>The question remains: HOW will the
>anti-discrimination laws be enforced absent
>a recognition of race? Don't
>just make a conclusory statement:
>"judges can figure out a
>way", tell me what basis
>they would use to determine
>*distinctions* b/t the two claimants,
>as a baseline. For example:
>"black" plaintiff, "white" defendant, where
>"black" plaintiff claims "white" defendant
>discriminated against him. The judge,
>colorblind, cannot see any distinction
>between the two parties, replies
>"You both look American to
>me, the defendant has 100%
>American workforce (but no "blacks"),
>so I don't see any
>discrimination here". The "black" defendant's
>recourse is what, under your
>theory?

Yuck you're presuming that people are stupid and cant see clearly beyond race that is just not the acse. As I said does the judge need to disavow Christ to judge a case on anti-semitic defamation? Does a judge need to be gay to rule on the case of Matt Shepard? The judge cant act upon examples of discrimination if he doesnt officially observe the parameters upon which that discrimination is founded- thats ludicrous.

>Colorblind theory states that race is
>a social construct with no
>biological basis, which urges that
>people shouldn't be classified into
>racial groups. Sounds very close
>to what you propose.

well that my friend is the truth- what are you suggesting that i propose lies instead?

>Contradictory. You have told people "you
>are not white". You can't
>call someone "white", then tell
>them :you are not white"
>at the same time. If
>you accept what they call
>themselves, you accept the identifier.

yuck Ive said plenty more than that sound bite and all of my views remain consistent unless of course you take it out of context as you just did. On occassions where I told people they werent right- they often came to the same conclusion themselves adding that they would have considered this early but had no reason to question that which they were told was true.

>With race, the baby HAS
>to be thrown out with
>the bathwater. Either you think
>it exists or you think
>it doesn't.

Yuck- if your mind has to work in such simple extreme fashion thats your business but you cant say that this is the manner in which others must think cuz thats just not demonstarted in real life.
I think it exists in a manner of being an oppressive and demeaning social construct, but it most certainly is not substantiated by science or biology- thats just the way it is spirit you can try to have it one way or the other if you want but this is still the truth.

>> that the doctrine and
>>ideology that fostered that term
>
>Where do you think "white" as
>an identifier was established. You
>speak on being scientific. What
>is your source for the
>origin of the word "white"
>as an identifier?

Charles Darwins' "The Origin of Species : By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation ofFavored Races in the Struggle for Life you can find it here

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679600701/qid%3D957368729/sr%3D1-20/104-5523944-2795968

as well as the subsequent writing of charles lyle. These books provided that race had its "scientific" basis in the systems of evolution by which professing that "white" or "caucasians" were more evolved as their features were less "simian"

>>That presumes that all racial categories
>>come from the same place
>>and thats just not true.
>
>Where did each racial term originate?

you'll have to signify what you mean by "each" Ive already told you where "white" racial classifications came from; black ideology came from the Black power movement and pan african movements of the 50's and 60's

>Why aren;t Russians (from the
>eastern portion of the old
>USSR )and Isrealis considered "Asians"?

I dont know- whats your point?

>Why is "Hispanic" considered a
>racial group, then divided into
>white and black Hispanics?

Again I dont know- ask somebody who's Hispanic. and again- what is your point?

>The name black was created just
>like the names Negro (spanish
>for "black") and caucasian were
>created, at some point in
>history, were created.

Thats a lie- the term negro was created to substantiate an ideology that said caucasians were more evolved- you're telling me then they came up with "Black" to signify that we were equal- bullshit cuz that never happened and to this day we have yet to be considered equal- not even in terminology.

>How are
>you going to justify the
>use of terms like "black"
>(which do not include "white"
>people born and raised in
>Africa, but is often used
>as a synonym for African)?

I done this elsewhere and even here- that term has signified a new train of thought since the 50's and 60's you dont have to believe in it but you should at least respect it and where it comes from and not try so hard to rely on your juvenile presumptions of what it means. Read a book- soul on ice- amiri baraka- seven principles; who among them were just commenting on the color of the skin?

>You have to throw the
>baby out with the bathwater
>on this one. "Black" was
>a term used to encompass
>over 1 billion people with
>wide ranging physical and cultural
>differences...in that sense, the term
>has no scientific basis and
>is arbitrary: it isn't based
>merely on direct African lineage
>(which ALL people have) or
>even African lineage within a
>few generations (as many Latinos,
>with "African blood" do not
>consider themselves, and are not
>generally considered, black...while certain North
>African populations are so similar
>in appearance to "Arabs" that
>placing them in the same
>category as people in Zimbabwe
>or Los Angeles seems patently
>ridiculous).

You really should study the etymology of th term Black as it stemmed from the Black nationalist movements- your ideas only represent a colloquial and common use of the word but not necessarily the manner in which i or many Black nationalists use it- as such i cant really comment on what Black is according to a great number of people who may or may not know what it actually means. Doing that would be like accepting simply that since people believed they were white that they were.

>Actually, you can check any box
>you want. No imposition at
>all, IT'S VOLUNTARY WHICH RACIAL
>GROUP YOU CHOOSE. Maybe you
>need to check the Census
>again.

so why are there no boxes provided for european american peoples?

>>Eliminate all statistical data provided for
>>on the grounds of race-
>>start a new census elaborating
>>on the more accurate boundaries
>>of national and ethnic origin.
>>Make this a public exposition
>>on race ideologies and reinforce
>>this period with more emphasis
>>on cultural awareness and diversity,
>>bring culture to the citizen-
>>instate a geneological discovery program
>>for children through the public
>>education system. Fund charter schools
>>geared towards cultural education. If
>>somebody wants to continue thinking
>>they are "white" they are
>>allowed to but if they
>>use that to demean anyone
>>else's livelihood then they will
>>see due process just like
>>any other circumstances.

>I'm talking about the law.

right and im talking about solutions- but you dont want to hear that.

>About
>when someone says they've been
>discriminated against and they go
>in court to find relief...or
>they go to Congress and
>ask for new laws to
>be passed....what you state above
>are cosmetic changes which don't
>deal with the pervasive racial
>discrimination in America today...

Oh word teaching cultural diversity and acceptance doesnt provide any alleviation of pervasively discriminatory society. Maybe we should stick to believing lies and legislating them eh?

>changing census
>data won't stop job discrimination
>and without any legal apparatus
>to punish parties caught in
>the act discriminating, it can
>only get worse.

yuck read the last line spirit.

I used to think you were good at debating but now I realize your only weapon is to avoid the issues raised and question other examples that work on you behalf. Ive answered all your questions and challenges try a few of mine.

What scientific property will demonstrate racial variance among groups that are socially considered racially diverse? What is the biological difference between a White person and a Jew?

Why does the US government or Court system need to adopt race ideology to judicate racial improprieties when it doesnt extend that favor in judicating discrimination of other ideologies- ie sex discrimination, faith discrimination, anti-semitism?

How do we prosecute someone for acting upon an ideology that you propse we continue to honor? The doctrine of race classification- the only pragmatic data that will substantiate anyone's claim of being "white"- says that Whites are more evolved than other races. As such if a "white" person discriminates on a Black man because they claim he's naturally inferior you can back that up by the "science" of race ideology- how do you avoid that if the court believes in and supports the same thing.

K