"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
It behooves all of us to be just as indignant about
racism in any venue, regardless of ethnicity of the
racist.


But whites are often the sole receipient of that indignation, Kim. Show me
a message anywhere in any of these newsgroups at any time where you've
expressed any indignation whatsoever about the racism of any other racial
group. If you're typical, I seriously doubt you can do so. Instead, you
attempt to explain away the racism of others like you've done below.


That having been said, I can understand some of the
seclusion each race enjoys from others, IF the purpose
is cultural. What is specific to a black mayors
conference are those things specifically related to black
issues in the community(ies) they represent. (snip)


I thought a mayor is elected to represent the whole community, not solely
the "black issues in the community(ies) they represent." What about the
whites issues in the communities they represent? Why aren't those black
mayors getting together to discuss those? Since those black mayors won't,
who does address those issues? Absolutely nobody is the only answer. If a
white mayor, or any other politician (black or white, police chief to
president), expresses even a hint of concern for white issues, the word
"racist" is immediately thrown around. In the end, a concern for whites is
just about an ultimate sin in this government. And it is going to stay that
way until whites start demanding some representation for their issues in
this government.


I am certain that if there were issues that needed addressing
in a "whites only" venue, then you'd see a white mayors
conference and, honestly, I am not so sure there isn't one.


Be serious, Kim. First, I suspect a conference like that would be
considered illegal by the Justice Department - minorities can but whites
cannot. Second, if such a conference were held, groups throughout the
country would be out outraged, demonstrations would be held, lawsuits would
be filed, and people like you would be running around screaming your
indignation again.


What we may find generally attractive in a representative for
the United States in a Miss America, is totally different from
what the Black/Negro/Colored (depending on the part of
society and geographical/historical perspective you come from)
find in a representative specific to Black America.


And that justifies the intentional and specific exclusion of other races
in those pageants? Why would what you say not be true for whites, yet such
an event held by whites which specificially excludes other races is illegal.

And I'll add to JJ's examples. What about black colleges which exclude
other races? What about black owned businesses with not a single white
employee in the entire building (many in my town alone)? What about the
"Negro College Fund" which offers benefits only to blacks. What about "Black
Entertainment Television?" I could list more. The point is that it would all
be illegal (discrimination) if done by whites.


I don't see that a all male organization is necessarily
discriminatory, either. (snip)


If the goals of that male-only organization were to promote the political
and/or social advancement of males, would you still hold that same opinion?


What about a sports organization that won't allow women?


Based on physical strength, not racial, social, or ethnic, considerations,
Kim. There is a huge difference.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
It behooves all of us to be just as indignant about
racism in any venue, regardless of ethnicity of the
racist.


But whites are often the sole receipient of that indignation, Kim. Show
me
a message anywhere in any of these newsgroups at any time where you've
expressed any indignation whatsoever about the racism of any other racial
group. If you're typical, I seriously doubt you can do so. Instead, you
attempt to explain away the racism of others like you've done below.



I doubt I am typical, Dwight. I also don't know if you'd find any posts
like you describe above. However, you're quite wrong about my being
indignant toward *any* form of discrimination. I am and always have been,
as far as I know. I remember even as a kid being offended by such things.
I am just as adamant about women bashing men as I am about anyone else
bashing based on gender, race, etc.


That having been said, I can understand some of the
seclusion each race enjoys from others, IF the purpose
is cultural. What is specific to a black mayors
conference are those things specifically related to black
issues in the community(ies) they represent. (snip)


I thought a mayor is elected to represent the whole community, not
solely
the "black issues in the community(ies) they represent." What about the
whites issues in the communities they represent? Why aren't those black
mayors getting together to discuss those?


Dwight, for goodness sake. I am not going to get into a huge idiosynchratic
dialogue with you about this issue. Suffice it to say that days like Black
Mayoral Conferences are set aside to deal specifically with, well, specific
things. I have no doubt that someone who is on the up and up about their
position in a community--regardless of who they are--is doing their job as
they should be. It sounds like it's an issue for you, though. Sorry I
don't buy into it.


Since those black mayors won't,
who does address those issues? Absolutely nobody is the only answer.


Then, I doubt they'll be in office long. It's as simple as that.


If a
white mayor, or any other politician (black or white, police chief to
president), expresses even a hint of concern for white issues, the word
"racist" is immediately thrown around.


Sure. By nitwits who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Do
you choose to listen to them, believe them, appreciate or agree with them?
I don't.


In the end, a concern for whites is
just about an ultimate sin in this government. And it is going to stay
that
way until whites start demanding some representation for their issues in
this government.


I don't know, Dwight. That sounds pretty serious to me...and I haven't
really witnessed such a thing. You point out behaviors that are certainly
around--I won't deny that. But, they are in the minority and displayed by
blithering idiots.



I am certain that if there were issues that needed addressing
in a "whites only" venue, then you'd see a white mayors
conference and, honestly, I am not so sure there isn't one.


Be serious, Kim. First, I suspect a conference like that would be
considered illegal by the Justice Department - minorities can but whites
cannot. Second, if such a conference were held, groups throughout the
country would be out outraged, demonstrations would be held, lawsuits
would
be filed, and people like you would be running around screaming your
indignation again.


"People like me"? People like me?! Describe a "people like me" won't you?
I'm quite offended by the characterization there, Dwight, I'll tell you
that.

The chaos you describe above is that of movies and books. I think this
country and the people in it have moved a little bit further ahead than the
concepts which you depict above. We're all still quite capable of senseless
rage once in a while--but, for the most part, we've become very civil in our
dealings with each other. Thank goodness for that. And, we have a long,
long way to go.


What we may find generally attractive in a representative for
the United States in a Miss America, is totally different from
what the Black/Negro/Colored (depending on the part of
society and geographical/historical perspective you come from)
find in a representative specific to Black America.


And that justifies the intentional and specific exclusion of other races
in those pageants?


Yeah. Probably.


Why would what you say not be true for whites, yet such
an event held by whites which specificially excludes other races is
illegal.


I doubt that quite seriuosly. Check out many clubs around this country and
let me know how many non-white members you see. Hell, there are probably
some golf courses Tiger Woods isn't allowed on, for goodness sake.


And I'll add to JJ's examples. What about black colleges which exclude
other races?


Are you as upset about gender specific schools? I gave some other examples,
such as women's sports, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Masons, Eastern Star--all
and many more of which are specific to "types" of membership, Dwight. I've
got pretty much no problem with them.


What about black owned businesses with not a single white
employee in the entire building (many in my town alone)?


Aw, c'mon. How many non-Chinese people are working at your local Chinese
restaraunt? Have *you* applied for a positoin at the company you mention,
above? Maybe no one's applied. Not saying they don't practice
discrimination. If they do, then they're as wrong as wrong can be. Do
something about it.



What about the
"Negro College Fund" which offers benefits only to blacks. What about
"Black
Entertainment Television?" I could list more. The point is that it would
all
be illegal (discrimination) if done by whites.


I think you're going way, way overboard. What about "SPIKE" TV? Ya upset
about that?



I don't see that a all male organization is necessarily
discriminatory, either. (snip)


If the goals of that male-only organization were to promote the
political
and/or social advancement of males, would you still hold that same
opinion?


Personally, I *hope* they *are* promoting the political and/or social
advancement of males. Seen the requirements of some finishing schools
lately?


What about a sports organization that won't allow women?


Based on physical strength, not racial, social, or ethnic,
considerations,
Kim. There is a huge difference.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



Pah....there it is. Now, that is as discriminatory as you can get, Dwight.
And, I'm glad you walked right into what I was hoping I'd be able to
demonstrate. Based on your opinion of women as demure and refined (ok, I'm
going overboard there), you believe that sports organizations are keeping
women out for the reason of their weakness. That's crap. You don't think
there's women who could train and get pumped up enough to be on a male
basketball team? Football, etc.? Sorry, I've seen 'em in the Ladies' Room.

We are all people. I have every comfort in people feeling the need to
"separate" into their corners once in a while. It is when the separatism
becomes hateful that I have a problem...

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Dwight, for goodness sake. I am not going to get
into a huge idiosynchratic dialogue with you about
this issue. Suffice it to say that days like Black
Mayoral Conferences are set aside to deal
specifically with, well, specific things. (snip)


But there cannot be a white mayors conference to discuss, well, specific
things. There are laws against discrimination in this country which makes
such events illegal. But those laws don't apply to blacks and other
minorities. If it did, the Justice Department would have shut down the black
mayors' conference.


"People like me"? People like me?! Describe a
"people like me" won't you? I'm quite offended by
the characterization there, Dwight, I'll tell you
that.


"People like you" are those who accuse a person of racism without giving
that person an opportunity to explain anything you objected to. You did so
in the very first message you posted to this thread. "People like you" are
those who express indignation against one type of discrimination while
trying to justify or explain away another.


I doubt that quite seriuosly. (snip)


You doubt there are laws prohibiting discrimination? Where have you been
for the last few decades? A white oriented event or activity that
specifically excludes other races is, and has been for a number of years,
illegal. Yet there are events and activities throughout this country each
year (such as the black mayor's conference) that specifically exclude
whites. Openly allowing discrimination against whites while asserting court
litigation against whites who discriminate against minorities is patently
unfair. If you want one to be illegal, both should be illegal. And I simply
don't think that is a racist view.


Are you as upset about gender specific schools? I gave
some other examples, such as women's sports, Girl
Scouts, Boy Scouts, Masons, Eastern Star--all and many
more of which are specific to "types" of membership,
Dwight. I've got pretty much no problem with them.


Most of those are private organizations, not political or business
organizations, Kim. The courts say there is a huge difference. And I agree
there is a huge difference, which is why I've not mentioned a single private
organization (black or otherwise) throughout this discussion. Instead, I've
focused solely on business and political organizations.


Aw, c'mon. How many non-Chinese people are working
at your local Chinese restaraunt? Have *you* applied for
a position at the company you mention above? Maybe no
one's applied. (snip)


First of all, I don't work for others anymore. I own my own companies.
However, to address your specific point, the courts have ruled that the
simple absense of minority employees in a place of business can show a
"practice of discrimination." But, as I've already said, that doesn't apply
to black owned businesses which refuse to hire white employees - as far as I
know, there has never been a single successful case against a black owned
company for discrimination against whites.


I think you're going way, way overboard. What about
"SPIKE" TV? Ya upset about that?


What is there to be upset about? Are they excluding blacks in the
television programs they show? Most of the shows I've seen on Spike TV have
minorities in them.


Pah....there it is. Now, that is as discriminatory as you can
get, Dwight. And, I'm glad you walked right into what I was
hoping I'd be able to demonstrate. Based on your opinion
of women as demure and refined (ok, I'm going overboard
there), you believe that sports organizations are keeping
women out for the reason of their weakness. That's crap.
You don't think there's women who could train and get
pumped up enough to be on a male basketball team?
Football, etc.? Sorry, I've seen 'em in the Ladies' Room.


That's not what I think, Kim. Actually, since I'm not involved in sports
in any way, I haven't given it much thought at all. Regardless, as I
understand it, the practice is based on studies that have shown that women
are injured more when allowed to participate in extremely physical sports
activities with men. That was backed up by medical studies that have shown
that the typical woman's bone structure is not as strong as the typical
man's, no matter how much she pumps up her muscles in the gym. Where those,
and other physical differences, are significant, certain exclusions have
been allowed by the courts. Where it is not significant, exclusions are not
allowed.

Women participating in those sports activities seem to agree with the
courts. Since few of the top women weight lifters, for example, can lift as
much as a male in the same weight class, few have expressed any interest
whatsoever in competing directly with men. That seems to be the case with
most other similar sports activities.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:


"People like me"? People like me?! Describe a
"people like me" won't you? I'm quite offended by
the characterization there, Dwight, I'll tell you
that.


"People like you" are those who accuse a person of racism without giving
that person an opportunity to explain anything you objected to. You did so
in the very first message you posted to this thread. "People like you" are
those who express indignation against one type of discrimination while
trying to justify or explain away another.



And you rolled me up into your neat littlle "people like you" package,
Dwight. And, I don't think I've accused you at all of being a racist. I am
so sure of this, I won't even look back on the older posts from me.

So, forget about dialogue...we both know where the other stands.

Kim W5TIT