I believe that on a global scale, whites, ironically enough, are indeed a minority. They just seem to have thicker white skin.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I believe that on a global scale, whites, ironically enough, are indeed a minority.

Not it terms of power or wealth though.

Besides, racism - including in this case - is generally a local or national issue, not a global one.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Why is that disturbing? The reason minorities need to group together in associations is precisely because they are minorities. If there is an imbalance of power, then such associations amongst the subverted are the only way of redressing this power. I know it's chic to criticse political correctness - and it has it coming with its inherent contradictions and baseless moralisms - but just because political correctness is a failure it doesn't mean that the key tennets of political correctness (tolerence, equality etc.) have to be trashed with it. Until such a time as everyone is able to start off on an equal footing with everyone else, associations based on race are necessary to redress the imbalance of power that is in itself largely based on race. You can pretend that racism doesn't exist, or that key "well-being" indicators aren't often directly tied to race, but the fact is that this is how it is. Until things change, minority associations are a necessity.

The way I see it is that minorities have made great strides in the last 40 years and the results of this can be seen in the ever increasing numbers of minorities in leadership roles across the country. I think there is a perception in some parts of the poorer minority communities that they aren't getting their fair share when I think in fact this idea is something that is passed from generation to generation with the passing of the ideal that hard work = success in this country regardless of race. Forming societies that exclude other people based on race alone creates more of a separation in this country for the reasons I expressed. White people although they share a common bond(being white) are made to feel hated and ashamed if they dare do anything with the purpose of excluding a race and are labeled as rascists. Everyone doesn't start off with an equal footing in regards to power, money, and influence but throughout life an equal footing does exist with hard work. There are plenty of non minorities in the same or worse condition as their minority counterparts.

While I think the issue of discrimination and equal rights is an interesting topic here, I'm wondering if anyone would care to address the fact that Bush is going against a legal settlement that was issued in '97. How is that not illegal?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 While I think the issue of discrimination and equal rights is an interesting topic here, I'm wondering if anyone would care to address the fact that Bush is going against a legal settlement that was issued in '97. How is that not illegal?

After reading the original article... I have to think or assume that the new investigator team found reason to disbelieve the original case.

It's pretty weak from what I'm reading:
"Nearly nine out of ten denied restitution."

Did they need restitution? You're telling me 94,000 black farmers somehow got discriminated against? It sounds from these numbers that perhaps a few actual legitimate cases turned into a free for all "frivilous lawsuit" type request here. I could be wrong, though.

"56,000 hours fighting farmers"

I'm sure we'd have to see some of the 128 or so cases that were brought up here - but isn't it possible that their claims were outrageous or contraversial? Maybe they needed more time to get everything straightened out.

Anyway, it could be that the Bush administration found reasonable doubt in this entire thing. Or I could be wrong, and Bush is just being an asshole.

We need a trance-lawyer that knows about this to be sure, I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 While I think the issue of discrimination and equal rights is an interesting topic here, I'm wondering if anyone would care to address the fact that Bush is going against a legal settlement that was issued in '97. How is that not illegal?

I read the article and did some research on Pigford V. Veneman and it seems there is also another case pending Garcia V. Veneman filed by Hispanic farmers as well.

If the lawsuit ruled in favor of the black farmers then they deserve their compensation. I don't know how much Bush has to do personally with the red tape on the matter, its one of those things you ask why would he hold it up, does he really have anything to gain? A large portion of his voting public is hispanic. Perhaps its just held up in red tape like many other cases, regardless of race.

So yes its illegal to not pay in which a legal settlement has been reached. I think i read that 600million has been already paid but please correct me if I am wrong.