Agreed. If you treat people differently they're going to be resented for it, which is why I'm opposed to black history month. Not because I hate blacks, but because I see them as normal people.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This guy isn't saying that, he's saying whenever a racist/sexist/rapist act happens, then instead of making a big deal about it, ignoring it. What you are talking about is, treating a successful black person who fought his way through the ghetto to get to college with more respect than a successful white guy who had access to everything he could ask for is bad.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I know mine was different but I wanted to say it anyways.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well you did and it was wrong, but nice try though.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How is what he said wrong?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because, reread my comment

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No need to be an ass. "What you are talking about is, treating a successful black person who fought his way through the ghetto to get to college with more respect than a successful white guy who had access to everything he could ask for is bad." Are you an idiot? Are you trying to say that only black people live in the ghetto? That all white people are born into privileged lives? Why is their race important in any way? This may sound crazy, but how about we acknowledge the fact that EVERYONE experiences hardships? It's not treating one person with more respect than the other. What you're doing is deliberately treating someone differently because of their race. We want equality yet we insist on pointing out differences.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Am I an idiot? Am I someone who ignores all and any statistical proof of anything? Gain some knowledge and then talk to me. Also, there is a huge difference between getting shot, because of your race and not getting the brand new Ferrari, you wanted... just saying.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree with this statement: A successful person who fights his way out of poverty deserves more respect than a person just as successful who has everything provided to him. See - it works without the racial qualifiers. We shouldn't be taking race into account, only achievement. The answer to negative discrimination should not be positive discrimination...it should be no discrimination. Any distinction we make between races will fuel prejudice which will in turn fuel discrimination. The more we act like race doesn't matter, the less it will matter. Note: By "act like race doesn't matter", I am not agreeing with the OP. I don't think we should ignore racism. In fact, my argument is that we should avoid all forms of racism.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, but people are still discriminated against because of race, so why shouldn't we have positive discrimination to balance things out?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

For a few reasons. First, I don't believe positive discrimination will ever lead to equality. I think that as long as we discriminate, people will see races as unequal. Positive discrimination treats a symptom, but sustains the disease. Also, Let's say you have two children. Child A keeps stealing child B's candy. If the parent decides to let child B watch an extra hour of TV each day to compensate him for always having his candy stolen, then child A will never stop stealing lest child B get the advantage. In the same way, the people currently discriminating might feel drawn to keep discriminating because they don't want to be at the disadvantage. Finally, I should note that I think that pushing for equal treatment, punishing for discrimination, and trying to socialize the equality of races is the best chance we have for ever attaining equality.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It may not lead to equality, but it's better than nothing, because equality isn't something that can exist, at least not in any of our life times. The way you presented your example is geared towards supporting your argument and isn't an accurate analogy of the situation. Your argument would work better if the parent ended up secretly giving child B candy, when child A isn't around or maybe not giving child A candy at all. Your suggestion is pretty much saying if the parent does either of those two options, s/he should be punished for discriminating against their kids? Sure, it would be nice if child B stood up for himself, but for one reason or another (most likely years of oppression and poverty), child B has given up hope, so you shouldn't try to get his/her spirits up by giving him/her what s/he lacks? Your solution is not practical at all, then people would hate/blame the other race for government oppression.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Black history month is just ridiculous. Where's the Pacific Islander History month, etc?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Wait... that exists, are you being sarcastic? Hahaha

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, but what I'm saying is that if there's black history month, why isn't there Pacific Islander History month, or Asian History month, etc. Black history month is a totally ridiculous idea.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There is a Pacific Islander/Asian History month... it DOES exist. There's Irish history month, Hispanic history month... there are other ones, you just never bothered learning about them. You can't blame a country for your ignorance, foo

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I guarantee that at most, 1% of the population has heard of those months.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Your point being?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They might as well not exist. The hype about black history month is fucking ridiculous.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Not necessarily. If you treat everything with apathy, even the horrors, nothing will ever be changed. So no, if there's a huge hate crime against a race, you can't just keep walking. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Where are you getting these ideas from? Seriously, how old are you kid? Do you try to stop cancer by ignoring it? Is that the solution to aids? Indifference? Facing your problems is no longer an option in today's society, is it? Trying to solve and find a solution the problem is too much to ask for? Caring is just too much, innit?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm 15, and chill. Its an opinion. I mean, we really shouldn't flip out about some hate crime, thats all. Its awful, but racism has a better chance of being blotted out if people don't hear about it as much. Cancer is a completely different problem then racism, so that doesn't really work, comparing it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Than* And it's a problem nonetheless. Education is part of the solution, not part of the problem. And that's a great life lesson I thought you there, kiddo... and free of charge too!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You misjudge the power of people. Even if you believe the case of Trayvon Martin wasn't a hate crime, Zimmerman most likely would not have been prosecuted/given such a large sentence if the public wasn't so involved. We live in a democracy. The voice of the people is the strongest. If we all turn a blind eye to what goes on, there will be no voice.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I disagree. I absolutely think people should flip out over a hate crime. Racism will still exist to those who are being prejudiced against if you just ignore it. The only people who won't hear about it are the people who aren't the subjects of the hate crime. Racism is not a bully on the playground that you ignore until they go away.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Nope. There needs to outcry against discrimination for the same reason that there should be outcry against murder. People who discriminate against others need to know that such behavior is intolerable. But, I do think we need to start being indifferent about race. Any distinction of race we make, even if it benefits minorities in the short term, will only exacerbate prejudices.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Being indifferent is the goal, but it can't solve the problem. 150 years ago, the idea of a woman being allowed to vote would have sounded crazy and out of line with societal norms. Now, we're indifferent: it's just a given that women can vote and it seems crazy to think that they only recently gained the right. But indifference is not what won women's suffrage. They had to actively fight for those rights and had to fundamentally change the public's perceptions. You could say the same for civil rights, gay rights, etc. Indifference doesn't change anything, it just allows the current public attitude to thrive on unopposed.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Meh

by Anonymous 11 years ago