Lately at Blogcritics there has been a lot of talk about racism and some very venomous comments made that have forced this thread to be closed. That's the first thread I've seen closed here. In my experience Blogcritics is normally a very open forum that has some pretty intense discussions on politics and religion with some of their best content, in my opinion — the reviews — being mostly ignored by most of the commenting crowd. It's kind of sad that a site with such good content makes its biggest impact with passionate interaction in those two easy hot button topics. I've voiced my opinion before to The Powers That Be that I think they'd be best with just the reviews and leave the politics and religions threads for other places on the web, but then here I am writing about a non-review topic, so I guess I'm being hypocritical on this point.
Still, I am fascinated a bit by the concept of equality and what it really means in 2004. So fascinated that I sat to write this entry.
Some people use damning words and labels like air. Me, personally, I think cries of discrimination and racism should only be used in clearly obvious situations. In my opinion there is not equality in any race, which includes white people, and by trying to give special rights to one group, another group somewhere else is being shortchanged. Equality is a very tricky thing and unless all men and women are truly treated equally, there is no such thing as equality. The problem of course being that a dominant number of white people are in positions of power (government, employers in managerial capacity, CEOs, etc) that they can force their own personal prejudices on others and disrupt the balance. It's a tough situation that common sense should dictate for people, but doesn't.
It seems that in 2004 common sense is in shorter supply than an endangered species. Let's take for a brief moment the recent Janet Jackson / Justin Timberlake debacle. I don't think Janet or Justin will be involved in any "wardrobe malfunctions" in the near future. Common sense should have told both of them that doing what they did in the chosen venue (SuperBowl) was going to go badly for them. Those who buy that it was some kind of accident probably also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the JFK assassination.
When it comes to business I am an equal opportunity employer through and through. I could care less what color the person's skin is or how young (legal age of course) or old the person is, etc. The only thing that matters to me is whether the person is the best qualified for the job. If every business owner, manager, foreman, human resource coordinator behaved the same way the world would be a better place. Unfortunately there are indeed people who hire based upon other factors which are totally unrelated to the job at hand. But is the solution to offer special jobs that are only for special groups of people? Is that really the best solution? Is it the best solution to allow special right and privileges to a group of people to counteract the people who are covertly discriminating?
Somewhat regularly my wife and I "donate" (now there's a word to put in double quotes) to the local Indian casino, which can operate with games in our state that me as Joe Taxpaying Citizen can't legally operate with if I were so inclined to open up a competing casino on the corner. Sure, I have the legal right to open a casino of my own, but I can't legally offer patrons the same games that are available in an Indian casino fifteen minutes away. Where is the equality in that?
Admittedly I have limited patience for the topic of a given minority (just pick any minority and see if this applies) being factually oppressed when there are special treatments that as a business owner I can't compete against fairly in the marketplace. I should be able to open up a casino, stock it with the same types of games that are available in Indian casinos, but the state says no. But it is not the people's fault that things are this way, it's invariably the government's fault, so I'm placing the blame where it belongs here. I think some people blame Indians for this, but I don't. I blame the government for cutting the deal. And since the government is elected by the people, that puts the blame squarely back on me, doesn't it?
I must admit I don't have a good solution for this situation and it's frustrating. If the government does not pass laws to make special laws for special interest groups and minorities then these prejudices and discrimination can continue without consequence. However, there is a line that once crossed the special interest groups now have an advantage that doesn't allow for fair competition in business.
I am sorry that in the past white people took the Indian land. I'm sorry that the white man hired, traded, maintained and abused slaves. White men have many historical stains on humanity. I am also sorry that today we've got the government spending money that isn't there and making laws which do not promote equality. It leaves me wondering if these laws do more harm than good.
Back to the Indian casinos.
Over the years I've watched firsthand the tribal council get richer and richer and meanwhile much of the rest of the tribe living in broken down mobile homes with cars on blocks strewn about their yards. This isn't me stereotyping, this is what I've witnessed with my own eyes. The casino gets bigger and bigger, generating millions and millions, but drive a half mile and the rest of the tribe only seems to get poorer.
Apparently capitalism is alive and well on tribal grounds also. The government structure that they have contains similar weaknesses, it would seem.
On the way to the casino, we roll across roads with potholes that aren't on tribal land and pass schools with libraries which need books and teachers who need pay increases. I think to myself, can't they legalize gambling so that Joe Regular Businessman or Businesswoman can open up and compete fairly with the Indian casinos? But then I realize that there are people who don't want slot machines in every corner grocery store. I can understand the corrupting the youth with gambling concern, but I wonder if the missed tax revenue is hurting the rest of the needs of the State? So many problems, so few solutions, and yet the wheel turns around and around to one word: equality.
Is there really such a thing as equality?
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Eric Olsen
The best we can do is try to assure equality of opportunity, not result.
I am not the righ person to comment on indian casinos: I abhor gambling of any kind, but especially state-sponsored gambling, in which government preys upon the gullible and stupid.
2 - mike
Equalities breed inequalities so, in the end, it is a question of which inequalities you are willing to live with.
For example, it is a good idea, I think, to give people genuine access to free, universal education, without any consideration at all to a person's ability to pay (putting aside for a moment how society would pay for this).
The only criterion for advancement would be how well each individual took advantage of these opportunities.
There would then be an explosion of an "inequality of resentment," because people who chose not to take full advantage of these opportunities would bitterly resent those who did, human nature being what it is.
That would create a whole new set of social problems (just as ending segregation created new "problems" as more blacks took advantage of integration, fueling fierce white resentment).
But I think it would be worth it, since it would allow society to take full advantage of people's abilities and initiative.
3 - jadester
shame i missed that thread before it closed, but iwent to look at the article anyways to see just what the fuss was about.
"Everyone knows about the high number of crimes committed by "blacks" against whites. With the advent of "Civil Rights," the number of "black" rapes of whites soard. It's "black" men who desire white women, or just non-"black" women."
strange, no mention of the high number of crimes by "whites" against blacks. Maybe this Yeagley guy thinks he knows which side started it (even tho i've no doubt such an issue would evade the best historians, most likely hidden deep, deep within the mists of time). Worse still, he implies that Janet did the stunt because she wanted to show off that everyone loves her.
I also noticed this little gem further up that page:
"...they performed their typical sex-oriented African undulations..."
I mean, has this guy ever actually listened to any white-produced rock music? the majority is about love, sex, love and sex, love and sex and drugs, and how good these things are. And yet he implies that African music is somehow dirtier. I'd count that as racism. You know why?
Racism = the judging of a person/people based upon their race or skin colour. You don't get around the fact that you're a racist just by being sneaky and doing the judging "indirectly" by drawing inferences to use as "proof" that you are "simply stating facts" as opposed to expressing a (racist) opinion.
you can be a knowledgable racist, but that doesn't stop you being a racist.
4 - Eric Olsen
can't argue with access to education for everyone, mike
5 - Ms. Tek
Okay, anytime someone mentions Yeagely, I am going to start to talk about cheese.
So, today, I did not eat anything with cheese in it. Still, later on this evening, I may have cheese on a sandwich. I just don't know yet.
6 - Dawn
I am with you Ms. Tek, cheese just binds me up.
7 - Phillip Winn
Tek, you are the best! Me, I'm somewhat lactose intolerant. It is a problem common to my people (which are, um, "Americans"). So I don't eat much cheese.
Or no, wait, maybe those are unrelated.
8 - BB
"I'm sorry that the white man hired, traded, maintained and abused slaves."
Lest we forget - white folk did NOT invent slavery. Just read your history or the Bible (oops did I just say the B word).
Now everbody smile and say "cheeeeeze"
9 - TDavid
BB - feel free to enlighten: who 'invented' slavery?
10 - Eric Olsen
I don't know who "invented" it, but the Egyptians were big on it like 6,000 years ago. The pyramids were built on the backs of slaves.
11 - TDavid
Where did I hear that it was aliens that built those pyramids? Was on one of those tv shows ... Unsolved Mysteries, Ripley's Believe it or Not ... or maybe it was a Whitley Strieber novel.
12 - duane
'Chariots of the Gods' by Erich von Daniken. Another fine example of pseudoscientific pollution.
In yon olden times, any civ that had the power to acquire a slave class did just that.
13 - BB
TD I'm not certain if your question is rhetorical because I thought that would be obvious :-) I believe Eric has answered it fairly well. It would also apply to other ancient civilizations such as the Aztec & Mayans of the Americas, etc. The point is we fixate on recent history as if white people are the only monsters on this earth. History (and recent events at BC) has shown that evil has no color preference and that is the way it should be (color blindness that is - not the evil part). All civilizations, cultures, colors and creeds since the dawn of mankind are guilty of hideous crimes and none us has the moral right to be smug. All of our ancestors have done things that are shameful and its time we stopped the finger pointing and looked at our own geneology. When we start looking inward then we can look at our fellow man with a little more tolerance and understanding. End of speech.
14 - JR
I think ant colonies employ slaves (insects of other species), although at that level of cognition there's some question of whether there's any "will" to enslave.
In any case, I suspect slavery is like rape, it never had to be invented because it was always practiced in some form. Humans just needed to become self-aware and empathic enough to realize that somebody was being victimized. After a few million years, we finally decided it sucked enough to outlaw it.
15 - duane
"All civilizations, cultures, colors and creeds since the dawn of mankind are guilty of hideous crimes...." Except the Norwegian Vikings, of course.
16 - Mac Diva
My guess is that Indian casinos will turn out to be relatively short term gain. By that, I mean that if we look at what happened to the average worker, say 25 years from now, we will not see that the era of casinos made any difference in asset poverty. Well, maybe for the handful of opportunistic 'leaders' who tend to grab control of any money that enters tribal hands. But, not for most of those involved. Furthermore, the popularity of those casinos will likely be over. They will look like Atlantic City's did before its relative renaissance.
Many if not most, tribal governments are pits of corruption. I think that happens because Native Americans have such high rates of illiteracy, physical and emotional problems. (Yes, though many people do not realize it, worse than African-Americans.) A sneaky, savvy person can take over a tribal leadership position and funnel money and property to his family and friends without even half the population having a clue what is going on. So, it is not the tribe per se that is responsible for the outrages one sees on reservations, but individuals taking advantage of the tribe.
As for someone I shall annoint Gouda Cheese, I understand he went the trying to break into tribal leadership route and was soundly rejected. So, that is part of the reason for his marginality and poverty. He is obsessed with wanting to be leader of something, though. For the life of me, I have never understood why. I don't see that he has any skills of that sort at all. Another mystery is what happened to Gouda doing the 40 or so years he spent being white. He was already the way he is now when he turned up in Indian country.
17 - TDavid
BB - I wasn't suggesting that white people "invented" slavery, I was pointing out, albeit too vaguely I suppose, that this is a drum that is often banged. It seems like after reading your commentary that we pretty much agree on things here.
I am curious though on the business-oriented issues that I addressed and would be curious how folks feel about that.
And I was just mostly kidding around on the aliens comment, but I have truly seen something about that on one of those Sunday afternoon TV shows. There are things that can't be explained about those pyramids.
18 - duane
"There are things that can't be explained about those pyramids." That's because they're really really old, and the Egyptians weren't very diligent about documentation, unlike, say, the Romans. No doubt, once the pyramids on Mars are fully explored, we will know a lot more.
19 - BB
TD any reasonable person will tell you that preference based on race for any reason, business or otherwise, is wrong. Like you said two wrongs don't make a right. By giving more to one you have to take from another and all that accomplishes is resentment which leads to even more bigotry. The best (and only) answer is too make laws that ensure opportunities are accessible to everybody on an equal basis and let well enough alone. But we know that's not the way government works. It seems to prefer convoluting matters and to create divisiveness in the rank and file.
20 - Eric Olsen
The Discovery Channel has solved the mystery of the pyramids ... 37 times.
21 - BB
Is this the cheese channel?
22 - Eric Olsen
omelette du fromage
23 - duane
That's spooky about the Discovery Channel. The prime number 37 appears over and over again. The average weight of the Cheops stones is 37 hundred pounds, the average number of people who walk to its peak is 37 every 28.9 days, the average number of people who complain about no ice in the drinks over at the Great Pyramid gift shoppe and sandwich shoppe is 37 per day, my parents have 37 pictures of the pyramids in their photo album. I am becoming more and more convinced that aliens had something to do with this. Kinda makes you say "Hmmm."
24 - Mac Diva
As long as the harms of discrimination still determine the outcomes of most nonwhite people's lives, efforts to improve those lives are justified. My objections to Indian casinos are:
1) Gambling is a stupid practice for the reasons Eric cited above,
2) Casinos will not solve lack of assets problems, and
3) The profits go disproportionately to the 'leadership' instead of the desperately poor within tribes.
When affirmative action programs are successful I heartily applaud them. I can't think of people more entitled to get some equity from America than Indians and African-Americans. All that work for all those years and nothing to show for it. Affirmative action is barely a drop in the bucket.
What about the white men who whine about the tiny segment of government contracts or tribal autonomous zones that favor minorities and women? In a society where the overwhelming majority of all assets are held by white people, I believe there is something wrong with the whiners. I wonder why they are not whining about the 90-something percent of assets in the country that are in the hands of white people instead? Is it because that is 'how things are supposed to be?' And, if they are so capable, why can't they compete in the regular market economy instead of coveting the small segment of business minorities and women lay claim to? I think it is all of a piece with the long history of white men believing that they are supposed to get their way all the time.
25 - Shark
Coupla things to clear up here:
1) David Hockney built the pyramids.
2) Wal-Mart 'invented' slavery.
3) Cheese is just milk with a long shelf-life.
Yer welcome.