true

But all men are equal under the law of man and God and all should be afforded the same rights and opportunities without prejudice.

As Dr. Martin Luther King pointed out...
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Opportunity is what you make of it. Our current President is a classic example. As well as President Clinton. Both grew up in lower middle class families and rose to the highest position in the nation.

So equality can be acheived, even against the odds...

But for a group to chose to toss aside free market enterprise solely to promote a racial bais - again, is wrong.

To do so to help a community is fair...

 

Complete bullshit.
If white people did it we'd have a lawsuit, outcries, and probably riots.
Everybody talks about equality, yet this comes up. ******* bullshit.

 

The problem is that equal opportunity is nearly immpossible to measure and therefore social liberals and progressives have turned to promoting equal results which can only be acheived by creating unequal opportunity.

 

Here's an article with a similar theme:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05142009...hit_169211.htm

A black CEO was fired by the board of directors for supporting the white and jewish Mr. Bloomberg for mayor of NYC.

 

Here is an even more fitting example:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30346519/

City officials feared a lawsuit if they based promotions on performance rather than race. This led to discrimination against the white firefighters who had the top scores. The craziest thing is that the liberal judges seem to side with the city!

These two quotes are telling:

conservative: "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

liberal: "In order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."

 

Yeah, if you look at feminist theories, you will get a feel for the importance of social influences. While we may all be created biologically equal, some of us are born into much more difficult lives than others. Society has built-in hurdles for various groups... it'll take hundreds of years (if ever) for them to be lowered.

I think that white people -could- start the same movement--legally. But what would their reasons be? These black people have a good reason for doing it. They've identified that their black shop owners are disadvantaged because of their colour (for various direct and indirect reasons)... and now they've chosen to offer their patronage.

If a white group were to do this... it'd be based on racist beliefs, no doubt. Can't really argue that the white man has it rough. ...though some might pull up affirmative action as a retort to that statement, I would disagree.

I've gotta go load my bikes onto the car... headed out for a ride in the rain. Woo. :P The CEO who was fired sounds like an interesting read... will check it out soon.

 

Back to the first article though, they were bitching about only shopping at stores with black owners. Do the same thing with shopping at stores that only white people own and you will have the same result. Sure the managers and higher ups are usually white but the owner is probably from the Middle East about 8 times out of 10.

People need to grow up and get over racism and ****. You make what you make based on your own will to make something out of yourself. These idiots bitch and moan about equal rights but they're just using it as an excuse to cheat their way to the top.

 

I have to disagree somewhat with what Headshok has said. White consumers could want white store owners to do as well as possible and therefore choose to shop only at white owned stores. There is no racism involved in this reasoning.

The black comsumers never expressed that the black stores are currently discriminated against. They said that they are not as successful or prevalent as white store owners. This goes back to what I have said before - equal opportunity is different than equal results. Liberals tend to generalize equality to power and success rather than equal treatment.

I will repeat these quotes because I like them:

conservative: "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

liberal: "In order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."

What the liberal is really saying is that for some people to have equal success they must be treated differently. Otherwise the statement is a contradiction.

 

I didn't say that the people involved in this movement claimed that the black-owned stores were discriminated against... or at least, I did not read that in the posted article. However, I am quite sure that there are going to be people who shop elsewhere solely because of their prejudiced views towards black people. This movement allows black people to empower themselves as entrepreneurs or business owners. I don't think white people need any empowerment... You can't deny that as white men, we face the fewest hurdles of any demographic.

 

So with that thinking whites, Asians, Mexicans, Hindus, etc can do the same? Empower themselves?

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. No one is exempt from discrimination. If they so choose to "empower" other entrepreneurs of their same race, so be it. But like others, do it discreetly. Don't broadcast it that YOU can discriminate and others cannot.

For if there were a vocal movement to "Cash In Caucasion" all the liberals would be screaming bloody murder!