Is this message reasonable? Why not?

[Oleg Bach]

Blue eyes against the evil brown eyed ones.....lets rumble!

Never trust a Roman like Anglo who's eye balls are out side the scull...they are nasty. Never met one yet that was not a hater holding all people in contempt...maybe you know one of these mutants also?

[Guest American Woman]

So... Diane Kyle, Cal State, researches the topic and determines that there is real discrimination here.... Brian Bates, University of Brighton, conducts an experiment that produces the same result ...and you know more about performing research than either of them?

Interesting response considering you evidently think you know more about white-by-black rapes in the United States than several universities and the New York State police do.

I got exactly the response I expected from you here; just as I did previously with your indignant 'you took that out of context!' cries.

American woman: Furthermore: "Some managers feel that 'fake' blondes may be seen as too concerned with their personal appearance and therefore not serious at work."

Isn't that a shocking statement?

A manager who said "Single mothers may be seen as too concerned with their children and therefore not serious at work" would probably lose his job, and his employer would probably be open to a class-action lawsuit on behalf of every single mother who'd ever applied for work there and been turned down. But someone would say out loud that blondes might be too busy looking in the mirror to do their jobs? An excellent example of the sort of double standard I was talking about.

Ummm. They said it about blondes "out loud" in a study, not on the job. Furthermore, you can't compare time spent on one's "children" to time spent on one's vanity about their looks. At least I hope you don't. So no. It's not an excellent example of the sort of double standard you were talking about.

These details were all explained by Professor Bates himself:

In a study I did at the London Business School for the BBC television programme 4x4 , MBA students, the bosses of the future, were given six CVs with photos attached, and a job description. They were asked to assess six candidates for a managerial job.

There was one catch. I gave half of them a female candidate with blonde hair. The other half had exactly the same candidate, but this time she was a brunette. I wanted to see if they evaluated her differently.

Same woman... same resume... just different hair color. And different evaluation of her qualifications, and different salary.

Wow. One study. SIX pictures. That answers one question for me -- just how 'all encompassing' the study was. But six pictures. One can hardly refute that as a conclusion towards millions.

... I suspect that Mr Kagan's ideas, regardless of their validity, might be extremely controversial. Because if there can be a genetic link between these particular superficial traits [blonde hair and blue eyes] and shyness, then it is entirely plausible that there can be a genetic link between some other superficial traits and some other personality traits. If Mr Kagan had suggested that a dark skin tone may be linked with aggressive behavior, would people be comfortable with that statement?

Here's what was said: American psychologist Jerome Kagan ... speculates that the genes for blonde hair, blue eyes and shyness, may be a common biological package.

So I find it odd that you would ask if "people would be comfortable with that statement" when evidently you yourself are comfortable with people making statements based on experience-- especially in light of the fact that Kagan at least said "may," and wasn't speaking in absolutes the way you and Argus were in the thread I was referring to; absolutes based on one year's poll, not even a study, but a poll that wasn't even restricted to the one issue you were drawing your conclusions about, and making incorrect statements about, as a result.

Again, I got the response I was expecting from you.

As for myself, I'm not comfortable with it; nor am I comfortable with people basing their judgments about whole races and nationalities on their experiences, nor am I comfortable about people making judgments about race/nationalities based on one poll that's not even specifically asking about the issue at hand, while evidently you are.

But in light of your responses to my posts about blondes, imagine if someone would have said this:

I used to work in an office, and met many blondes. They weren't a bright lot, and their language skills were sub-par. They were, to a person, always looking for the easy score, the cheap mark. None had any interest in education, or in getting skills training, ie, going to a college to learn how to better their lot in life. Every one of them was sure that the only reason they weren't in some kind of big, important, well-paid job was because people percieve blondes as being stupid. Whenever anyone complained about them (they were lazy and rarely did their jobs properly) they would instantly claim it was because of bias towards blondes.

or this:

Unlike blondes, brunettes are home taking care of their children; unlike most blondes, who are out carousing for men in bars, brunettes tend to actually hang around with their men after they've become pregnant.

As an aside, I find it interesting that you claim most blondes who aren't natural blondes dye their hair for the sex trade or because they are selling something ... as you criticize managers for saying they do it because they are too into their looks. You criticize others for stereotyping blondes as you do it yourself.

Edited September 13, 2009 by American Woman

[kimmy]

Interesting response considering you evidently think you know more about white-by-black rapes in the United States than several universities and the New York State police do.

In the thread you are referencing, I never responded to any information from the New York State police (and in fact, I never saw that information.)

Nor did I respond to information from "several universities".

I did, however, respond to one piece of information from a university, which you presented yourself. My response was to point out that what you presented was not a "study" or "research" or a "paper", it was an uncited claim in a brochure from the Campus Life office at that college.

If there is anything from the other thread you wish for me to address, please feel free to go to the other thread, quote the message you wish me to respond to.

I got exactly the response I expected from you here; just as I did previously with your indignant 'you took that out of context!' cries.

Dishonestly presenting my statements out of context was actually a brilliant stratagem on your part? ha ha, ok then.

Ummm. They said it about blondes "out loud" in a study, not on the job. Furthermore, you can't compare time spent on one's "children" to time spent on one's vanity about their looks. At least I hope you don't. So no. It's not an excellent example of the sort of double standard you were talking about.

This person has taken a bigoted assumption and turned it into a reason not to hire someone. The double standard is this: in any other situation people would recognize it as discrimination, while in this situation it's apparently justifiable, at least in his mind.

Wow. One study. SIX pictures. That answers one question for me -- just how 'all encompassing' the study was. But six pictures. One can hardly refute that as a conclusion towards millions.

I don't know what you might have learned in school, but I was taught that the way to test a hypothesis is to alter one variable while holding all other variables the same. If the results change, then the variable you've altered is significant.

One might wonder whether this experiment conducted in England would be equally applicable in the United States, and one might wonder if there's something peculiar to the mental workings of MBA students that might not translate to the general populace, but the result itself is significant. (and we haven't even got to Diane Kyle yet.)

Object to a blonde-joke, and you get a response like "Oh, come ONNN! People don't actually think that. It's just a joke. Everybody knows it's not real." But it turns out that it actually is real.

Here's what was said: American psychologist Jerome Kagan ... speculates that the genes for blonde hair, blue eyes and shyness, may be a common biological package.

So I find it odd that you would ask if "people would be comfortable with that statement" when evidently you yourself are comfortable with people making statements based on experience-- especially in light of the fact that Kagan at least said "may," and wasn't speaking in absolutes the way you and Argus were in the thread I was referring to; absolutes based on one year's poll, not even a study, but a poll that wasn't even restricted to the one issue you were drawing your conclusions about, and making incorrect statements about, as a result.

I never spoke in absolutes about anything.

And I believe my statement about "experience" that you're referring to is that in my experience-- 8 years of waitressing in clubs and bars-- I see men approach women far more often than the reverse. And I believe you responded that women from your social circle do approach men, so I'm skeptical that you're so off-put by people referencing personal experience.

As for myself, I'm not comfortable with it; nor am I comfortable with people basing their judgments about whole races and nationalities on their experiences, nor am I comfortable about people making judgments about race/nationalities based on one poll that's not even specifically asking about the issue at hand, while evidently you are.

I never suggested that the results of that survey could be used to make judgments about whole races.

So, I did look up Dr Kagan, and he's about as legitimate as it gets in his field. He's spent a whole lifetime looking at nature-vs-nurture questions, and when he says that blond blue-eyed children have on average a higher anxiety response, I'm inclined to believe him. I read an interesting interview in which he mentions it in reference to his broader work. It's not the only example of a correlation between a physiological trait and a mental one. He compares the correlation between blond and anxiety to the correlation between intelligence and myopia. It's statistically observable, but the correlation is too weak to be of any use in looking at specific individuals. And it's not even his intent to do so. His intent is to research the role of genetics in development with the goal of improving diagnosis and treatment... that one child who has unusual anxiety may have simply inherited this disposition while another with unusual anxiety may be in an extremely stressful environment, and that these two children may need different sorts of help, and that understanding the origin of their anxiety is important in deciding what sort of help they need.

Dr Kagan is not out claiming that one group has characteristics of this and this and this, and that another group has characteristics of that and that and that. However, he's advocating the idea that there's a genetic component to psychology, and that these genetic factors in psychology don't exist in isolation and can correlate with other genes. And he mentions the slight positive correlation between blonde and anxiety because it's a controversy-free way to make his point. The blondes are not going to throw rocks at your car or demand that Harvard terminate your tenure. But it doesn't take a Harvard professor to recognize that Kagan's work has implications that go far beyond blondes and anxiety, and that this line of research has the potential to produce results that make people very very uncomfortable.

But in light of your responses to my posts about blondes, imagine if someone would have said this:

I used to work in an office, and met many blondes. They weren't a bright lot, and their language skills were sub-par. They were, to a person, always looking for the easy score, the cheap mark. None had any interest in education, or in getting skills training, ie, going to a college to learn how to better their lot in life. Every one of them was sure that the only reason they weren't in some kind of big, important, well-paid job was because people percieve blondes as being stupid. Whenever anyone complained about them (they were lazy and rarely did their jobs properly) they would instantly claim it was because of bias towards blondes.

Yeah, I'd find it pretty offensive. But I doubt the speaker would draw howls of outrage as Argus did.

Unlike blondes, brunettes are home taking care of their children; unlike most blondes, who are out carousing for men in bars, brunettes tend to actually hang around with their men after they've become pregnant.

I've heard this one, or variations on it, many times. Coming from the mouths of nice normal people who'd probably be shocked to hear someone make the same remark about members of a racial group.

As an aside, I find it interesting that you claim most blondes who aren't natural blondes dye their hair for the sex trade or because they are selling something ... as you criticize managers for saying they do it because they are too into their looks. You criticize others for stereotyping blondes as you do it yourself.

I made that comment about *non-Caucasian* blondes. I can't speak to what proportion of North American non-Caucasian women as a whole might opt to go blonde; I believe it to be extremely small. (yes, I base that on personal observation.) Most of the examples I do know of are involved in adult entertainment or in prostitution. Women who opt to go blonde often do so because they are looking for a particular type of attention... and when non-Caucasian women opt to go blonde, it is particularly attention-grabbing because it is so unusual.

And yes, women in the sex trade do reach for the peroxide in vastly disproportionate numbers, and that in itself is a statement about how society sees blondes.

-k

[Pliny]

Reaching for the peroxide doesn't help me one bit. The study is obviously flawed.

I admit I never did try the peroxide.

[Guest American Woman]

Dishonestly presenting my statements out of context was actually a brilliant stratagem on your part? ha ha, ok then.

Now you're going to accuse me of "dishonestly" presenting your statement out of context? Interesting indeed coming from someone who made a flat-out false statement regarding what the U.S. Dept. of Justice supposedly said.

I don't know what you might have learned in school, but I was taught that the way to test a hypothesis is to alter one variable while holding all other variables the same. If the results change, then the variable you've altered is significant.

Yet in this study that you claim is proof of how "blondes" are perceived/discriminated against, the only "variable" that was changed was hair color on women. So if blonde women are discriminated against by some, it's really further proof of discrimination against women. In order for it to be discrimination against blondes, the same would have to apply to blonde men.

It's pretty common knowledge that women have been discriminated against in the job market for a number of reasons, so if anything, this is just proof of another area where women are discriminated against.

I never spoke in absolutes about anything.

Yes, you did. And not only did you speak in absolutes, but you made a complete false statement when doing so.

And I believe my statement about "experience" that you're referring to is that in my experience-- 8 years of waitressing in clubs and bars-- I see men approach women far more often than the reverse. And I believe you responded that women from your social circle do approach men, so I'm skeptical that you're so off-put by people referencing personal experience.

Nope, that's not what I am referring to.

I never suggested that the results of that survey could be used to make judgments about whole races.

So falsely claiming that black men rape white women by the thousands while white men rape black women so rarely that it can't even be measured isn't a judgment about blacks; much less a false one?

Yeah, I'd find it pretty offensive. But I doubt the speaker would draw howls of outrage as Argus did.

The fact that Argus' comment didn't even draw a 'peep' from you, as you would find it "pretty offensive" if he had said it in regards to blondes, says all that needs to be said.

I made that comment about *non-Caucasian* blondes.

Oh, I see. So you only stereotype *non-Caucasian* blondes. So much better.

I can't speak to what proportion of North American non-Caucasian women as a whole might opt to go blonde; I believe it to be extremely small. (yes, I base that on personal observation.)

So you've been observing non-Caucasian women all over North America? Or do you always base your beliefs on the whole on your very limited observations?

Most of the examples I do know of are involved in adult entertainment or in prostitution. Women who opt to go blonde often do so because they are looking for a particular type of attention...

More of your 'non-stereotyping of blondes?'

and when non-Caucasian women opt to go blonde, it is particularly attention-grabbing because it is so unusual.

So what if it's "attention grabbing" because it's unusual? The fact that it is "attention grabbing" doesn't mean that that's the reason women chose to do it, and it sure doesn't mean that they are looking for "a particular type of attention." Your reasoning is reminiscent of the 'she asked for it' mentality when a woman wearing a low top and short skirt is raped.

And yes, women in the sex trade do reach for the peroxide in vastly disproportionate numbers, and that in itself is a statement about how society sees blondes.

I would say it's more of a statement about how you see blondes.

[kimmy]

Now you're going to accuse me of "dishonestly" presenting your statement out of context? Interesting indeed coming from someone who made a flat-out false statement regarding what the U.S. Dept. of Justice supposedly said.

Being wrong and being dishonest aren't the same thing.

I made a mistake, and acknowledged it as such.

You went around repeating one of my statements out of context even after you were corrected.

Yet in this study that you claim is proof of how "blondes" are perceived/discriminated against, the only "variable" that was changed was hair color on women. So if blonde women are discriminated against by some, it's really further proof of discrimination against women. In order for it to be discrimination against blondes, the same would have to apply to blonde men.

The premise both Kyle and Bates set out to test was in regard to blonde women. That they did not test how subjects viewed blond men is irrelevant to their result.

It's pretty common knowledge that women have been discriminated against in the job market for a number of reasons, so if anything, this is just proof of another area where women are discriminated against.

The blonde woman was judged less capable and worth less than the brunette woman despite all other variables being equal... and you'd have us believe that the only thing that can be concluded from this experiment is that women are discriminated against?

If I can find a study where a white woman was deemed to be more qualified than a black woman with identical qualifications, would you also be claiming that all it really shows is that women are discriminated against? Of course not.

Yes, you did. And not only did you speak in absolutes, but you made a complete false statement when doing so.

(why don't you go in the other thread and quote me what you're referring to?)

...

Nope, that's not what I am referring to.

(well then either go in the other thread and quote the message you're referring to, or shut up about it.)

...

So falsely claiming that black men rape white women by the thousands while white men rape black women so rarely that it can't even be measured isn't a judgment about blacks; much less a false one?

The observation that blacks may engage in some activity at a higher rate than members of some other group is not a judgment about blacks. It is a fact that Canadian aboriginals engage in substance abuse and suicide at a rate far higher than the population as a whole; that's not a judgment about Canadian aboriginals.

I made 2 mistakes in the other thread. Firstly, I didn't read what the statistics represented, namely results of a survey rather than actual crime reports. Secondly, I didn't read that the statistics lumped in a variety of other offenses into the column that had been referred to as "rape" in the discussion. I admitted both of those mistakes early on.

The fact that Argus' comment didn't even draw a 'peep' from you, as you would find it "pretty offensive" if he had said it in regards to blondes, says all that needs to be said.

Why should I? The Somalis don't need me to stick up for them when they've got all you fine people to do it.

Why should I go around fighting stereotypes of others, when nobody's ever shown me the same courtesy?

The Somalis have legions of social justice crusaders to come to their defense; the only person who'll come to my defense is me.

So what if it's "attention grabbing" because it's unusual? The fact that it is "attention grabbing" doesn't mean that that's the reason women chose to do it, and it sure doesn't mean that they are looking for "a particular type of attention." Your reasoning is reminiscent of the 'she asked for it' mentality when a woman wearing a low top and short skirt is raped.

Women color their because they believe it will improve their cosmetic appearance. While some may do it simply for their own self-image, most do it because they wish to be viewed by others in a certain way. Women who choose blonde do so knowing full well the social connotations that choice comes with. Ask them if they're hoping men will pay attention to their new hair color, they'll say yes.

I would say it's more of a statement about how you see blondes.

If I made up a significant portion of the clientele for the sex industry, maybe you'd have a point.

-k

{byebye! see you again next saturday!}

[Guest American Woman]

Being wrong and being dishonest aren't the same thing.

I made a mistake, and acknowledged it as such.

You did?? You're going to have to point that out to me, because I sure missed it.

You went around repeating one of my statements out of context even after you were corrected.

I don't post according to what you tell me; I don't do your bidding. You may have told me that you thought I was quoting you out of context, but taking that entire thread into account, I don't feel that I was. And for the record, I don't "shut up" because you demand me to in red, either. But I would appreciate it if you wouldn't include your temper tantrums in my quotes, making it look as if I posted them.

The premise both Kyle and Bates set out to test was in regard to blonde women. That they did not test how subjects viewed blond men is irrelevant to their result.

Of course it's not irrelevant. What they found was in regards to women, not in regards to blondes. As I already said, this is just more indication of discrimination against women.

The blonde woman was judged less capable and worth less than the brunette woman despite all other variables being equal... and you'd have us believe that the only thing that can be concluded from this experiment is that women are discriminated against?

If you'd comment on what I actually said, I said it's evidence of more discrimination against women. Women are discriminated against in the work force for a number of reasons. This is possibly, in some instances, another reason. But it's not discrimination against blondes. A major factor in this discrimination is that they are women since blonde men are not discriminated against.

If I can find a study where a white woman was deemed to be more qualified than a black woman with identical qualifications, would you also be claiming that all it really shows is that women are discriminated against? Of course not.

Of course not, since blacks as a race are discriminated against, while blondes as a hair color evidently aren't, unless they are women.

The observation that blacks may engage in some activity at a higher rate than members of some other group is not a judgment about blacks.

It is when a false statement is made about it.

I made 2 mistakes in the other thread. Firstly, I didn't read what the statistics represented, namely results of a survey rather than actual crime reports. Secondly, I didn't read that the statistics lumped in a variety of other offenses into the column that had been referred to as "rape" in the discussion. I admitted both of those mistakes early on.

Again, you'll have to point that out to me, because I'm the one who pointed out those "mistakes" and I sure don't recall any "admission" on your part, much less "early on."

Why should I? The Somalis don't need me to stick up for them when they've got all you fine people to do it.

Why should you indeed? That fact that it's offensive would be a good enough reason for most people to speak up about it. But if you leave it to others, while you remain silent, so be it. Keep whining about discrimination against blonds as you let statements like that go.

Why should I go around fighting stereotypes of others, when nobody's ever shown me the same courtesy?

You can't be serious? You think you have had to deal with the same level of stereotypes that blacks/Somalis have? Now you sound like a pouty little child.

The Somalis have legions of social justice crusaders to come to their defense; the only person who'll come to my defense is me.

Poor baby!

Women color their because they believe it will improve their cosmetic appearance. While some may do it simply for their own self-image, most do it because they wish to be viewed by others in a certain way. Women who choose blonde do so knowing full well the social connotations that choice comes with. Ask them if they're hoping men will pay attention to their new hair color, they'll say yes.

I'll just take your word for that and point out that that's quite a different notion from being "involved in adult entertainment or in prostitution" or "doing so because they are looking for a particular type of attention..." As far as I've noticed, it's normal for women to want men to pay attention to them, and vice versa.

Now, unless you can point out to me where you admit your mistake, in which case I will apologize, I'm done discussing this with you.

[Argus]

Water is wet.

I now breathlessly await American Woman's stern rebuttal of the obvious, a demand for statistics, a rejection of those statistics, and a recitation of the equality of water and other liquids with an additional accusation regarding the morality of those who speak ill of water.

Oh, and by the way, the sun rises in the east.

I'll provide the dozen citations upon request.

[Guest American Woman]

Water is wet.

I now breathlessly await American Woman's stern rebuttal of the obvious, a demand for statistics, a rejection of those statistics, and a recitation of the equality of water and other liquids with an additional accusation regarding the morality of those who speak ill of water.

Yes, because saying "water is wet" is the same as making a false statement.

Keep making false statements, and I'll keep "demanding" statistics to back them up, and I'll also keep rejecting statistics that aren't statistics for the claim (ie: false statement) that was made.

I'm sure that's bothersome to you when you're trying to push a particular idea across, but you'll just have to learn to live with it.

Edited September 19, 2009 by American Woman

[kimmy]

I don't post according to what you tell me; I don't do your bidding. You may have told me that you thought I was quoting you out of context, but taking that entire thread into account, I don't feel that I was. And for the record, I don't "shut up" because you demand me to in red, either. But I would appreciate it if you wouldn't include your temper tantrums in my quotes, making it look as if I posted them.

Sorry, it was rude of me to tell you to put up or shut up.

I should have simply stated that you're once again being dishonest, and that the reason you won't cite specific messages to support your claim is that you can't.

So, again, my apologies.

Of course it's not irrelevant. What they found was in regards to women, not in regards to blondes. As I already said, this is just more indication of discrimination against women.

The point of the study is obvious, and the gymnastics to which you are going through to try to evade the point is making you look like a fool.

If you'd comment on what I actually said, I said it's evidence of more discrimination against women. Women are discriminated against in the work force for a number of reasons. This is possibly, in some instances, another reason. But it's not discrimination against blondes. A major factor in this discrimination is that they are women since blonde men are not discriminated against.

uh huh. The participants were biased in favor of the brunette and against the blonde, but the blonde is a woman, so the obvious conclusion is that women were discriminated against!

Of course not, since blacks as a race are discriminated against, while blondes as a hair color evidently aren't, unless they are women.

Well, after just 4 or 5 tries you finally got it. Good for you.

It is when a false statement is made about it.

That is utter crap. You can dispute the correctness of what I've said, but you can't support the claim that I've made judgments about a whole race.

Again, you'll have to point that out to me, because I'm the one who pointed out those "mistakes" and I sure don't recall any "admission" on your part, much less "early on."

Of course you don't. Your slogan is "Listen What I Say", but you seldom extend the same courtesy to others.

I agreed to both points here:

Firstly, these aren't reports aren't complaints filed with police. These are survey responses, given in private interviews with census workers.

(...)

We've also heard "the definition of rape/sexual assault used in this study is overly broad." True.

I assume you will now go on some kind of rant as to whether the eleventh page of a 37 page thread constitutes "early on". I will leave you to that.

Why should you indeed? That fact that it's offensive would be a good enough reason for most people to speak up about it. But if you leave it to others, while you remain silent, so be it. Keep whining about discrimination against blonds as you let statements like that go.

Again, why should I extend someone a courtesy they won't extend to me? Why do the Somalis need some blonde to come to their aid when they have all you fine folks to stick up for them?

You can't be serious? You think you have had to deal with the same level of stereotypes that blacks/Somalis have?

That's the second time you've tried to play that, and as I told you the first time, no. I don't.

However, I don't see that as any reason not to stand up for myself anyway.

I see no reason not to confront someone who'd show me that kind of disrespect.

I see no reason not to respond to people who ridicule the idea that it even exists or that it's anything other than harmless fun.

I see no reason to suffer the sort of ass who will fight tooth-and-nail against any other type of bigotry yet still indulges in this bit of chauvinism because it makes him feel like he's still got nuts.

If I don't say something, nobody else will. And I find that quite surprising, with all of you good, justice-minded people out there standing up for everybody.

Now you sound like a pouty little child.

Poor baby!

Yeah, that's mature. Good for you. I bet you feel really clever after that, don't you.

I'll just take your word for that and point out that that's quite a different notion from being "involved in adult entertainment or in prostitution" or "doing so because they are looking for a particular type of attention..." As far as I've noticed, it's normal for women to want men to pay attention to them, and vice versa.

When one is discussing a group (say, blondes) it is ridiculous to attempt to ascribe any given trait to the group as a whole.

But when we're discussing a group that has chosen to act in a certain way (say, women who have colored their hair blond) then attempting to figure out what prompted this action becomes a much more reasonable exercise.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Sorry, it was rude of me to tell you to put up or shut up.

I should have simply stated that you're once again being dishonest, and that the reason you won't cite specific messages to support your claim is that you can't.

So, again, my apologies.

Wow. That's quite the apology there.

I most certainly can cite specific messages to back up my claim and have repeated what you falsely said about the Justice Dept. and 'blacks raping whites by the thousands while white men rape black women so seldom it can't be measured.' In fact, I believe I've repeated that in every post I've made in reference to it in this very thread. If you can't read what I've posted, that doesn't make me "dishonest," try as you might to portray me that way.

The point of the study is obvious, and the gymnastics to which you are going through to try to evade the point is making you look like a fool.

"Gymnastics," you say? I'm not "evading" the point at all. I said this may be evidence of more discrimination against women, and for some reason you seem to think that's evading the point -- which is discrimination against blonde women; because that's what the study you cited was in regards to. Blonde women. Not blondes.

uh huh. The participants were biased in favor of the brunette and against the blonde, but the blonde is a woman, so the obvious conclusion is that women were discriminated against!

Are you saying "blondes" were discriminated against? Are you saying that it's incorrect that only blonde women were discriminated against? The obvious conclusion one can draw from the study you cited is that it's evidence of more discrimination against women. The fact that there is no bias against blonde men makes this quite clearly about women. It's just another area where women are discriminated against. Not blondes, since men aren't included, but blonde women. Do you honestly not get that?

Well, after just 4 or 5 tries you finally got it. Good for you.

I'm rather speechless here since I simply repeated, yet again, what I've already said "4 or 5" times in different words.

That is utter crap. You can dispute the correctness of what I've said, but you can't support the claim that I've made judgments about a whole race.

You're right. You just made a judgment about black males, so you only made a judgment about half the the population of a race. Same as people stereotype only one half of the blonde population.

Your slogan is "Listen What I Say", but you seldom extend the same courtesy to others.

You make a moronic statement like that as you repeatedly call me dishonest.

But since you're going to take this beyond the actual issue and start making false accusations about me, using what I say in my profile, of all things, to do so, in case you it really did escape you-- it's a play on words from the song "American Woman" where the Canadian band says "listen what I say." Get it?

I agreed to both points here:

"Agreeing to both points" is not, by any means, admitting that you made a false statement regarding what the Justice Dept. said.

I assume you will now go on some kind of rant as to whether the eleventh page of a 37 page thread constitutes "early on". I will leave you to that.

Interesting. You're the one telling me to "shut up," in red, no less; you're the one bringing up what I say in my profile, you're the one making blanket judgments about me; you're the one telling me I look foolish; you're the one accusing me of being dishonest-- yet you insinuate my responses have been "rants." Perhaps you should try to learn to distinguish the difference between a "response" and a "rant."

Again, why should I extend someone a courtesy they won't extend to me?

Why, indeed? Why should you respond to, and I'm using your word here, an "offensive" remark about Somalis on this board when evidently "they," whoever they may be, won't speak up against all the injustices you suffer from?

Leave it to someone else. Never mind that Somalis/blacks are subjected to much worse, much more encompassing stereotyping/discrimination; poor blonde Kimmy doesn't have anyone speaking out against the terrible sterotyping/discrimination that blonde women are subjected to. Discrimination that's so horrible, millions of women choose to become a blonde.

Why do the Somalis need some blonde to come to their aid when they have all you fine folks to stick up for them?

Honestly, all I can do in response to that statement is while at the same time

That's the second time you've tried to play that, and as I told you the first time, no. I don't.

So you realize the stereotypes you are subjected to are not at the same level as the stereotypes Somalis are subjected to, but you still won't speak up against it when someone makes, and I'm using your word again, an "offensive" remark about them. Got'cha.

However, I don't see that as any reason not to stand up for myself anyway. I see no reason not to confront someone who'd show me that kind of disrespect. I see no reason not to respond to people who ridicule the idea that it even exists or that it's anything other than harmless fun.

Here's a thought. You could stand up for yourself AND stand up for them. Standing up for yourself doesn't exclude you from standing up for them, too. I find it very interesting that you see "no reason not to confront someone who'd show [you] that kind of disrespect," and I haven't even seen anyone show you "that kind of disrespect," as you see "no reason" to confront someone who shows that kind of disrespect for Somalis. It says a lot about you.

If I don't say something, nobody else will. And I find that quite surprising, with all of you good, justice-minded people out there standing up for everybody.

Try to get this through your head, Kimmy. I myself am a blue-eyed natural blonde. My whole family is, since my parents both were. I don't feel the need to stand up for me, my sisters, or my daughters, so I'm not going to 'stand up for you.' I will, however, continue to stand up for people who are subjected to much worse, all-encompassing stereotyping/discrimination; people who have to endure nothing but discrimination from some people. Violent discrimination, in some instances. Discrimination by the law, in too instances.

Yeah, that's mature. Good for you. I bet you feel really clever after that, don't you.

Ummmm.... I wasn't going for "clever," I was going for appropriate, so I what I "feel" is that I hit the nail on the head.

When one is discussing a group (say, blondes) it is ridiculous to attempt to ascribe any given trait to the group as a whole.

I couldn't agree with you more, and people don't ascribe any given trait to the group as a whole in regards to blondes.

But when we're discussing a group that has chosen to act in a certain way (say, women who have colored their hair blond) then attempting to figure out what prompted this action becomes a much more reasonable exercise.

This is what I don't get. Why you would even "attempt" to "figure out" why women dye their hair blonde. Do you attempt to figure out why women dye their hair red, or brunette, or black? Do you think it's a "reasonable exercise" to try to figure that out, too? Because I, for one, have never tried to figure out why someone dyes their hair. For one thing, the obvious reason would be because they like it; that they find it attractive. Secondly, why would I care? Furthermore, I don't see a blonde and stereotype them whether they are Caucasian or non-Caucasian. I've never stereotyped blondes at all, while you, on the other hand have -- as you complain about people not standing up for you.

Now, since you evidently can't show me where you admitted your statement was incorrect, because you didn't, I'm done discussing this with you. In the meantime, keep remaining silent when people make "offensive" remarks about anyone other than blondes .....

[Argus]

So you realize the stereotypes you are subjected to are not at the same level as the stereotypes Somalis are subjected to, but you still won't speak up against it when someone makes, and I'm using your word again, an "offensive" remark about them. Got'cha.

Have you ever met any Somalis? Do you know anything at all about them and their morally bankrupt culture? Do you have any idea what their well-deserved reputation is in areas of Canada where they have gathered in large numbers?

There are Blacks in Ottawa from all over the world, but the only negative comments I generally hear - and consistently hear - are about Somalis. And I hear them from Blacks too.

Furthermore, I don't see a blonde and stereotype them whether they are Caucasian or non-Caucasian.

Your observations regarding blondes are irrelevant to the documented, provable societal stereotype about blondes. I would go further and say the stereotype is stronger the more attractive the blonde is. I know a couple of attractive blondes and they would both agree. In fact, I knew an attractive girl who had dyed her hair blonde, but then went brunette after a number of years and was amazed at how differently people treated her at work. She was still attractive, but not blonde, and people reacted to her differently.

[kimmy]

"Gymnastics," you say? I'm not "evading" the point at all. I said this may be evidence of more discrimination against women, and for some reason you seem to think that's evading the point -- which is discrimination against blonde women; because that's what the study you cited was in regards to. Blonde women. Not blondes.

Are you saying "blondes" were discriminated against? Are you saying that it's incorrect that only blonde women were discriminated against? The obvious conclusion one can draw from the study you cited is that it's evidence of more discrimination against women. The fact that there is no bias against blonde men makes this quite clearly about women. It's just another area where women are discriminated against. Not blondes, since men aren't included, but blonde women. Do you honestly not get that?

I have not argued that the stereotypes and discrimination are directed at blond men. I've been talking about blondes, and as I'm sure someone with your enthusiasm for semantics is well aware, "blonde" is used only when referring to women. When describing a man or a mixed group, "blond" is used.

You're right. You just made a judgment about black males, so you only made a judgment about half the the population of a race. Same as people stereotype only one half of the blonde population.

I never made a judgment about black males as a group. I wrote that white women are raped by black males at a far higher rate than the reverse. As you keep pointing out, I wrote that based on an incorrect interpretation of the data presented. However, it is no way a judgment about black males as a group.

"Agreeing to both points" is not, by any means, admitting that you made a false statement regarding what the Justice Dept. said.

I think stating both of those points as fact in my own message shows my agreement with them. You're not satisfied? Why? Did you want a bouquet or a medal or something?

Interesting. You're the one telling me to "shut up," in red, no less; you're the one bringing up what I say in my profile, you're the one making blanket judgments about me; you're the one telling me I look foolish; you're the one accusing me of being dishonest-- yet you insinuate my responses have been "rants." Perhaps you should try to learn to distinguish the difference between a "response" and a "rant."

If you don't want to be told you look foolish, you should stop writing foolish things. If you don't like being told you're dishonest, you should stop being dishonest.

-you continued using a quote from me out of context, even after the proper context had been explained to you.

-I asked you to show me where I disregarded information from "several universities", and you refused.

-I asked you to show me where I disregarded information from the New York State Police, and you refused.

-I asked you to show me where I spoke in absolutes, or made judgments about blacks as a group, or even black men, and you can't.

And apparently all of this is justified in your mind by the fact that I made an inaccurate statement early in the other thread, which you have been running about repeating for 3 weekends in a row? If you honestly don't get why I'm upset with the way you've conducted yourself here, fine. If you're serious that you're not going to respond to me anymore, I guess I should consider that a blessing.

So you realize the stereotypes you are subjected to are not at the same level as the stereotypes Somalis are subjected to, but you still won't speak up against it when someone makes, and I'm using your word again, an "offensive" remark about them. Got'cha.

I found Makmood Amajinabinabad's latest statements about the Holocaust offensive too, but haven't issued a condemnation. Have you issued a condemnation about Amajinabinabad's latest statement about the Holocaust? And if not, why? Are you a Holocaust denier?

Try to get this through your head, Kimmy. I myself am a blue-eyed natural blonde. My whole family is, since my parents both were. I don't feel the need to stand up for me, my sisters, or my daughters, so I'm not going to 'stand up for you.' I will, however, continue to stand up for people who are subjected to much worse, all-encompassing stereotyping/discrimination; people who have to endure nothing but discrimination from some people. Violent discrimination, in some instances. Discrimination by the law, in too instances.

Negative stereotypes about just about every other group seem to have been banished from our media... but the dumb blonde is still with us. Why is that? When I was a kid, we had Kelly Bundy. Kids today have Kaley Cuoco characters on tv, and Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton playing up the stereotype to promote their careers. Who was it when you were growing up? Barbara Eden? A while back, I mentioned an ad campaign that promoted the stereotype; notice Dancer's witty response. Certainly the jokes continue unabated. And it seems nonsensical to me that people seem to acknowledge that stereotypes are harmful and reinforce negative attitudes in every other instance, and yet seem convinced that this one stereotype along among all others is completely harmless.

Kids are exposed to all of this crap before they're old enough to understand what "stereotype" even means... is it unreasonable to suggest that if "Huggybear" might have had a negative effect on the way black kids see themselves, Kelly Bundy might have had a negative effect on how blondes see themselves too? I find it amazing that educated people take as a given the effect in one case, and yet in the other case it seems completely incomprehensible to them. Look at your own reaction to the article I posted by Dr Bates: disbelief. Your first instinct was to reject the conclusion and start looking for reasons why he must have made a mistake.

Perhaps I notice it more because I spend my week days working with a construction crew, and several evenings a week dealing with young people consuming alcohol. Perhaps the amount of time I spend in these environments gives me exposure to a different sort of people than you're used to. If I confront a customer who is misbehaving or tell someone that they need to leave, and they get verbally abusive in response, they will more often than not reference my hair color. I am sure that they'd find some other verbiage to throw at someone else, but I am always surprised that someone would throw "blonde" (usually in conjunction with B***H or C**T) in my face as if it were a pejorative.

If a lineup at the grocery store is stalled because the cashier is having some kind of problem, someone will grumble "doesn't she know what she's doing?" But if the cashier is a blonde, someone will quite likely reference her hair-color as the source of the problem. And people who would be shocked and outraged if somebody said that in regard to a black cashier who was having a bad day will not make a peep of protest. And your view, apparently, is that the blonde behind the cash register doesn't need anybody to stick up for her because she hasn't got it as bad as the Somalis.

And to me it just illustrates that people aren't offended at stereotypes or discrimination as general principles. They're just offended when stereotypes and discrimination are directed at the wrong groups.

-k

[lictor616]

Wow. That's quite the apology there.

I most certainly can cite specific messages to back up my claim and have repeated what you falsely said about the Justice Dept. and 'blacks raping whites by the thousands while white men rape black women so seldom it can't be measured.' In fact, I believe I've repeated that in every post I've made in reference to it in this very thread. If you can't read what I've posted, that doesn't make me "dishonest," try as you might to portray me that way.

"Gymnastics," you say? I'm not "evading" the point at all. I said this may be evidence of more discrimination against women, and for some reason you seem to think that's evading the point -- which is discrimination against blonde women; because that's what the study you cited was in regards to. Blonde women. Not blondes.

Are you saying "blondes" were discriminated against? Are you saying that it's incorrect that only blonde women were discriminated against? The obvious conclusion one can draw from the study you cited is that it's evidence of more discrimination against women. The fact that there is no bias against blonde men makes this quite clearly about women. It's just another area where women are discriminated against. Not blondes, since men aren't included, but blonde women. Do you honestly not get that?

I'm rather speechless here since I simply repeated, yet again, what I've already said "4 or 5" times in different words.

You're right. You just made a judgment about black males, so you only made a judgment about half the the population of a race. Same as people stereotype only one half of the blonde population.

You make a moronic statement like that as you repeatedly call me dishonest.

But since you're going to take this beyond the actual issue and start making false accusations about me, using what I say in my profile, of all things, to do so, in case you it really did escape you-- it's a play on words from the song "American Woman" where the Canadian band says "listen what I say." Get it?

"Agreeing to both points" is not, by any means, admitting that you made a false statement regarding what the Justice Dept. said.

Interesting. You're the one telling me to "shut up," in red, no less; you're the one bringing up what I say in my profile, you're the one making blanket judgments about me; you're the one telling me I look foolish; you're the one accusing me of being dishonest-- yet you insinuate my responses have been "rants." Perhaps you should try to learn to distinguish the difference between a "response" and a "rant."

Why, indeed? Why should you respond to, and I'm using your word here, an "offensive" remark about Somalis on this board when evidently "they," whoever they may be, won't speak up against all the injustices you suffer from?

Leave it to someone else. Never mind that Somalis/blacks are subjected to much worse, much more encompassing stereotyping/discrimination; poor blonde Kimmy doesn't have anyone speaking out against the terrible sterotyping/discrimination that blonde women are subjected to. Discrimination that's so horrible, millions of women choose to become a blonde.

Honestly, all I can do in response to that statement is while at the same time

So you realize the stereotypes you are subjected to are not at the same level as the stereotypes Somalis are subjected to, but you still won't speak up against it when someone makes, and I'm using your word again, an "offensive" remark about them. Got'cha.

Here's a thought. You could stand up for yourself AND stand up for them. Standing up for yourself doesn't exclude you from standing up for them, too. I find it very interesting that you see "no reason not to confront someone who'd show [you] that kind of disrespect," and I haven't even seen anyone show you "that kind of disrespect," as you see "no reason" to confront someone who shows that kind of disrespect for Somalis. It says a lot about you.

Try to get this through your head, Kimmy. I myself am a blue-eyed natural blonde. My whole family is, since my parents both were. I don't feel the need to stand up for me, my sisters, or my daughters, so I'm not going to 'stand up for you.' I will, however, continue to stand up for people who are subjected to much worse, all-encompassing stereotyping/discrimination; people who have to endure nothing but discrimination from some people. Violent discrimination, in some instances. Discrimination by the law, in too instances.

Ummmm.... I wasn't going for "clever," I was going for appropriate, so I what I "feel" is that I hit the nail on the head.

I couldn't agree with you more, and people don't ascribe any given trait to the group as a whole in regards to blondes.

This is what I don't get. Why you would even "attempt" to "figure out" why women dye their hair blonde. Do you attempt to figure out why women dye their hair red, or brunette, or black? Do you think it's a "reasonable exercise" to try to figure that out, too? Because I, for one, have never tried to figure out why someone dyes their hair. For one thing, the obvious reason would be because they like it; that they find it attractive. Secondly, why would I care? Furthermore, I don't see a blonde and stereotype them whether they are Caucasian or non-Caucasian. I've never stereotyped blondes at all, while you, on the other hand have -- as you complain about people not standing up for you.

Now, since you evidently can't show me where you admitted your statement was incorrect, because you didn't, I'm done discussing this with you. In the meantime, keep remaining silent when people make "offensive" remarks about anyone other than blondes .....

I used to think that sending people like American Woman over to Somalia for a year to live among the people there would probably do wonders to change their thinking... But I no longer beleive that...

For some people the implanted politically correct hallucinations are so well embedded that they cannot be broken... I'm not even sure that a good brutal gang rape and female genital mutilation session would be enough to persuade them of the error in their thinking. Before she'd be released from the hospital, American Woman would have figured out that what happened to her was a mere chance encounter (and that a person of any race had equal an chance of committing the awful act against her) and that the people who raped and "circumcised" her were victims of white racism and bigotry or something of the sort and then she would have urged everyone NOT to draw the obvious and inescapable conclusions and stereotype the poor dears who raped and mutilated her. At worst she would have welcomed her new body modification as some sort of "cultural enrichment".

When I read such comments as the above quoted... I can only say of them that they are Orwellian double think... and they are insane.

Look at how MUCH MORE concerned American Woman is about the potential labeling of black men then she is about VICTIMS OF RAPE...

What kind of creature does it take to take the rapist's side and making sure the rapist is not "defamed" and "stereotyped"... That's bordering on evil... It is proof of a mind animated by malice and hatred of justice... whether that mind knows it or not.

Edited September 20, 2009 by lictor616

[Guest American Woman]

Have you ever met any Somalis? Do you know anything at all about them and their morally bankrupt culture? Do you have any idea what their well-deserved reputation is in areas of Canada where they have gathered in large numbers?

No. I've never met a Somali.

What I know is you are engaging in more stereotyping, insulting, and generalizing about a whole race, and I know I can count on some here to remain silent.

There are Blacks in Ottawa from all over the world, but the only negative comments I generally hear - and consistently hear - are about Somalis. And I hear them from Blacks too.

So is that your "proof?"

Your observations regarding blondes are irrelevant to the documented, provable societal stereotype about blondes.

Everything I've said about blondes is "relevant" to the documented, "provable" stereotype about blondes. What have I said that's irrelevant? Please point it out.

I would go further and say the stereotype is stronger the more attractive the blonde is.

And the more attractive the blonde is, the more the benefits of being a blonde outweigh the stereotypes. As I said, many people choose to go blonde for a reason, and it's not because of the horrible stereotyping/discrimination, but for the 'benefits' that blondes enjoy.

I know a couple of attractive blondes and they would both agree.

Wow. You know a whole "couple" of attractive blondes? Guess one can't base their observations on anything more extensive than that.

In fact, I knew an attractive girl who had dyed her hair blonde, but then went brunette after a number of years and was amazed at how differently people treated her at work. She was still attractive, but not blonde, and people reacted to her differently.

Reacted to her differently good, or not as good?

Edited September 20, 2009 by American Woman

[Pliny]

I've read quite a bit of this thread now and have to ask once again why legislators have to legitimize Black history month by ensconcing it in law?

Blacks can celebrate a Black history month if they wish and other races will probably celebrate it with them. Is it a cultural/racial celebration or a legal thing? Making Black History month a legally recognized event is rather a snub to other races. It is just very divisive and disharmonious. What does making it legally recognized add to the celebration? Is it an opportunity for government to prove it's magnanimity and benevolence? Is it for government to point the finger at the white race and capitalists in order to deflect attention from it's racist laws.

Liberals feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves when they support this kind of legally recognized racial celebration of a minority. It levels the playing field so that it isn't white history month all the time and we are so proud of ourselves being able to grant the Black population this recognition - see, we really are nice, really! We're helping you poor Blacks out all the time.

[Guest American Woman]

I've read quite a bit of this thread now and have to ask once again why legislators have to legitimize Black history month by ensconcing it in law?

Blacks can celebrate a Black history month if they wish and other races will probably celebrate it with them. Is it a cultural/racial celebration or a legal thing?

It's a legal thing. link

In 1986 Congress passed Public Law 99-244 which designated February 1986 as "National Black (Afro-American) History Month.” This law noted that February 1, 1986 would “mark the beginning of the sixtieth annual public and private salute to Black History.” The law further called upon to President to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe February 1986 as Black History Month with the appropriate ceremonies and activities.

[Pliny]

It's a legal thing. link

In 1986 Congress passed Public Law 99-244 which designated February 1986 as "National Black (Afro-American) History Month.” This law noted that February 1, 1986 would “mark the beginning of the sixtieth annual public and private salute to Black History.” The law further called upon to President to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe February 1986 as Black History Month with the appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Exactly. It is more to do with white feel-good law than with Blacks at all.

[kuzadd]

sample this miniclip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHmHYk_P22w...feature=related

I,d like to know your thoughts.

really, I started to watch it, and shut it off.

why?

there is no "white race" there is no "black race"

there is only ONE race, that is the human race.

Did you know Italians were considered blacks. Irish were not as good as 'whites' read anglo/protestants, then there is the whole North American slave issue, and the slaughter of the natives.

But what these really all are is the powerful inflicting their will on the powerless.

If you wanna play the "race card" you are simply causing more division.

I ain't buying what you are selling.

[Guest American Woman]

Exactly. It is more to do with white feel-good law than with Blacks at all.

Since it was initiated by a Black historian, and promoted by Black civic organizations, it's pretty clear that it has more to do with Blacks than with "white feel-good law at all."

link

[kimmy]

really, I started to watch it, and shut it off.

why?

there is no "white race" there is no "black race"

there is only ONE race, that is the human race.

Whether "race" has any validity as a scientific concept is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Whether "race" exists in any scientific sense or not, everybody understands what the terms "black" and "white" mean in the context they're being discussed here.

There are historical and cultural facts that can not be dismissed by discussing the issue of whether "race" is a scientifically valid concept. The use of people of African descent as slaves in the United States is a historical fact that can not be denied by questioning the validity of race as a scientific concept.

The fact that there is a Black History Month is not dependent on the validity of race as a scientific concept. The fact that there is a Black History Month is, like many other facts about the history of African descendants in America, a function of race as a social concept.

The quote that I've referenced before is this:

"In America, which I love from the depths of my heart and soul, when you look like me, you're black." -Colin Powell.

Did you know Italians were considered blacks. Irish were not as good as 'whites' read anglo/protestants, then there is the whole North American slave issue, and the slaughter of the natives.

My mom's peeps (Eastern European religious kooks) were seen as almost subhuman when they first arrived in this country... my dad's (Swedes) were only a rung or two higher when they first arrived in North America. But none of that is true today.

You've certainly pointed out the evolving nature of prejudice, but that doesn't alter the fact of its existence.

But what these really all are is the powerful inflicting their will on the powerless.

If you wanna play the "race card" you are simply causing more division.

I ain't buying what you are selling.

Trying to ignore the role of race (the social concept) is to ignore the elephant in the room. When groups of people had historically been relegated to the "powerless" group based strictly on their appearance, and when membership in in the "powerful" group is likewise limited to some who look a certain way, the social concept of race is important in understanding the context of the divisions that exist to this very day.

Even the most powerful man in the world is, according to some, a victim of racism at this very moment.

-k

Edited September 23, 2009 by kimmy

[Oleg Bach]

If Obama was "powerful" he would decree and make it so, that every last citizen under his wardship would have the right to life and health ...He can't do that because the evil human flesh eating cannibals who love to consume the consumers don't like being consumed themselves by having to give another human being a piece of bread..in the form of human care. He is NOT powerful - the guy pumping gas in Arizona missing most of his teeth with an achor tattooed on his arm is the most powerful man in the world..

[kuzadd]

cute story:

at the local mall, two adorable little girls, bopping around the hallways, there Dad doing his best to keep up with the energetic twosome.

The older of the two, turned to me, with her megawatt smile, HELLO, friendly wave.

And I said "hello cutie" back to her.

Cause I always call little people "cutie"

And she was as pleased as punch.

And her little smiling face and friendly wave made my day

And, ya know what?

Our skin was not the same colour, did the little cutie care?

Nope she saw a friendly face on another PERSON and said hello.

[kuzadd]

Whether "race" has any validity as a scientific concept is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Whether "race" exists in any scientific sense or not, everybody understands what the terms "black" and "white" mean in the context they're being discussed here.

Of course they do, since they have been conditioned to do so.

There are historical and cultural facts that can not be dismissed by discussing the issue of whether "race" is a scientifically valid concept. The use of people of African descent as slaves in the United States is a historical fact that can not be denied by questioning the validity of race as a scientific concept.

I wouldn't dismiss the slavery issue.

But the ok to use people of different skin colour grew out of the social concept of differentiation of race.

Trying to ignore the role of race (the social concept) is to ignore the elephant in the room. When groups of people had historically been relegated to the "powerless" group based strictly on their appearance, and when membership in in the "powerful" group is likewise limited to some who look a certain way, the social concept of race is important in understanding the context of the divisions that exist to this very day.

The role of race, should be ignored, because it is an artificial creation. It is used when the powerful want to reign over the powerless. These views then become embedded in the psyche of certain persons. They then contribute the the division of humanity.

Which is why, in the bigger picture they should be ignored.

Even the most powerful man in the world is, according to some, a victim of racism at this very moment.

-k

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't?

[M.Dancer]

I wouldn't dismiss the slavery issue.

But the ok to use people of different skin colour grew out of the social concept of differentiation of race.

Of course it didn't. Slavery was once an institution that was colour blind. The only criteria to become a slave was powerlessness. Irish enslaved Britons, Italians enslaved greeks, etc etc....by the time of the enlightenment, slavery of fellow Europeans was reduced to near slavery, the indentured...yet arabs enslaved arabs, chinese enslaved chinese, indians enslaved indians, etc etc...

The role of race, should be ignored, because it is an artificial creation. It is used when the powerful want to reign over the powerless. These views then become embedded in the psyche of certain persons. They then contribute the the division of humanity.

Which is why, in the bigger picture they should be ignored.

It can't be ignored if you want to address the evils of racism. Ignore it, and you ignore racism.