NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/discrimi/5437

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 5.1 KB

Xref: sparky alt.discrimination:5437 soc.culture.african.american:13179 misc.education:5488
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu!ohall
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,soc.culture.african.american,misc.education
Subject: Re: Institutional racism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:32:51 MST
References: <[e-mail]> <1992Dec12.145948.923@blkbox>
 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa,local
Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu
Nntp-Posting-User: ohall
Lines: 76

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> |> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
> |> > In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> |> >>In article <1992Dec12.145948.923@blkbox>, collins@blkbox (Chad R. Collins) writes:
> |> >>> [e-mail] (Kent L. Shephard) writes:
> |> >
> |> >>  Maybe it's because we are the most easily identifiable.  I have known blacks
> |> >>  who look white and they have expressed the discrimination the face when it is
> |> >>  discovered that they are black.  White females in the work force are commonly
> |> >>  faced with the problem of it not being discovered that they are married to
> |> >>  a black man.  Co-workers of mine experienced it and told me so.
> |> >
> |> > So, what are they worried about?  Being fired because they are married to
> |> > a black man?  I think in most places all it would get you is a few unwelcome
> |> > stares.  More than anything I think this is mostly just a case of the
> |> > unusual attracting attention.  I KNOW it makes a big difference where you
> |> > live too.  Here in Hollywood, I see mixed race couples all the time and I
> |> > rarely take more than a passing notice of it (and neither does anyone else).
> |> > In less-integrated places (places where mixed marriages are more rare) such
> |> > a relationship would probably attract some attention, but do you really
> |> > think it would get you fired?
> |> >
> |>   Why should they chance it?  Besides who enjoys being stared at because you
> |>   are married to one of another race.  This nation is terribly behind.  It
> |>   hurts and it is sick!
>
> Don't be a fool. Everybody notices the unusual most often. It is human nature
> and there is nothing wrong with it. If they don't enjoy being stared at they
> should avoid unusual things. In Arizona, Inter-racial couples are unusual.
> I pity anybody who is so shy, they are distrubed by a little extra attention.
>
  A little extra attention.  Is that what you call it?  Why is it to most of
  you whites I have been conversing with everything that bothers me and other
  blacks seems to be little?

  It may seem little now!

> |> >>  It's kind of bad when in a white school system a white girl says to a black
> |> >>  boy "I like you but my dad would not approve...".
> |> >
> |> > I think these days most parents would be a bit more open-minded than that
> |> > don't you?
>
> Yeah, right? It hasn't happened yet. A large fraction of the people who are
> parents now would get really pissed. Fortunatelly, this is not the case for
> the people who will be parents in years to come. Give it 20 years.
>
  That remains to be seen.
  Hey joker, why didn't you speak up when response > |> > above was originally
  posted?  I guess there is a white man who doesn't live in Hollywood who
  agrees that parents aren't open minded.
  If you agree that this large fraction of parents would be pissed, then why
  do you have trouble believing that there is extreme predjudice in the job
  market, etc.?  Where does this large fraction of parents work?

  Give it 20 years!! That's a common expression.  Things are getting better.
  Give it time.  The check is in the mail.

  In 20 years or not, I'm on a different course.  In other words, as Clark
  Gable once said "Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a *#$%!"

> |>   As a brother stated earlier, why so long after our so called freedom we
> |> finally get the supreme court to remove laws used to oppress blacks off of the
> |> books.  Do you understand the damage that has been done for such a long period
> |> of time.  This nation lied and said we were free when we were not.  Like I said
> |> this baby is slow.
>
> You were completelly free. 100%. This freedom included the ability (guaranteed
> in the constitution) to move from one state to another if you disliked the laws.
> This guarantee (made over 200 years ago) was included for prcisely this reason.
>
  Why should there be laws I wouldn't like in a particular state unless they
  were racist?   No one legislated racism in the work force 200 years ago yet
  it existed.  Don't tell me about your laws!!!  I learned from whites that
  rules are made to be broken.