As far as the term rascism goes, not allowing people that aren't black into a place of business is deemed rascist, or reverse racism if you will. There is no such thing as reverse rascism, just racism. If a perticular party doesn't want to allow access to a person of another color, then it IS racism. Pure and simple. The term "discrimination"
is derived from the word racism, there is no difference between racial or ethinic discrimination, its all racism.

 

Agreed.

But some where down the way it has been deemed that if you are black and you do not want to associate with whites on any level - that it's okay...

It's almost as if "racism" defined means "discrimation against blacks" - which, as you so succinctly pointed out, it is not. It's still racism.

To start a movement declaring discriminatory practices based solely on a racial criteria is illegal. Now to start a movement declaring discriminatory practices based on community needs - like "support your local grocer" - that's fair.

 

I don't know... I'll try and pinpoint why I don't have a big problem with this movement. For one, it's only for a year... it's more of an initiative that is planned to leave a faint impression on people. Most people buy from big box stores... so just getting people to think a bit about where they shop is important. I don't think they are talking about avoiding white stores like they are the plague, or anything... for one year, they plan on trying to maximize purchases in stores that are owned by blacks--a disadvantaged group.

It's tricky... and they are on thin ice morally... but for me, they've not gone too far. Their attitude doesn't seem anti-white... but rather pro-black. That's fine, as steps like these will need to be taken for minorities to gain status.

I don't love the idea... but I'm not feeling strongly enough against it to argue it.

 

Racism implies that one race is superior in some way to another race. Discrimination based on race means that decisions are centered on racial characteristics. It does not necessarily imply that one race is in some way superior.

But I do agree that reverse racism etc. is still racism and the distinction is unnecessary.

The "Buy Black" experimentalists are not justifying their actions by declaring unfair treatment of black business owners. They are using the concept of unequal success. I think that this distinction is important. Because success depends on many factors including equal opportunity. For example, in Baltimore City black business owners are provided with government assisstance and preferential treatment. A certain amount of the governments budget must be paid to black business owners. It would be inaccurate to say that these business owners face more hurdles than their white counterparts.

 

I have a problem with it for the exact reasons Palindari and Auditech pointed out. You know for a fact that if a white family did what they are doing, Jesse Jackson would be scrambling onto his soapbox as fast as he could. They would be deemed racist white devils and everyone knows it, but when a black family does it, it's OK. Slavery has been abolished for 135 yrs. and segregation for like 45. Don't you think it's time to move on?

 

lol... well, I'm glad you don't have a problem with it - but I do only due to the double standard it implies. As Airguard points out - Jackson and Sharpton would be organizing national boycotts and asking for Congrssional action for the perceived racist action if a white person declared such a movement.

Again, equality applies to all. Opportunity is what you make of it. But to declare your intent to solicit businesses only due to race is discrimination.

Sorry, but as AutoUnion points out as well, most minority businesses get subsidized already by our government. Actions implying racial preferencial treatment goes against every civil rights act passed by Congress.

Which are civil rights acts - not Black rights acts. Though most see them that way they simply are not.

By the way, no one is claiming anti-white semitism here. Just racial preferencing. Because like I mentioned earlier - you can then have others use that same argument. Considering that blacks make only 18% of the population nationwide - you are not going to prosper taking that tactic. For you will see a backlash against such sentiment and then other races will do the same and when you have majorities shopping by race there will be no "free market" enterprise to speak of.

 

Lots of interesting points being made.

It is also important to consider the history of abuse endured by the black communtiy in this country. Its implications are very complicated. However, Obama asks that we look toward the future and these cases are opposite of his sentiment.

 

I understand that point, but using that excuse all the time doesn't help push us in the future. I couldn't tell you how many times when i was in high school that an african american male would use this excuse like it gives him a free pass in life. Im 25, so this wasnt that long ago. He has not experienced slavery nor did his parents. In fact, the kid that said it to me was a lot more wealthy than i was. I understand that people that are alike want to hang out with each other cool, families and neighbors with the same race tend to live in the same neighborhoods, thats cool. If you only want to have a "black only" BBQ in your back yard no one is disputing that, but when you do it in a professional and business run atmosphere this can't happen. It will only segregate us further.

 

Amen, my brother!

 

I read thru the first half of the posts here, skimmed the second half. Only thing in my mind by the time I got to the bottom here is the line the cleaning lady says in Monty Pythons The Meaning of Life... "At least I don't work for Jews!" After all her searching for knowledge, and life experiences, and her quest for the meaning of life, she sums it all up with that.

So, that Python skit is my though on the whole deal of society.

And now for something completely different.