Asian box is now checked off at the House Of Ideas...

[Mr 9.8]

I'll be surprised if this thread is here in the morning.

[Lazyboy]

What if Marvel is trying to create something like... an ALL NEW ALL DIFFERENT universe or something...

 

They already did that. It failed. The Ultimate Universe is dead. (We won't even acknowledge the New Universe, which had actual new characters)

 

Wait.. What if Marvel is trying to increase their fan base?

 

They should learn how to do it better.

 

Why can't we be excited that the same characters and stories that have been used up over the course of the last '50 years' are changing. We get new stories! New heroes! As a comic book fan this should be amazing news.

 

No, we get arbitrarily-modified already-popular heroes. It would be great if we actually got new heroes. It's just too bad that the nature of corporations, money and creators being aware of the history of the industry prevents that from happening in any real way at Marvel and DC.

 

The fact that this thread exists at all shows that there is indeed systemic racism in our society, and in this forum.

 

If you are unhappy with the new Hulk simply because 'he's not white anymore' then you're a racist.

 

If you're unhappy with Thor because she's a she now, and not a he then you're a sexist.

 

We are all humans. We all deserve the same respect. I can't believe the level of ignorance I've witnessed in this thread. I really hope it gets locked, because it's a sad representation of some of the people who post here.

 

I'm unhappy with any stupid, arbitrary garbage that some worthless hack comes up with to ruin an established character that I like. That's why I gave up on Marvel long ago, well before race and/or gender became the big, special change.

 

Good writers come up with good stories that fit the character(s) they are writing or they create new characters. Bad writers change established characters in ridiculous ways to fit their stupid ideas for worthless stories.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

There's no such thing as "systemic level." That's redundant. "Systemic" already means "system wide."

 

And no, there's no systemic racism in "our" country (I assume you mean the US) and hasn't been since at least the 70's.

 

What you see in the media is smoke and mirrors.

 

And Lazyboy is completely right. It's the bigotry of low expectations, that "minority" (whatever THAT means) characters can't succeed on their own, that they have to mimic established characters to be successful. It's just more of the same from the people who brought you the incredibly destructive "affirmative action."

 

"There, there, minority people. We know you're not capable of doing things yourself (except you overachieving Asians over there....we've got our eyes on you...), so we'll structure it so that expectations for you are lowered, so you can "compete at the same level" as everyone else (which is really a level, or several, down.) In essence: you can't compete on your own terms, and you need us kind, compassionate white folk (read: guilt-ridden liberals) to give you a "hand up" to bring you to our level."

 

Can you think of anything more demeaning, demoralizing, dis-incentivizing, and downright racist when applied to those of different ethnicities?

 

It's destructive to the core, and has done immeasurable damage to "minorities" in this country (with, again, the exception of the "overachieving Asians" who get mysteriously left out of these programs.)

 

I'm still waiting for the promise of judging everyone by the contents of their characters, rather than the color of their skin, to be fulfilled, all the way around, for everybody, all the time.

 

You make very well articulated arguments, and I typically admire the way you do so. But the above is most certainly just your opinion, and you've stated it very matter-of-factly. I don't usually have the time or the focus to get into wordy arguments, but I thought I'd give a response...

 

Well, I suppose I should consider myself flattered...?

 

 

I always do wonder, however, why people say things like "what you've said is just your opinion (which really means "and I think it's completely wrong.")"

 

Because here's reality: the vast majority of what EVERYONE says is just opinion, especially when they're talking about non-scientific, complex subjects. Look at the word: "Subject." The opposite of "object." "Subjective" comes from the same idea.

 

But, that never seems to be stated when people agree with what's being said, right...? "That's just your opinion (even though I agree with it)"...?

 

Why is that...?

 

 

[...] And no, there's no systemic racism in "our" country (I assume you mean the US) and hasn't been since at least the 70's.

 

What you see in the media is smoke and mirrors.

 

I disagree. I don't know how to prove that there is, but many many people agree that there is in one way or another. So I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there is a logical and reasonable argument to the contrary.

 

I will point out the trump card which completely and totally disproves your statement, without coming too close to the forbidden zone: the executive of this country was put in place...twice...in a nation with a majority "white" population.

 

That could never, ever, ever have happened if the "systemic racism" you claim was still in place actually existed. It simply couldn't have happened.

 

That's not to say that there wasn't some form of racism involved in that...there certainly was, with many people making their selection solely and specifically because of race, which is just as racist as excluding because of it, but that's not the "systemic racism" you're referring to, I suspect.

 

And Lazyboy is completely right. It's the bigotry of low expectations, that "minority" (whatever THAT means) characters can't succeed on their own, that they have to mimic established characters to be successful...

 

I'm assuming that ""minority" (whatever THAT means)" is sarcasm, but I don't really understand the point of it. You disagree with the entire concept of the term "minority"?

 

Yes. It is an outdated, useless, and worse, divisive term that doesn't belong in 21st century discussion. Everyone but Hispanics are "minorities" (including "whites") in California, and does that matter? Not one bit.

 

It's not about minority [superhero] characters succeeding on their own, its about any new superhero character succeeding on its own. Lots of brand new titles flop and flounder. Obviously the big wigs and Marvel and DC have an agenda to push a more diverse line up. It's become apparent that that is a goal of theirs, some think its a goal, but it is one. So if that's their angle, why would it make more sense to build a brand from the ground up and hope that it catches on in a big way, as opposed to simply shaking up their current hit titles?

 

Because you're looking at it from a narrow point of view. Did Storm begin as a brand "from the ground up"? Yes. Did Wolverine? How about Power Man? Yes. Black Panther? Yup. Did the New Mutants? Yes. Did Deadpool? Yes. Did Cable? Yes. All these characters were built "from the ground up", and all of them succeeded quite well.

 

Changing existing characters, so they have a supposed "platform" to jump from is intellectual and creative laziness, and...almost guaranteed to fail. Those characters and concepts that were mere copies of other successful characters have invariably failed. It has only been the new, bold, and exciting that has succeeded, throughout comics history.

 

Superman was a success because Superman was different. All the Superman clones that came after...? Not so much, really.

 

Spiderman was a success because Spiderman was different. All the Spiderman clones that came after....? Again, not so much.

 

So, why will this time be any different?

 

It won't. It will be the same old, tired, intellectually and creatively lazy thing, and it will fail, precisely because it's just the same thing, in a different package.

 

They are constantly making huge "earth shattering" changes to their universes, why is this one so pathetic? They aren't mimicking established characters, they are becoming established characters. According to wikipedia, there have been 4+ different iterations of The Flash, 7 of Batman, and 13+ Captain Americas. Were all of those changes just as pathetic? Why is it only when the character's race (or gender) changes that there is so much backlash?

 

Who is Batman, now? Bruce Wayne, right...?

 

Who is Captain America...? Mostly Steve Rogers, right...? With some (short) periods in between...?

 

How many times has DC "Crisis'd" their universe? And what is the only one that people invariably refer to as great? The first one. The successful one. The "real" one. The rest were just copies of the same, and accomplished little to nothing of any lasting significance.

 

Those changes made sense in context. What do you mean, "so much backlash"? You speak as if there's never any backlash when ANY of these characters are fiddled with, but I assure you, if you've been around comic boards long enough, you'll see this kind of backlash over ANY significant change, not just "race or gender."

 

And, you know what? If it makes sense in the context of the story, great. That's fine. But many of these changes haven't made sense and they are forced into being because of editorial, rather than creative, directives.

 

And who said anything about it being "pathetic"? I certainly didn't. That's your word, not mine.

 

...It's just more of the same from the people who brought you the incredibly destructive "affirmative action.

 

"There, there, minority people. We know you're not capable of doing things yourself (except you overachieving Asians over there....we've got our eyes on you...), so we'll structure it so that expectations for you are lowered, so you can "compete at the same level" as everyone else (which is really a level, or several, down.) In essence: you can't compete on your own terms, and you need us kind, compassionate white folk (read: guilt-ridden liberals) to give you a "hand up" to bring you to our level."

 

Can you think of anything more demeaning, demoralizing, dis-incentivizing, and downright racist when applied to those of different ethnicities?

 

It's destructive to the core, and has done immeasurable damage to "minorities" in this country (with, again, the exception of the "overachieving Asians" who get mysteriously left out of these programs.)

 

 

Your interpretation of affirmative action is kinda gross.

 

I think the same of yours.

 

It's supposed to be a way to allow minorities into careers and industries that for a long time locked them out. I'm sure you won't believe this, but there are operations all over the country that would hire zero minorities at all given the option. There are HR reps who won't even consider hiring a black or hispanic or middle eastern applicant unless their hand is forced. So to answer your question, yes, I can think of something more demeaning, demoralizing, dis-incentivizing, and downright racist. I won't argue that affirmative action is a perfect, and without flaws. I think it's a patchwork solution to a problem that a lot of people think doesn't exist anymore.

 

That, of course, isn't remotely true.

 

There's not a single company in the country that would actually NOT hire someone specifically because of their race...they would be destroyed in the court of public opinion.

 

Here's reality: you will never, ever, ever eliminate racism. Ever. If someone doesn't want to hire someone because of their ethnicity...whatever it is....they will find a way to do it. But, eventually, they will be found out, and they will be shamed, and perhaps out of business; not by the force of regulation, but by the efficiency of the market. That's how it's supposed to work.

 

So I'll offer my own (admittedly biased) interpretation...

 

"Hey, minorities. We know many of you have historically been excluded from many career and job opportunities simply because of the color of your skin.

 

Such as...?

 

And when you say "historically", are you referring to last year? Or 70 years ago? Because if it's 70 years ago, why does it matter? That labor force, if it's even still alive, is LONG out of it, and those working now weren't affected by it then, because they weren't even alive.

 

Do you realize that it has been 68 YEARS since a black man joined Major League Baseball...? And that no one in their right mind would exclude a qualified player of ANY color, and hasn't for at least 50 years....?

 

We're attempting to right that wrong. So we are going to enact policy to try ensure firms don't continue discriminatory hiring practices. In essence: we understand that for many minorities, the job market is slanted against you, so we're are offering a hand up to level the playing field is some small way."

 

And you don't think that's demeaning...? "Hey minorities"...? And how do you know the job market is "slanted against them"? You don't think telling someone they NEED a "hand up" isn't insulting to someone who doesn't want, much less need, your "help"?

 

When I was hiring people to work for me, I didn't care what their skin color was...I only cared how good they were at the job. I hired black guys, white guys, brown guys (I didn't have the opportunity to hire females...they simply weren't interested in Finish Carpentry....or I would have.) The only reason I knew they were white, black, brown, or other was because I wasn't blind. Otherwise....it just didn't matter. Do you do the job well, yes/no?

 

In my own business, I have a half German/half Jamaican (yes, he's white AND black) guy working for me. Previously, I had a middle aged European woman (that is, "white"), and her teenage daughter.

 

I don't give a flat DAMN what your skin color or gender is....can you do the job to my satisfaction, yes/no? That's the only question I care about.

 

And I'm hardly alone.

 

But why shouldn't people be free to associate...including hiring and firing...of anyone they want, for any reason, at any time?

 

If they choose to not hire people because of their color, shouldn't they be free to do that? And if they do, don't you think people will not support them by not giving them their business...?

 

"But (GASP!) there will be people who SUPPORT their decisions!!"

 

And....?

 

So....?

 

How does that harm anyone?

 

What is stopping ANYONE from saying "you know what? I don't like that Company XYZ doesn't hire Cablinasians (like Tiger Woods.)" I'm going to start my own company, and hire EVERYBODY, and drive that Company XYZ right out of business!"....?

 

What's stopping anyone from doing that?

 

NOTHING. Nothing at all.

 

You know what IS stopping people from doing that?

 

Affirmative Action. Minimum wage laws. Regulations. These are the things, aimed at trying to HELP the "downtrodden" (a despicable, demeaning, demoralizing term) that do them the most harm.

 

I'm also interested in damage this has done to "minorities" also. I see it can't be measure apparently, but can it be described?

 

 

Yes, it can. Look at the damage done to "minorities" across the country, who have been told...persistently and ever so "compassionately"...how they can't do it themselves, they can't succeed on their own, that they need "the benevolent and gracious white man" to help them, to save them, to give them a hand.

 

It's DISGUSTING, and it destroys lives, by convincing people that they simply can't make it without help from someone or something else, and so when they fail....as EVERYONE must fail...they give up. They don't even try.

 

Do you know how many times Abraham Lincoln failed? He was born into staggering poverty. He taught himself the law. He lost several elections and appointments, including a run for US Senate. He failed at business...twice. His mother died when he was nine. Two of his four sons predeceased him.

 

How about Madam CJ Walker, a black "hair culturalist" who started her own business and became a millionaire in the early 1900's; a time for blacks that is unfathomable today? She did it.

 

How about Cesar Chavez, who was born to a family that lost everything in the Great Depression, and ended up becoming migrant workers? He later founded the National Farm Worker's Association, which became the UFW. Did he need a "hand up" from anyone?

 

But the message told for the last 40 years by "progressivism" is this: "We know things were bad for your parents, grandparents, and maybe even you. We know you can't do anything on your own to get out of your desperate situation, because...well...you just don't have it in you. So, we're here to graciously help you. Because believe us: without our help, you'll remain in poverty forever."

 

How demeaning. How demoralizing. How destructive. How racist.

 

When we stop making determinations about people....ANY determinations, "good" or bad, "positive" or negative...based on the color of their skin, then we will have achieved the effective end of racism.

 

That will be a glorious, glorious day.

[PIR8]

I always do wonder, however, why people say things like "what you've said is just your opinion (which really means "and I think it's completely wrong.")"

 

Because here's reality: the vast majority of what EVERYONE says is just opinion, especially when they're talking about non-scientific, complex subjects. Look at the word: "Subject." The opposite of "object." "Subjective" comes from the same idea.

 

But, that never seems to be stated when people agree with what's being said, right...? "That's just your opinion (even though I agree with it)"...?

 

Why is that...?

 

 

 

Fair enough I suppose. But you made some very presumptuous claims, and offered nothing in the form of support. A large number of reasonable people would find the idea that their hasn't been systemic racism in our country since at least the 70's naive at absolute best.

 

 

I thought I wanted to have a light discussion about race with you, but I was mistaken. Some of your viewpoints are fairly extreme.

 

 

[MediumLover]

Racism, systemic racism is alive and well

Affirmative action was a poor answer to a playing field that is still not level.

[Mr 9.8]

Racism, systemic racism is alive and well

Affirmative action was a poor answer to a playing field that is still not level.

Are we talking about racism in only the u.s. or the whole world?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Racism, systemic racism is alive and well

Affirmative action was a poor answer to a playing field that is still not level.

 

Sorry, but this simply isn't true, and one need look no further than the house that is white to prove it.

 

If what you said is true, that simply wouldn't be possible.

 

Your attitude and opinion hurts the very people you (seem to?) want to help, by encouraging people to think of themselves as victims of a "system" that is "out to get them" (you say it right up there: "Racism is alive and well"), rather than taking responsibility for themselves and their circumstances.

 

It's hideously destructive. It's pure poison.

[MediumLover]

Quota and legacy based preferences are particularly unfair and damaging

[MediumLover]

Racism, systemic racism is alive and well

Affirmative action was a poor answer to a playing field that is still not level.

 

Sorry, but this simply isn't true, and one need look no further than the house that is white to prove it.

 

If what you said is true, that simply wouldn't be possible.

 

Your attitude and opinion hurts the very people you (seem to?) want to help, by encouraging people to think of themselves as victims of a "system" that is "out to get them" (you say it right up there: "Racism is alive and well"), rather than taking responsibility for themselves and their circumstances.

 

It's hideously destructive. It's pure poison.

 

Who said all that ?

You cite exceptions and say systemic racism does not exist

 

Despite the fact it exists, it can be , and is overcome by hard work.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I always do wonder, however, why people say things like "what you've said is just your opinion (which really means "and I think it's completely wrong.")"

 

Because here's reality: the vast majority of what EVERYONE says is just opinion, especially when they're talking about non-scientific, complex subjects. Look at the word: "Subject." The opposite of "object." "Subjective" comes from the same idea.

 

But, that never seems to be stated when people agree with what's being said, right...? "That's just your opinion (even though I agree with it)"...?

 

Why is that...?

 

 

 

Fair enough I suppose. But you made some very presumptuous claims, and offered nothing in the form of support.

 

Such as....? Be specific, not vague. It's easy to make vague claims; not so easy to prove them. I addressed every one of your points, but you only make vague claims of presumption and lack of support. I think I've offered a significant amount of support, but if I have fallen short, telling me exactly what and how would help me address it. Just making a vague claim doesn't help me at all.

 

That doesn't seem very fair, does it...?

 

A large number of reasonable people would find the idea that their hasn't been systemic racism in our country since at least the 70's naive at absolute best.

 

I'm sure they would. There are literally millions of people in this nation who think of themselves as victims, and worse, think of many others as victims as well, rather than capable, effective human beings with something to offer the rest of humanity.

 

That's the real tragedy.

 

I choose to look at people as humans, not as "black humans" or "white humans" or "brown humans" or "Indian humans" or "Caucasian humans", etc. Things like "affirmative action" reinforce and magnify these differences, rather than embrace the similarities.

 

(Just so everyone's on the same page: "systemic racism" refers to racism that is pervasive, existing across the entire spectrum of American culture. This was true of many through most of the 19th, and a good half of the 20th century. However, several significant and obvious changes happened in the 50's and 60's, and as a result, though there will always, always be racism of some sort, the vast majority of systemic, institutionalized racism is gone. After all...when was the last time any of you saw a "Whites Only" swimming pool...?)

 

I thought I wanted to have a light discussion about race with you, but I was mistaken. Some of your viewpoints are fairly extreme.

 

 

You mean, extreme in the way that I call out the "soft" racism of lowered expectations, and how we will only end racism when everyone is treated solely for the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin?

 

A world in which everyone, white, black, brown, red, purple, pink with green polka dots, is judged on their qualifications, education, and skillset, and not at all on what they look like? That's what I believe in, that is what I think, and that is what I hope for.

 

That kind of extreme....?

 

[MediumLover]

Discrimination based on race, sex, age, sexual orientation and other factors exists.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Racism, systemic racism is alive and well

Affirmative action was a poor answer to a playing field that is still not level.

 

Sorry, but this simply isn't true, and one need look no further than the house that is white to prove it.

 

If what you said is true, that simply wouldn't be possible.

 

Your attitude and opinion hurts the very people you (seem to?) want to help, by encouraging people to think of themselves as victims of a "system" that is "out to get them" (you say it right up there: "Racism is alive and well"), rather than taking responsibility for themselves and their circumstances.

 

It's hideously destructive. It's pure poison.

 

Who said all that ?

You cite exceptions and say systemic racism does not exist

 

 

 

You did. You said "Racism, systemic racism, is alive and well."

 

You said it, right up there.

 

Despite the fact it exists, it can be , and is overcome by hard work.

 

Hogwash. I'm not citing "exceptions." I'm citing the rule, perhaps the greatest example of the rule there could possibly be. You cite the exception when you say "systemic racism is alive and well", which is baloney.

 

Are there "whites only" drinking fountains? Segregated schools? Illegal marriages between people of different races? Poll taxes?

 

People who worked in department stores in the 40's wouldn't let blacks try on clothes without buying them first. Do you think such a thought even occurs to anyone today, much less is expressed?

 

Blacks in the 1920's weren't allowed to buy property in certain areas, nationwide, and no one made a peep about it. Do you think that's something that exists systemically anymore? Can anyone imagine such a thing taking place today on a SYSTEMIC basis? Please! Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be picketing endlessly if that were the case!

 

Blacks in the 1880's weren't allowed to vote unless they could pass literacy tests. Do you think such a thing would even be thought of today, much less tried?

 

Blacks in the military in WWII weren't allowed to serve in the same units as whites. Can you IMAGINE such a thing happening today? Can you imagine ANY forced segregation ANYWHERE in our society?

 

Blacks in the 1940's weren't allowed to play on white major league teams. Jackie Robinson shattered that barrier in 1947. Can you even fathom such a restriction today?

 

Over and over and over, throughout the 50's and 60's and beyond, the institutionalized racism that infected this nation like a plague fell, piece by piece by piece. Is racism always going to be with us in one form or another? Of course. Is it anything like it used to be? Not even close.

 

Come on, give it a rest. That's not an exception...it's proof of what has changed, dramatically so, in the last 50 years. Incredible, monstrous change, and pretending that that change didn't happen is to deny people their rights and their freedom, by encouraging them to think that "the system is rigged" and the reason they fail is because "racism is alive and well", rather than their lack of skill, talent, education, or just plain circumstance...in other words, taking responsibility for themselves.

 

That's destruction.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Discrimination based on race, sex, age, sexual orientation and other factors exists.

 

Yes, and it's nationwide and systemic, right...?

 

I mean, no one of a certain age, race, sex, sexual orientation and other factors can get a job, a house, a loan, an education, have the right to vote, etc., anywhere in this country, right...?

 

"Discrimination" will always exist, because human beings discriminate.

 

Systemic, institutionalized discrimination does not exist to anywhere near the degree it has in the past.

 

Except perhaps against the religious (not saying that they don't need it.)

[PIR8]

I always do wonder, however, why people say things like "what you've said is just your opinion (which really means "and I think it's completely wrong.")"

 

Because here's reality: the vast majority of what EVERYONE says is just opinion, especially when they're talking about non-scientific, complex subjects. Look at the word: "Subject." The opposite of "object." "Subjective" comes from the same idea.

 

But, that never seems to be stated when people agree with what's being said, right...? "That's just your opinion (even though I agree with it)"...?

 

Why is that...?

 

 

 

Fair enough I suppose. But you made some very presumptuous claims, and offered nothing in the form of support.

 

Such as....? Be specific, not vague. It's easy to make vague claims; not so easy to prove them. I addressed every one of your points, but you only make vague claims of presumption and lack of support. I think I've offered a significant amount of support, but if I have fallen short, telling me exactly what and how would help me address it. Just making a vague claim doesn't help me at all.

 

That doesn't seem very fair, does it...?

 

I was referring to your post to Medium

 

There's no such thing as "systemic level." That's redundant. "Systemic" already means "system wide."

 

And no, there's no systemic racism in "our" country (I assume you mean the US) and hasn't been since at least the 70's.

 

What you see in the media is smoke and mirrors...

 

This one. You stated their is no systemic racism, which is a bold claim, and didn't offer any insight into why you thought so. You have sense clarified why you think so.

 

 

 

A large number of reasonable people would find the idea that their hasn't been systemic racism in our country since at least the 70's naive at absolute best.

 

 

I'm sure they would. There are literally millions of people in this nation who think of themselves as victims, and worse, think of many others as victims as well, rather than capable, effective human beings with something to offer the rest of humanity.

 

That's the real tragedy.

 

I choose to look at people as humans, not as "black humans" or "white humans" or "brown humans" or "Indian humans" or "Caucasian humans", etc. Things like "affirmative action" reinforce and magnify these differences, rather than embrace the similarities.

 

(Just so everyone's on the same page: "systemic racism" refers to racism that is pervasive, existing across the entire spectrum of American culture. This was true of many through most of the 19th, and a good half of the 20th century. However, several significant and obvious changes happened in the 50's and 60's, and as a result, though there will always, always be racism of some sort, the vast majority of systemic, institutionalized racism is gone. After all...when was the last time any of you say a "Whites Only" swimming pool...?)

 

I'm not making the claim that systemic racism is as prevalent as ever, only that it still exist in our country. Maybe even the "vast majority" of it is gone, but that doesn't mean there aren't place where serious institutionalized is still a problem in the US. I don't believe there is anything I can say or link that would convince you otherwise though.

 

I thought I wanted to have a light discussion about race with you, but I was mistaken. Some of your viewpoints are fairly extreme.

 

You mean, extreme in the way that I call out the "soft" racism of lowered expectations, and how we will only end racism when everyone is treated solely for the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin?

 

A world in which everyone, white, black, brown, red, purple, pink with green polka dots, is judged on their qualifications, education, and skillset, and not at all on what they look like? That's what I believe in, that is what I think, and that is what I hope for.

 

That kind of extreme....?

 

 

Yes. Your belief that the ""soft" racism of lower expectations" is the only great racism we should be fighting against is extreme and naive

[PIR8]

Screwed up my quoting. Fixing now.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I always do wonder, however, why people say things like "what you've said is just your opinion (which really means "and I think it's completely wrong.")"

 

Because here's reality: the vast majority of what EVERYONE says is just opinion, especially when they're talking about non-scientific, complex subjects. Look at the word: "Subject." The opposite of "object." "Subjective" comes from the same idea.

 

But, that never seems to be stated when people agree with what's being said, right...? "That's just your opinion (even though I agree with it)"...?

 

Why is that...?

 

 

 

Fair enough I suppose. But you made some very presumptuous claims, and offered nothing in the form of support.

 

Such as....? Be specific, not vague. It's easy to make vague claims; not so easy to prove them. I addressed every one of your points, but you only make vague claims of presumption and lack of support. I think I've offered a significant amount of support, but if I have fallen short, telling me exactly what and how would help me address it. Just making a vague claim doesn't help me at all.

 

That doesn't seem very fair, does it...?

 

I was referring to your post to Medium

 

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about, here. "Medium" didn't join this conversation until after you made that statement.

 

There's no such thing as "systemic level." That's redundant. "Systemic" already means "system wide."

 

And no, there's no systemic racism in "our" country (I assume you mean the US) and hasn't been since at least the 70's.

 

What you see in the media is smoke and mirrors...

 

This one. You stated their is no systemic racism, which is a bold claim, and didn't offer any insight into why you thought so. You have sense clarified why you think so.

 

....that's kinda how conversations work. People make statements, and then make their case to support them if/when there is a challenge to those statements. But you said I "made some very presumptuous claims, and offered nothing in the form of support" to make it sound like I was asked to provide support and refused or couldn't, neither of which is true.

 

And I don't think you know what "presumptuous" means, because you didn't use it correctly here. It would be presumptuous of me to say something like " I don't believe there is anything I can say or link that would convince you otherwise though" because that would be me presuming to know your answer before you even gave it, without even bothering to give you a reasonable chance to respond.

 

That's not how dialogue works. That's not very fair or reasonable.

 

A large number of reasonable people would find the idea that their hasn't been systemic racism in our country since at least the 70's naive at absolute best.

 

I'm sure they would. There are literally millions of people in this nation who think of themselves as victims, and worse, think of many others as victims as well, rather than capable, effective human beings with something to offer the rest of humanity.

 

That's the real tragedy.

 

I choose to look at people as humans, not as "black humans" or "white humans" or "brown humans" or "Indian humans" or "Caucasian humans", etc. Things like "affirmative action" reinforce and magnify these differences, rather than embrace the similarities.

 

(Just so everyone's on the same page: "systemic racism" refers to racism that is pervasive, existing across the entire spectrum of American culture. This was true of many through most of the 19th, and a good half of the 20th century. However, several significant and obvious changes happened in the 50's and 60's, and as a result, though there will always, always be racism of some sort, the vast majority of systemic, institutionalized racism is gone. After all...when was the last time any of you say a "Whites Only" swimming pool...?)

 

I'm not making the claim that systemic racism is as prevalent as ever, only that it still exist in our country. Maybe even the "vast majority" of it is gone, but that doesn't mean there aren't place where serious institutionalized is still a problem in the US. I don't believe there is anything I can say or link that would convince you otherwise though.

 

Ok, fine: where? How? In what way? What institutionalized racism do you see? Are we working with the same understanding of institutionalized (that is, pervading government, corporate, media, educational, and religious institutions)...?

 

Drawing the conclusion that I have rejected your evidence before I even see it is worse than your accusation of me making "very presumptuous claims with no support."

 

When asked for support, I will happily provide it. But you won't even bother to provide support, presuming that I will reject it out of hand, without even giving it a fair hearing...?

 

Now THAT is presumption!

 

I thought I wanted to have a light discussion about race with you, but I was mistaken. Some of your viewpoints are fairly extreme.

 

You mean, extreme in the way that I call out the "soft" racism of lowered expectations, and how we will only end racism when everyone is treated solely for the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin?

 

A world in which everyone, white, black, brown, red, purple, pink with green polka dots, is judged on their qualifications, education, and skillset, and not at all on what they look like? That's what I believe in, that is what I think, and that is what I hope for.

 

That kind of extreme....?

 

 

Yes. Your belief that the ""soft" racism of lower expectations" is the only great racism we should be fighting against is extreme and naive

 

Whooooa, whoa, whoa, stop the presses right there! I never said, nor implied, any such thing. You just completely made up something I never said, implied, or even thought, and then claimed that I not only said it, but I BELIEVE it! That's what is called a "Straw Man" argument, and it is a fallacy.

 

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said it is the MAIN type of racism that exists today, and that is completely true. But that doesn't mean it is the ONLY one. HARDLY!

 

The Ku Klux Klan STILL EXISTS. They are dedicated to out and out, no holds barred, no punches pulled racism.

 

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm going to say it again, because I believe you're not reading or comprehending what I've written, and are just seeing what you want to see...read this again, carefully:

 

"You mean, extreme in the way that I call out the "soft" racism of lowered expectations, and how we will only end racism when everyone is treated solely for the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin?

 

A world in which everyone, white, black, brown, red, purple, pink with green polka dots, is judged on their qualifications, education, and skillset, and not at all on what they look like? That's what I believe in, that is what I think, and that is what I hope for."

 

Where, anywhere in there, do you see anything about the soft racism of lowered expectations being the "only great racism we should be fighting against"? It IS the worst and most pervasive from of racism that exists today (that is, the racists mostly just became "progressives"), but it is HARDLY the only one.

 

Read what I wrote. "When everyone is treated"....that means everyone..."solely for the content of their character"....that means who they are, rather than what they are...."rather than the color of their skin."

 

In other words...exactly what MLK Jr. famously said on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963.

 

Do you DISAGREE with that sentiment...?

 

[PIR8]

I always do wonder, however, why people say things like "what you've said is just your opinion (which really means "and I think it's completely wrong.")"

 

Because here's reality: the vast majority of what EVERYONE says is just opinion, especially when they're talking about non-scientific, complex subjects. Look at the word: "Subject." The opposite of "object." "Subjective" comes from the same idea.

 

But, that never seems to be stated when people agree with what's being said, right...? "That's just your opinion (even though I agree with it)"...?

 

Why is that...?

 

 

 

Fair enough I suppose. But you made some very presumptuous claims, and offered nothing in the form of support.

 

Such as....? Be specific, not vague. It's easy to make vague claims; not so easy to prove them. I addressed every one of your points, but you only make vague claims of presumption and lack of support. I think I've offered a significant amount of support, but if I have fallen short, telling me exactly what and how would help me address it. Just making a vague claim doesn't help me at all.

 

That doesn't seem very fair, does it...?

 

I was referring to your post to Medium

 

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about, here. "Medium" didn't join this conversation until after you made that statement.

 

Correct you are. I was mistaken. I was referring to your comment to Smoak and Frost, not Medium. It's early, I'm tired, and I'm not on my A game.

There's no such thing as "systemic level." That's redundant. "Systemic" already means "system wide."

 

And no, there's no systemic racism in "our" country (I assume you mean the US) and hasn't been since at least the 70's.

 

What you see in the media is smoke and mirrors...

 

This one. You stated their is no systemic racism, which is a bold claim, and didn't offer any insight into why you thought so. You have sense clarified why you think so.

 

....that's kinda how conversations work. People make statements, and then make their case to support them if/when there is a challenge to those statements. But you said I "made some very presumptuous claims, and offered nothing in the form of support" to make it sound like I was asked to provide support and refused or couldn't, neither of which is true.

 

Also true, I simply felt that upon making that specific claim in the way you did, you might feel compelled to state why you believed so. I'm sure you know it's a controversial opinion, so I figured you had actual reasons to support it. That was my sarcastic way of asking for what those were. You provided a reason before I made my post, so the point was wasted.

 

And I don't think you know what "presumptuous" means, because you didn't use it correctly here. It would be presumptuous of me to say something like " I don't believe there is anything I can say or link that would convince you otherwise though" because that would be me presuming to know your answer before you even gave it, without even bothering to give you a reasonable chance to respond.

 

That's not how dialogue works. That's not very fair or reasonable.

 

I'm aware of what the word presumptuous means. Per Merriam-Webster: "too confident, especially in a way that is rude."

 

I personally believe your comment fit that description.

 

My comment was also presumptuous in the way you described.

 

 

A large number of reasonable people would find the idea that their hasn't been systemic racism in our country since at least the 70's naive at absolute best.

 

I'm sure they would. There are literally millions of people in this nation who think of themselves as victims, and worse, think of many others as victims as well, rather than capable, effective human beings with something to offer the rest of humanity.

 

That's the real tragedy.

 

I choose to look at people as humans, not as "black humans" or "white humans" or "brown humans" or "Indian humans" or "Caucasian humans", etc. Things like "affirmative action" reinforce and magnify these differences, rather than embrace the similarities.

 

(Just so everyone's on the same page: "systemic racism" refers to racism that is pervasive, existing across the entire spectrum of American culture. This was true of many through most of the 19th, and a good half of the 20th century. However, several significant and obvious changes happened in the 50's and 60's, and as a result, though there will always, always be racism of some sort, the vast majority of systemic, institutionalized racism is gone. After all...when was the last time any of you say a "Whites Only" swimming pool...?)

 

I'm not making the claim that systemic racism is as prevalent as ever, only that it still exist in our country. Maybe even the "vast majority" of it is gone, but that doesn't mean there aren't place where serious institutionalized is still a problem in the US. I don't believe there is anything I can say or link that would convince you otherwise though.

 

Ok, fine: where? How? In what way? What institutionalized racism do you see? Are we working with the same understanding of institutionalized (that is, pervading government, corporate, media, educational, and religious institutions)...?

 

Drawing the conclusion that I will reject your evidence is worse than your accusation of me making "very presumptuous claims with no support."

 

When asked for support, I will happily provide it. But you won't even bother to provide support, presuming that I will reject it out of hand, without even giving it a fair hearing...?

 

Now THAT is presumption!

 

 

I'm not unwilling to provide examples of what I believe to be systemic racism, I simply don't think this specific thread is the place to have that conversation. Any example I provide is just going to move us onto a separate topic and further away from the threads intended purpose. But to touch on a few, I would point to an educational system that is much less willing to deal with problem black students than problem white students, a justice system that targets individuals solely on appearance, and employers who do all they can to avoid minority hires.

 

Again, I know all of those come with their own facts and debate points, and I don't make the claim that every case in all of these circumstances is an example that supports my point. They are just broad examples of areas I believe systemic racism still exist today.

 

I thought I wanted to have a light discussion about race with you, but I was mistaken. Some of your viewpoints are fairly extreme.

 

You mean, extreme in the way that I call out the "soft" racism of lowered expectations, and how we will only end racism when everyone is treated solely for the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin?

 

A world in which everyone, white, black, brown, red, purple, pink with green polka dots, is judged on their qualifications, education, and skillset, and not at all on what they look like? That's what I believe in, that is what I think, and that is what I hope for.

 

That kind of extreme....?

 

 

Yes. Your belief that the ""soft" racism of lower expectations" is the only great racism we should be fighting against is extreme and naive

 

Whooooa, whoa, whoa, stop the presses right there! I never said, nor implied, any such thing. You just completely made up something I never said, implied, or even thought, and then claimed that I not only said it, but I BELIEVE it! That's what is called a "Straw Man" argument, and it is a fallacy.

 

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said it is the MAIN type of racism that exists today, and that is completely true. But that doesn't mean it is the ONLY one. HARDLY!

 

The Ku Klux Klan STILL EXISTS. They are dedicated to out and out, no holds barred, no punches pulled racism.

 

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm going to say it again, because I believe you're not reading or comprehending what I've written, and are just seeing what you want to see...read this again, carefully:

 

"You mean, extreme in the way that I call out the "soft" racism of lowered expectations, and how we will only end racism when everyone is treated solely for the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin?

 

A world in which everyone, white, black, brown, red, purple, pink with green polka dots, is judged on their qualifications, education, and skillset, and not at all on what they look like? That's what I believe in, that is what I think, and that is what I hope for."

 

Where, anywhere in there, do you see anything about the soft racism of lowered expectations being the "only great racism we should be fighting against"? It IS the worst and most pervasive from of racism that exists today (that is, the racists mostly just became "progressives"), but it is HARDLY the only one.

 

Read what I wrote. "When everyone is treated"....that means everyone..."solely for the content of their character"....that means, who they are, rather than what they are...."rather than the color of their skin."

 

In other words...exactly what MLK Jr. famously said on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963.

 

Do you DISAGREE with that sentiment...?

 

 

 

It's unfortunate that I worded that the way I did. I know you don't believe its the only type of racism that exist today. What I meant was your belief that it is the primary type of racism we should be fighting. It seems crazy to me that of all the issues we have surrounding race in this country, you think that one is the biggest problem.

 

And yes, I agree with that idea. But a world like that doesn't work until we get rid of systemic racism. Until we have that, there needs to be legislation that prevents discriminatory practices when reviewing a job application, or a transfer request for a private school.

 

 

 

 

[Lonzilla]

I don't like the idea of a different white guy as Batman. I don't like the idea of 2 different white guys in the Ace and Peter makeup and costumes.

I prefer Batman and Kiss to be as they were, which is the majority opinion of the fan base (customers), but if it were anyone other than white men replacing them and people don't like it, then there must be something sinister behind it?

[Doktor]

I'm shocked this thread hasn't been poofed or otherwise sanitized yet. But it's still early. Plenty of time to take a machete to it.

[ComicConnoisseur]

 

There's no such thing as "systemic level." That's redundant. "Systemic" already means "system wide."

 

And no, there's no systemic racism in "our" country (I assume you mean the US) and hasn't been since at least the 70's.

 

What you see in the media is smoke and mirrors.

 

And Lazyboy is completely right. It's the bigotry of low expectations, that "minority" (whatever THAT means) characters can't succeed on their own, that they have to mimic established characters to be successful. It's just more of the same from the people who brought you the incredibly destructive "affirmative action."

 

"There, there, minority people. We know you're not capable of doing things yourself (except you overachieving Asians over there....we've got our eyes on you...), so we'll structure it so that expectations for you are lowered, so you can "compete at the same level" as everyone else (which is really a level, or several, down.) In essence: you can't compete on your own terms, and you need us kind, compassionate white folk (read: guilt-ridden liberals) to give you a "hand up" to bring you to our level."

 

Can you think of anything more demeaning, demoralizing, dis-incentivizing, and downright racist when applied to those of different ethnicities?

 

It's destructive to the core, and has done immeasurable damage to "minorities" in this country (with, again, the exception of the "overachieving Asians" who get mysteriously left out of these programs.)

 

I'm still waiting for the promise of judging everyone by the contents of their characters, rather than the color of their skin, to be fulfilled, all the way around, for everybody, all the time.

 

You make very well articulated arguments, and I typically admire the way you do so. But the above is most certainly just your opinion, and you've stated it very matter-of-factly. I don't usually have the time or the focus to get into wordy arguments, but I thought I'd give a response...

 

Well, I suppose I should consider myself flattered...?

 

 

I always do wonder, however, why people say things like "what you've said is just your opinion (which really means "and I think it's completely wrong.")"

 

Because here's reality: the vast majority of what EVERYONE says is just opinion, especially when they're talking about non-scientific, complex subjects. Look at the word: "Subject." The opposite of "object." "Subjective" comes from the same idea.

 

But, that never seems to be stated when people agree with what's being said, right...? "That's just your opinion (even though I agree with it)"...?

 

Why is that...?

 

 

[...] And no, there's no systemic racism in "our" country (I assume you mean the US) and hasn't been since at least the 70's.

 

What you see in the media is smoke and mirrors.

 

I disagree. I don't know how to prove that there is, but many many people agree that there is in one way or another. So I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there is a logical and reasonable argument to the contrary.

 

I will point out the trump card which completely and totally disproves your statement, without coming too close to the forbidden zone: the executive of this country was put in place...twice...in a nation with a majority "white" population.

 

That could never, ever, ever have happened if the "systemic racism" you claim was still in place actually existed. It simply couldn't have happened.

 

That's not to say that there wasn't some form of racism involved in that...there certainly was, with many people making their selection solely and specifically because of race, which is just as racist as excluding because of it, but that's not the "systemic racism" you're referring to, I suspect.

 

And Lazyboy is completely right. It's the bigotry of low expectations, that "minority" (whatever THAT means) characters can't succeed on their own, that they have to mimic established characters to be successful...

 

I'm assuming that ""minority" (whatever THAT means)" is sarcasm, but I don't really understand the point of it. You disagree with the entire concept of the term "minority"?

 

Yes. It is an outdated, useless, and worse, divisive term that doesn't belong in 21st century discussion. Everyone but Hispanics are "minorities" (including "whites") in California, and does that matter? Not one bit.

 

It's not about minority [superhero] characters succeeding on their own, its about any new superhero character succeeding on its own. Lots of brand new titles flop and flounder. Obviously the big wigs and Marvel and DC have an agenda to push a more diverse line up. It's become apparent that that is a goal of theirs, some think its a goal, but it is one. So if that's their angle, why would it make more sense to build a brand from the ground up and hope that it catches on in a big way, as opposed to simply shaking up their current hit titles?

 

Because you're looking at it from a narrow point of view. Did Storm begin as a brand "from the ground up"? Yes. Did Wolverine? How about Power Man? Yes. Black Panther? Yup. Did the New Mutants? Yes. Did Deadpool? Yes. Did Cable? Yes. All these characters were built "from the ground up", and all of them succeeded quite well.

 

Changing existing characters, so they have a supposed "platform" to jump from is intellectual and creative laziness, and...almost guaranteed to fail. Those characters and concepts that were mere copies of other successful characters have invariably failed. It has only been the new, bold, and exciting that has succeeded, throughout comics history.

 

Superman was a success because Superman was different. All the Superman clones that came after...? Not so much, really.

 

Spiderman was a success because Spiderman was different. All the Spiderman clones that came after....? Again, not so much.

 

So, why will this time be any different?

 

It won't. It will be the same old, tired, intellectually and creatively lazy thing, and it will fail, precisely because it's just the same thing, in a different package.

 

They are constantly making huge "earth shattering" changes to their universes, why is this one so pathetic? They aren't mimicking established characters, they are becoming established characters. According to wikipedia, there have been 4+ different iterations of The Flash, 7 of Batman, and 13+ Captain Americas. Were all of those changes just as pathetic? Why is it only when the character's race (or gender) changes that there is so much backlash?

 

Who is Batman, now? Bruce Wayne, right...?

 

Who is Captain America...? Mostly Steve Rogers, right...? With some (short) periods in between...?

 

How many times has DC "Crisis'd" their universe? And what is the only one that people invariably refer to as great? The first one. The successful one. The "real" one. The rest were just copies of the same, and accomplished little to nothing of any lasting significance.

 

Those changes made sense in context. What do you mean, "so much backlash"? You speak as if there's never any backlash when ANY of these characters are fiddled with, but I assure you, if you've been around comic boards long enough, you'll see this kind of backlash over ANY significant change, not just "race or gender."

 

And, you know what? If it makes sense in the context of the story, great. That's fine. But many of these changes haven't made sense and they are forced into being because of editorial, rather than creative, directives.

 

And who said anything about it being "pathetic"? I certainly didn't. That's your word, not mine.

 

...It's just more of the same from the people who brought you the incredibly destructive "affirmative action.

 

"There, there, minority people. We know you're not capable of doing things yourself (except you overachieving Asians over there....we've got our eyes on you...), so we'll structure it so that expectations for you are lowered, so you can "compete at the same level" as everyone else (which is really a level, or several, down.) In essence: you can't compete on your own terms, and you need us kind, compassionate white folk (read: guilt-ridden liberals) to give you a "hand up" to bring you to our level."

 

Can you think of anything more demeaning, demoralizing, dis-incentivizing, and downright racist when applied to those of different ethnicities?

 

It's destructive to the core, and has done immeasurable damage to "minorities" in this country (with, again, the exception of the "overachieving Asians" who get mysteriously left out of these programs.)

 

 

Your interpretation of affirmative action is kinda gross.

 

I think the same of yours.

 

It's supposed to be a way to allow minorities into careers and industries that for a long time locked them out. I'm sure you won't believe this, but there are operations all over the country that would hire zero minorities at all given the option. There are HR reps who won't even consider hiring a black or hispanic or middle eastern applicant unless their hand is forced. So to answer your question, yes, I can think of something more demeaning, demoralizing, dis-incentivizing, and downright racist. I won't argue that affirmative action is a perfect, and without flaws. I think it's a patchwork solution to a problem that a lot of people think doesn't exist anymore.

 

That, of course, isn't remotely true.

 

There's not a single company in the country that would actually NOT hire someone specifically because of their race...they would be destroyed in the court of public opinion.

 

Here's reality: you will never, ever, ever eliminate racism. Ever. If someone doesn't want to hire someone because of their ethnicity...whatever it is....they will find a way to do it. But, eventually, they will be found out, and they will be shamed, and perhaps out of business; not by the force of regulation, but by the efficiency of the market. That's how it's supposed to work.

 

So I'll offer my own (admittedly biased) interpretation...

 

"Hey, minorities. We know many of you have historically been excluded from many career and job opportunities simply because of the color of your skin.

 

Such as...?

 

And when you say "historically", are you referring to last year? Or 70 years ago? Because if it's 70 years ago, why does it matter? That labor force, if it's even still alive, is LONG out of it, and those working now weren't affected by it then, because they weren't even alive.

 

Do you realize that it has been 68 YEARS since a black man joined Major League Baseball...? And that no one in their right mind would exclude a qualified player of ANY color, and hasn't for at least 50 years....?

 

We're attempting to right that wrong. So we are going to enact policy to try ensure firms don't continue discriminatory hiring practices. In essence: we understand that for many minorities, the job market is slanted against you, so we're are offering a hand up to level the playing field is some small way."

 

And you don't think that's demeaning...? "Hey minorities"...? And how do you know the job market is "slanted against them"? You don't think telling someone they NEED a "hand up" isn't insulting to someone who doesn't want, much less need, your "help"?

 

When I was hiring people to work for me, I didn't care what their skin color was...I only cared how good they were at the job. I hired black guys, white guys, brown guys (I didn't have the opportunity to hire females...they simply weren't interested in Finish Carpentry....or I would have.) The only reason I knew they were white, black, brown, or other was because I wasn't blind. Otherwise....it just didn't matter. Do you do the job well, yes/no?

 

In my own business, I have a half German/half Jamaican (yes, he's white AND black) guy working for me. Previously, I had a middle aged European woman (that is, "white"), and her teenage daughter.

 

I don't give a flat DAMN what your skin color or gender is....can you do the job to my satisfaction, yes/no? That's the only question I care about.

 

And I'm hardly alone.

 

But why shouldn't people be free to associate...including hiring and firing...of anyone they want, for any reason, at any time?

 

If they choose to not hire people because of their color, shouldn't they be free to do that? And if they do, don't you think people will not support them by not giving them their business...?

 

"But (GASP!) there will be people who SUPPORT their decisions!!"

 

And....?

 

So....?

 

How does that harm anyone?

 

What is stopping ANYONE from saying "you know what? I don't like that Company XYZ doesn't hire Cablinasians (like Tiger Woods.)" I'm going to start my own company, and hire EVERYBODY, and drive that Company XYZ right out of business!"....?

 

What's stopping anyone from doing that?

 

NOTHING. Nothing at all.

 

You know what IS stopping people from doing that?

 

Affirmative Action. Minimum wage laws. Regulations. These are the things, aimed at trying to HELP the "downtrodden" (a despicable, demeaning, demoralizing term) that do them the most harm.

 

I'm also interested in damage this has done to "minorities" also. I see it can't be measure apparently, but can it be described?

 

 

Yes, it can. Look at the damage done to "minorities" across the country, who have been told...persistently and ever so "compassionately"...how they can't do it themselves, they can't succeed on their own, that they need "the benevolent and gracious white man" to help them, to save them, to give them a hand.

 

It's DISGUSTING, and it destroys lives, by convincing people that they simply can't make it without help from someone or something else, and so when they fail....as EVERYONE must fail...they give up. They don't even try.

 

Do you know how many times Abraham Lincoln failed? He was born into staggering poverty. He taught himself the law. He lost several elections and appointments, including a run for US Senate. He failed at business...twice. His mother died when he was nine. Two of his four sons predeceased him.

 

How about Madam CJ Walker, a black "hair culturalist" who started her own business and became a millionaire in the early 1900's; a time for blacks that is unfathomable today? She did it.

 

How about Cesar Chavez, who was born to a family that lost everything in the Great Depression, and ended up becoming migrant workers? He later founded the National Farm Worker's Association, which became the UFW. Did he need a "hand up" from anyone?

 

But the message told for the last 40 years by "progressivism" is this: "We know things were bad for your parents, grandparents, and maybe even you. We know you can't do anything on your own to get out of your desperate situation, because...well...you just don't have it in you. So, we're here to graciously help you. Because believe us: without our help, you'll remain in poverty forever."

 

How demeaning. How demoralizing. How destructive. How racist.

 

When we stop making determinations about people....ANY determinations, "good" or bad, "positive" or negative...based on the color of their skin, then we will have achieved the effective end of racism.

 

That will be a glorious, glorious day.

Just about everything in this post I agree with RMA. I think a lot of silent majority of Americans now agree with RMA about these issues, but won`t come out and say it which is sad.