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?


>>You never explained the difference betweem
>>your theory and colorblind theory.
>
>Thats because I dont have a
>very clear understanding of your
>idea of "colorblind theory" so
>ill instead explain my theory
>further and you can determine
>the difference for yourself.

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.

>>Why, for example, would call
>>a culturally and physically diverse
>>groupop of people "black" while
>>refusing to name a culturally
>>and physically diverse group of
>>people "white"?
>
>I would call any group of
>people that which they choose
>to be called as that
>is one of the seven
>principles (Kugichagulia: self determination). in
>this case a great number
>of "Black" people choose to
>be called that and the
>ideology that it stems from
>is easily documented and referenced.
>I dont refuse to call
>people "white"- i refuse to
>accept

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

> 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?

>That presumes that all racial categories
>come from the same place
>and thats just not true.

Where did each racial term originate? Why aren;t Russians (from the eastern portion of the old USSR )and Isrealis considered "Asians"? Why is "Hispanic" considered a racial group, then divided into white and black Hispanics?

>Is the term Black based
>on the same scientific misgivings
>and presumptuous lies that fostered
>ideas of caucasians and negroes
>and mongloids- hell no.

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

>>The government isn't "imposing" anything. No
>>one's forcing me to call
>>myself black.
>
>read the census holmes- White people
>are classified either as White
>or "other". While there are
>specifications for African Americans and
>12 varieties of Asian American
>there is no demarcation for
>russian americans, irish americans, polish
>americans, etc. that my friend
>is an imposition.

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.

>>You still haven't explained how. Break
>>down a hypothetical government program.
>>My question is how do
>>you deal with it. You
>>still haven't answered HOW.
>
>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. 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...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.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.