Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (4736)	11/29/2001 12:33:41 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

You know the limitations, therefore you don't have to try and guess. People know there place. In the 70s, a black friend told me he was more comfortable in the South than the North because in the South everyone knew what the rules were. Karen

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (4736)	11/29/2001 12:41:02 PM
From: HG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

<<<However, where it is accepted, it is the status quo and there is no hope for change>>> I dunno about that. I think countries change. When they see people unhappy and migrating out, the policies change. Its only when people accept the covertness that things come to a standstill. If Australia saw a sudden outflux of its ethic immigrants, you think govt would be so tolerant of prejudices ? Did you read about the recent mass conversions of 50,000 Dalits to Buddhism in India ? I think most stalwarts of Hinduism would be taking a long and hard look at issues of religious tolerance right now, not just paying lip service to it. Of course racism exists everywhere. Prejudices exist all over. Within our individual societies there is a pecking order. Even in US men are paid more than women, pregnant women suffer discrimination. Its human nature to favor some at the cost of others. Happens even within families. As long as it does not significantly disrupt the lives of people, it is normally acceptable and tolerated. Only when it becomes blatantly unacceptable, when people lose the right to choose, lose the legal recourse even though it is promised to them, and yet the system is applauded for its 'fairness', its then when it hurts most. I guess the Dalits were sick of the lip service being paid to their cause. They were told they were equal, but they didn't 'feel' equal. At some level it was worse than being called 'inferior' and openly discriminated against. They even lost public sympathy and patience with that label of equality. The covert discrimination invalidates the individuals plight. And because the system is accepted by the world as just, the oppressed individual's (or section of society) plight is that much more difficult to highlight. It is infinitely more emotionally damaging than a blunt racist policy would be. Kashmir had a blunt racist policy against Hindu's. Yet, you could see only a handful of Hindu's really suffering due to lack of jobs. They 'knew' and so 'chose' to leave. It was more rewarding to 'know' than it would have been to not know, and then hope and fight the system. Covert discrimination is when it becomes unfair and unacceptable to an individual or a section of people being discriminated against. I don't know about US counterparts, and i didn't want to piss of fans of Australian ethic policies - so excuse me if most of my examples are from the subcontinent.