king_alvarez posted:And therein lay part of the challenge. Take the example of a woman president. As long as there is not a woman president, people will wonder if gender is playing a role in people's decisions, and that issue will come up during every election. And when it comes up, there will also be a backlash from people that are concerned about whether people may be voting for someone strictly on the grounds of her being a woman and not because of her qualifications. In other words, I really don't know how we would be able to accurately guage whether certain prejudices are ever eliminated, if they ever can be.
king_alvarez posted: It was about you placing the entire blame on the reader instead of accepting even a little bit of responsibility for your communication methods. We're not saying that we still think that you are outcome-oriented, just that your initial posts seemed that way.
Princess_Tina posted: I see a huge difference between prejudices being 100% eliminated and prejudices being statistically unlikely to make a difference. I don't think every prejudice can ever be 100% eliminated, but I can believe that we may reach a point, not just in the U.S. but all around the world, where prejudices will be statistically unlikely to make a difference. No, I don't expect that to happen within our lifetimes.
king_alvarez posted:Princess_Tina posted: I see a huge difference between prejudices being 100% eliminated and prejudices being statistically unlikely to make a difference. I don't think every prejudice can ever be 100% eliminated, but I can believe that we may reach a point, not just in the U.S. but all around the world, where prejudices will be statistically unlikely to make a difference. No, I don't expect that to happen within our lifetimes. What do you mean by "statistically unlikely to make a difference?"
Thunderstruck posted: Sexism has just been reversed, with one President Bush in power. ...... EDIT: No, [you yourself are a minority]. From your] point of view for true 'Equality' no race should be favored above the other. Giving black people a history month is still raising them above the others.
Princess_Tina posted:Well, to me that means that if you looked at statistics, something would have no measurable effect. Not to say it doesn't exist, but that it won't affect the final outcome.
Tactic_Thrawn posted: If indeed you are a 'minority' (are you one of those Asian racists? They seem to be fond of picking on those of African and Australian aboriginal descent) at all.
king_alvarez posted:Princess_Tina posted:Well, to me that means that if you looked at statistics, something would have no measurable effect. Not to say it doesn't exist, but that it won't affect the final outcome.I don't know how someone could determine that it has no measurable effect, except to some extent by extensive polling.
Emperor_Billy_Bob posted: Bringing race into it, as though if you're a white guy you can just waltz into the Presidency is silly.
Emperor_Billy_Bob posted:Princess_Tina posted: How can you avoid looking at the way that race has defined very real boundaries during practically all of America's history? Whether we like it or not, all U.S. presidents up until today have been white men. That's a fact, regardless of what you make of it. Yes, and the majority of people living in this country are white. Your point...?
Princess_Tina posted: How can you avoid looking at the way that race has defined very real boundaries during practically all of America's history? Whether we like it or not, all U.S. presidents up until today have been white men. That's a fact, regardless of what you make of it.
Tactic_Thrawn posted: And half of those 'white' people are women. If you want to look at things that way, then..... Out of 43 Presidents: About 4 should have been 'black.' (The number of 'blacks' in this country has been around 10% or over--since the Revolution). Around half of them, 21 or 22, should have been women. One might be Amerindian/Latino. Even if you take into account when 'black' men, women, and Amerindians attained suffrage as being the point from which one of them could become President, then there should have been at least a few women or non-'white' Presidents by now. That there aren't is 'sort of' telling (hint, [size=10]HINT[/size]).
posted:(are you one of those Asian racists? They seem to be fond of picking on those of African and Australian aboriginal descent)
Thunderstruck posted:The thing i'm trying to figure out is who thinks this is fair in any way, shape or form? Sure, white people enslaved Black people, but White people (and all others) have suffered a great deal as well. Why should one particular race get their own month of recognition?
