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress"

--Mark Twain

by oz_media

Well over 100 years later you and I are still being taxed by the government. I wonder if it is because it is neccessary in order to control the country's economy? I wonder if it has kept America alive for the last 100+ years? Where would your country be without taxation? No M1's, No soldiers earning income instead of collecting welfare, No great super weapons that kill the enemy sight unseen so you can get the hell out of Dodge, no government funded IT programs, no private schools, no money to save the people and rebuild foreign countries, no apprenticeships etc.

Taxes are needed because some people feel they should spend thier money how they choose.