Today's Poll: Is racism still a problem in the U.S.?

Batavia, Ny is the biggest racist community in western new york.

I'm sorry you feel this way. I have never understood prejudice or racism. I like to be friendly to everyone. I hope I can meet you in person some day.

Yay, let's start up the whole "If you don't vote for Obama, you must be a racist" garbage. The writers findings were skewed to the answer he wanted. I voted for Kerry in '04 but not Barry in '08. It had nothing to do with race. I'm sure he thinks I'm a lying racist though. I am so damn tired of this subject. Yes, there are racists out there, there are all kinds of unsavory, two-faced liars, backstabbers and so forth. There always will be, can we please move on? The world has never been, is not now and never will be fair and Obama is a lousy President.

As my old friend Donnie wrote above: All we can do is be friendly, understanding and as fair as possible to the people we come in contact with every day, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion etc. That goes for all of us humans.

I always look at it that we are all the human race.

Racism is actually a larger and more volatile problem in 2012 than it was before we elected our first mixed race President.

I am disgusted with obvious racism. Come to one of my family get togethers and you will see a mixed family who love each other.

I think the racism pendulum has swung in the other direction, in the effort to eliminate racism against black,latino,asian races that now whites are now discriminated against. For example you have a white supervisor in charge of a crew of 14 workers, 12 of which are very hard workers, and the other 2 very lazy and barely worth having. One is black one is white.
If you fire both of these people and the black guy cries racism, he will get his job back where the white man could do the same and nothing would happen. ( This is a generic version of a real job occurence that happened several times while I was working for a certain company ) Coming from a mixed family myself both black and white members of our family agree that while some guidelines are nesessary, the overuse of affirmative action has swung the pendulum in the other direction allowing the racism to be applied to whites now. Despite the actualities of issues of performance and initative

What we need is to look to people's character, and their aptitudes rather than the color of their skin or ethnicity of their origins. As has been said before common sense isnt too common anyore.

I was taught from birth to judge a person for what he or she does, not what he or she looked like, I passed that on to my children as well.

But Dave is absolutely correct, there will always be racist black, white, red or green. Likewise there will always be fools, criminals and tyrants.

We can only use our own moral fiber to combat racism, fairness or prejudice of anykind, we will never be able to legislate any means of fairness or acceptance.

"We can only use our own moral fiber to combat racism, fairness or prejudice of anykind, we will never be able to legislate any means of fairness or acceptance."

What a ridiculous thing to say. Maybe you'd like to think long and hard about some specific examples of us legislating the means of fairness and acceptance. Go ahead, I know you can do it.

Duh. Racism will never end. Human beings are ignorant. If every living person was a mixture of all races,we would still find a reason to hate each other for no obvious reason.
How can racism end when everyone makes race an issue? We almost glorify our ignorance. We watch comedians puke out there race jokes one after another and we laugh. We dedicate tv and radio stations to specific colors and sexes.
We keep cameras rolling on people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Rush Limbaugh and idiots like Howard Stern. People that constantly make race an issue.
We pay more attention to the color of our president than we do the job he does.

We love stereotypes. He's black, he must be lazy and a thief. He's covered in tattoos he must be a druggie. He's Jewish, he must pinch pennies. He's Asian, He must be good at math. He's Muslim, obviously he is going to fly a plane into a building. He's white, he must be racist. We judge. We hate. It's what we do. It is horrible.
Is racism still a problem? Problem is an understatement.
Racism is a never ending epidemic. Never ending, because our narrow minded, ignorant ways of thinking will never let us see each other as just human beings. We will always judge each other by the color of our skin.

Really Howard? You think that the world will be free of fools over time, because that is what racism really is, being foolish. There is no way that anyone can say that overtime everyone will come to see things your way, (Metaphorically speaking) what ever one's way of thinking is. We can go on and on describing how racial prejudice is ignorant, stupid and in my words foolish, that isn't the point. There will always be those who blame others for thier misfortune or inability to succeed, and many of those will blame it on race. That is human nature as imperfect as it is.

And Chris, turn your question, what legislation has ever passed that has reduced prjudice of any kind, I am certain you will come up with somnething.

Mark, first you pretend that we've never legislated equality and now you want to pretend that it hasn't worked at all.

I hope you're not here to try and win an argument.

Chris I have pretended nothing, we have tried to legislate against racism since the 50's.

Has it eliminated racism? NO a BIG NO, there are people everywhere who are blatantly racist. No amount of legislation will change that.

One sure way to eliminate something is to stop feeding it. Once starved of attention, fuel, and breath, it will die. We continue to feed racism by calling attention to false narratives. When President Obama was elected, it was a major milestone in our journey beyond racial division. Unfortunately, the President and the lapdog media has only taken us backwards since. Perhaps if the President had taken the time to get the facts about the Henry Gates incident, the "Beer Summit" would not have been needed. Perhaps if the President had just left out the line "if i had a son, he would look like Trayvon" the racial aspect of the case may have rightly taken a back seat to the real issue, a young teenager needlessly died regardless of the color of his skin. We endlessly play the repudiation game with the Tea Party, words written under a rock decades ago on land Rick Perry hunted on, and any other contrived racial meme that the media can scrape up and yet the President is never asked to repudiate the inflammatory rhetoric of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Racism is an area where President Obama can show tremendous leadership. It makes no difference what your son would look like, Mr. President. You were elected in 2008 without regard to the color of your skin, and if you lose in November, it won't be because of it.

Re-posted without the emoticon...

Evidence from the 2004 election:

1) Alabama- Roadblocks were set up within sight of polling places; police checking for ID and insurance.

2) Kentucky- Republicans posted ‘watchers’ in predominantly Democratic, mainly black districts.

3) Mississippi- African-American precinct in Hinds County partitioned polling booths by party. More voting machines were available for GOP voters. Poll watchers, primarily Republicans, stood near poll workers, followed voters into booths without permission and videotaped voters and ballots.

4) South Carolina- A bogus letter was circulated, purportedly from the NAACP, threatening the arrest of voters who have outstanding parking tickets or failed to pay child support. Dozens of voters were turned away at Benedict College after Republican poll watchers contested their right to vote.

5) New Jersey- Registrations of hundreds of Rutgers University students were never processed. State university campuses at New Brunswick and Piscataway reported similar problems. Rutgers University officials reported 11,000 students were registered ahead of deadline but were never processed. Bergen County officials confirmed that 2,500 people who properly registered were not on the voter rolls. Responding to complaints, Republicans challenged re-reinstatement efforts in court. After being instructed to utilize provisional ballots, students reported most polling places ran out of provisional ballots. In Bayonne, polling hours were extended to account for voting machine problems, however a police officer arrived at one polling place and informed election workers that a judge had ordered that the polling hours not be extended.

6) Florida- Democratic voters in two counties received fraudulent calls directing them to the wrong polling locations. Election officials describe fraud as an organized effort as only Democratic voters were targeted. In Little Haiti, Republican poll watchers demanded that poll volunteers speak English when assisting Creole-speaking voters. A Democratic volunteer said GOP observers tried to kick her out of the polling place when Haitian-American voters were soliciting her help. GOP targeted minority rich districts with challengers and watchers. A document obtained from Bush campaign headquarters outlines a plan to disrupt voting in African-American voting districts. The state executive director of the Bush campaign issued two emails amounting to a 15-page "caging list," detailing 1,886 names and addresses of voters in predominantly black areas of Jacksonville. A private detective was hired to videotape black casting ballots in Jacksonville. Partisan voter list purging was engaged by the Florida Department of State. The list containing almost 50,000 names was inspected by CNN. The news agency described the list as suspiciously devoid of Hispanic names. Hispanics tend to vote Republican. CNN confirmed that (despite Florida's 20% Hispanic population) no Hispanics were on the felon list. State officials claim a clerical error while merging two lists accounted for the lapse.

7) Michigan- Automated phone calls misinformed residents of Detroit, Flint, Pontiac and Grand Rapids that polling places had changed. The 'robo-calls' targeted urban, minority districts which tend to vote Democratic. The phony calls also cited voting Democratic equated to supporting gay marriage. The message was aimed at African Americans, who vote Democratic but generally support ballot Proposal 2, a ban on same sex marriage. Newly registered voters were wrongly told they were ineligible to vote. A flier (later recalled) issued by GOP Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land was delivered to Battle Creek and Ann Arbor. Land in addition to being Secretary of State is Republican co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign. The flyer advised, "Registering today? Please be advised that you are not eligible to vote in the November 2, 2004 General Election." The flyers were distributed ahead of the October 4 cut-off. Numerous robo-calls advised Southern Michigan voters of erroneous changes in polling locations. One of the messages was self-identified as coming from The Teamsters, the other attributed to "Voters of America."

eight) Missouri- residents received a racist flyer in the mail, "Whites Only."

9) Ohio- At a Columbus site, the head poll worker was a half-hour late to open up. Several poll workers reportedly overslept. In Cuyahoga County, four polling places opened late and a poll worker was fired for showing up drunk. In Franklin County, poll workers could not reach the elections-board office by phone when voting machines broke down. All three voting machines were inoperative for 45 minutes.
Of 88 counties, 20 had reduced the number of voting precincts by 20-30 percent. The twenty counties include the four biggest- Cuyahoga, Montgomery, Summit, and Lucas. They are also counties with Republican election board directors despite endorsing Gore 53 to 42 percent in 2000. The 68 counties that underwent little-to-no precinct consolidation, endorsed Bush in 2000. In the 20 squeezed counties, GOP votes increased by 22 percent while Democratic votes dropped by 19 percent, a loss of 45,000 votes.

In Franklin County, on election night the Board of Elections building was blockaded by city buses and concrete pylons prevented use of the parking lots. A metal detector was set up at the sole entrance. Armed deputies guarded the only location for casting provisional ballots. The inner-city voting wards had less voting machines available than during the primary election. Voters waited up to seven hours and on average, three hours to cast a vote. A Republican Central Committee member admitted that State Election Commissioner Damschroder (former Executive Director of the Republican Party) intentionally held back installation of voting machines in urban sites while amply dispersing new machines to the affluent suburbs.

In a predominantly black neighborhood of Columbus, door hangers were placed that read: Vote for George Bush/Dick Cheney on Tuesday, November 2: Vote for John Kerry/John Edwards on Wednesday, November 3. 46 percent of the Republican challenges in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, were against black people, who represent only 27 percent of the county's population.

10) Pennsylvania- A flyer circulated around UPenn’s Philadelphia campus warned that voting might jeopardize financial aid. The flyer amounts to a doctored Chicago Sun-Times news story, asserting that students from out of state lose grant money if they vote in Pennsylvania.

11) Wisconsin- Flyer circulated in Milwaukee, “Milwaukee Black Voters League, Some warnings for election time, if you’ve already voted in any election this year you can’t vote in the presidential election, if you’ve ever been found guilty of anything, even a traffic violation you can’t vote in the presidential election, if anybody in your family has ever been found guiulty (sic) of anything you can’t vote in the presidential election, the time to register for voting has expired. If you haven’t registered you can’t anymore. If you violate any of these laws you can get ten years in prison and your children will get taken away from you.”

Howard, can the smiley emoticons be reserved for the juvenile version of the Batavian?

Eliminated racism? Of course not. Saying nothing has changed because of legislation? Stupid.

Mark, I'll go ahead and let my multi-racial daughter know that nothing has changed since the fifties. I'm sure that she'll never be accepted by most folks as normal, she'll never be able to go to, or even apply to any of the colleges she may want to attend, she'll absolutely never get a job based on her qualifications etcc, etc.. Don't tell me nothing has changed, that integration didn't breed acceptance (slowly.)

We still have a major problem with racism in America, but it's nothing like it was before the civil rights movement. To pretend that nothing is different than it was 60 or 100 years ago does a disservice to both our history and our future.

All that I was saying Chris, is that there will always be racism, as unfortunate and ignoratnt as it is.

Of course you can legislate equality under the law, but you can not legislate what is in the heart or miond of man.

You jumped on my statement with a context that I did not intend.

There is a difference between racism and equality uinder the law.

Your statement about jobs, education etc and your daughter do not in anyway apply to my statement.

Again, as simply as I can put it

There will always be ignornat fools that believe that one race is superior to another, that thier p[roblems are a result of racism etc. You can legislate equality under the law, but you can not legislate what is in one's heart and mind.

Racism and equality are separate isuues in that racism is a belief, and equality is an action

CM,

Nice post if we were discussing voter fraud, but we are not, perhaps a poll and discussion fopr another day. BTW, I can copy a slew of voter fraud examples from Democrats just as you did about republicans, both would be wrong and both would be criminal.

No, Mark, what you said was: "We can only use our own moral fiber to combat racism, fairness or prejudice of anykind, we will never be able to legislate any means of fairness or acceptance." I didn't take it out of context because the rest of your post didn't change your point contextually.

You're welcome to say that that's not what you meant, but I'm not putting words in your mouth.

Then, instead of answering a direct question that was asked about your statement, you 'turned my question back on me.' I then responded to your turning appropriately and I was even decent enough to avoid mentioning that you were ducking the original argument for one you thought you'd do better at.

I also provided some examples of why your original and second points were both wrongheaded.

Your new point that racism and inequality are separate things is just as logically silly as your other ones since the first breeds the second. It's the same way with sexism and inequality, ageism and inequality etc... Institutional racism breeds systemic inequality, this isn't advanced calculus.

Have a nice day.

You are trying to make a fire out of a warm water bottle Chris

No, thanks, I have a lighter. I'm just not going to let a stupid point stand on its non-existent merits.

There you go again, your attack dog mentalty.

My original statement as posted "We can only use our own moral fiber to combat racism, fairness or prejudice of anykind, we will never be able to legislate any means of fairness or acceptance"

Is a reference to what is in one's heart and mind. Sure since the 50's things have changed

When I was a teen in the 60's there were white kids and black kids hand in hand protesting for a more equality in the law. The law didn't change thier minds, people coming out together regardless of race did, and the laws changed because of that,

In other words, the moral fiber of the youth of that day influenced the laws, not the opposite. If you can't understand what I am saying fine, There are others that do.

And if you don't well life here is good that we canb disagree with out oinsulting anyone

Racism can be eliminated; it requires understanding which comes from experience. Of course, experience demands initiative. One must step outside the bounds of distrust and insecurity to test something perceived as threatening. Desegregation, inclusive labor laws, integrated military, fair housing laws, EOE, among other legislation has forced Americans to step outside their comfort zones and recognize that assumptions about persons who are racially, ethnically, culturally different were unfounded. Although the activities of the Civil Rights movement may have inspired some to see beyond their mental fences; civil action was undertaken by those already outside the confines of racism. Its success was in forcing legislation that prodded the lethargic beyond their short-sightedness. I'd venture that rock n roll music broke down more barriers than the marches and protests. Unfortunately trust is a fragile commodity. Americans are quick to revert. Insecurity demands a fiend with an unfamiliar face, and every huckster (politician) knows it.

Good people influenced the laws, integration forced folks who would have grown up otherwise to learn about and accept other people. Integration forced people to find out we're all the same, without legally enforced integration almost nothing would be different today than it was then.

Or do you think Americans are just better people now? Did white America magically begin to tolerate minorities? Did male America find some mystical path to female equality in the workplace?

Of course not. The laws made it so there could be no other way, that's a good thing. The laws improved the way future generations viewed these issues, that's a good thing.

It's simple for you to pooh-pooh the laws, isn't it?

Things are better, it must simply be that people are better. That's nonsense. People aren't better or more altruistic, we just started from a point further forward in social evolution and that's because of laws that exist to make it so.

I can't stand this libertarian crap about how no law ever accomplishes anything. The small government tripe that despises anything done by a legislature. The Civil Rights movement and the resulting legislation is a perfect example of how government can function to better the society it presides over.

I find it absolutely disgusting for a person to say in public that civil rights laws didn't help to create a better America. It's an ignorant position that comes from a blindness to facts and a cookie cutter ideology. These are the people who say all assistance for the poor should come from the churches and not the government, it is a contemptible point that assumes all people are good and just while ironically being espoused by people who aren't.

Your silly, argument assumes some free market of the soul where everyone will just be nice if they're given the chance. No guidance, no rules, just some naturally occurring fairy tale morality. Good people are good, bad people are bad, no nuance and no recognition of cultural influences on behavior.

Am I starting a fight? No, I finished one four posts ago. Now I'm exposing how ridiculous and simplistic your view of the world is. I'm sure your smug sense of reality makes you feel great and I'm not trying to change your mind; you're mind isn't worth changing, but people will read what you said. It was simple to understand and, if you don't look too deep, it's easy to agree with. Those people may have just nodded their heads and walked away thinking that everything is just great. I'm here to let them know that things aren't so easy, but if you're willing to think about things and work at a deeper understanding of an issue other than 'good folks, bad folks' you may just be able to come up with an opinion that's worth something.

DOUBLE POST

Well Chris, how humbled am I by one who feels that he is always correct and those that disagree are smug and stupid.

I never said or implied anything was easy.

I never said or implied that civil rights laws weren't proper and good. Only that the laws do not change minds

I did imply that racism is is a boorish and ignorant way to conduct one's self. Just as it is to resort to insult to make one's point.

My opinion was neither smug nor fairy tale, it was a staement of why RACISM will likely never be 100% eradicated, as far as equality under the law, that is a far different story, and one which I know that we do agree. You may thinkl that simplistic, fairy tale or whatever.

The question was not have we gone far enough to aspire toward equality, it was "Is racism still a problem in the US" and yes, it is very much a problem, and all the good legislation that promotes equality under the law does infact counter the racist, it doesn't eliminate them.

Perhaps this is all symantics, but the only arguement was in your own mind, this is a place where people can voice opinion, if you think that others opinions are simplistic, fairy tale or what ever, so be it.

Good people disagree on many issues, to berate or insult, belittle or mock doies nothing to aid in your a point.

And for the record Chris, I am not a lbertarian, and I do believe that there is a need for laws, my statement did not all say that civil rights laws were bad or good for that matter. My reference was strictly as to racism as a mindset not racial equality as a law

You chose to take an extra step and make a point about laws not affecting behavior. Your extra-step point was ridiculous. Am I belittling your point? Absolutely. Does that aid in making my point? Yes, it does.

Everyone gets to have an opinion. When that opinion is wrong, everyone else gets to say so.

Well, actually Chris, I do think people (society) as a whole ARE better and more evolved. I believe in evolution, I think as the world became more populated and communication via radio, then TV and now the internet has increased people's understanding that just because someone is different or has different beleifs that doesn't necessarily make them less a human being than you are. We'll never know, but i say racial and gender equality may have happened faster and with a lot less pain if there had been no laws forcing people to change their behaviors.

You can think libertarianism is stupid and silly if you want, I couldn't care less. This is the main difference between liberals and libertarians, we believe in the human mind and spirit, and the evolution of mankind. Liberals think everyone has to be forced to comply.

OK, Dave, I'll bite here. You think we've evolved. How does a society evolve? Has our brain chemistry changed or has our environment? If it's our brain chemistry (and it's not, I promise) then that's that. If it's our environment then what, exactly, has changed in our environment regarding the way people of different races interact with one another?

I don't think we are evolved, I think we are evolving.

I already stated what changed in our environment, Communication and exposure to the world outside our personal circles.

Humans learn, humans reason and the free market works. Maybe simplistic to you, a lot of people agree with you. doesn't mean I'm wrong.

wow. Just. wow.

Before the internet age, what changed environmentally? Race equality and race relations didn't just start improving in 1995.

Humans learn, but over generations we've started from different points. The point I'm making is that civil rights laws allowed a new generation to start one tick forward on the social clock. That's an important thing.

Are you sure Chris that was the tic, or was it Walter Cronkite and the evening news that was that first tic.

When I was 13 my father took me to a George Wallace Rally in Buffalo not to support Wallace, but to stand outside and protest his stance on race.

It wasn't the civil rights law that prompted my dad to go, it was a comment he made on the CBS evening news that Wallace made.

It's a big clock and all the ticks matter.

"Before the internet age, what changed environmentally? Race equality and race relations didn't just start improving in 1995."

Television in the late 40's and 50's

World War 1 and World War 2, when men and women of different backgrounds were tossed together. (Yes I know the military wasn't de-segregated until after WW2, still it changed some peoples exposure and opinions, my father for one) Prior to WW1, military units were put together regionally or by state.

the CCC and PWA during the depression of the 30's (Again, yeah I know, segregated, but still took folks out of their circle of experience and showed them something else)

I agree with C M above, that Rock and Roll did more for racial acceptance than the civil rights marches. Great music was made by both blacks and whites.

Major League baseball got a hell of a lot more interesting after 1947, when anyone with talent got to play. Football, basketball and everything else followed.

Transportation became increasingly easier as the 20th century rolled along.

Some of these examples are free-market examples, some are big government moves, can't change history. I'm not necessarily against the Civil Rights laws of the 60's and 50's, I just think we would have managed better without them.

Just my opinion

Now we're talkin', Dave. I'm up for starting there tomorrow. I'm not ignoring this, I like your argument. It's just that I'll be indisposed for the rest of the night.

Have a good evening

There wasn't an Internet in the 60's there was Television, I remember very well as kid and into my teens the protest, the speeches and at times the riots, something was on every night.

Those news shows prompted discussions in middle school and high school classes everyday.

I submit to you Chris, that it was those discusions that changed minds, sometimes they were quite heated. It did not take long to find out who was raised in racist households.

Yet, minds were changed, and those teens grew to raise teens of thier own, that Chris is where I see the evolution, not necessarily any law.

I also remember when the Supreme Court imposed force3d bussing, I assure you, that actually brought violence and hatred to a peak. That hatred lasted for years...

Double Post Again Sorry

The biggest problem with society today is not racism. Its the misunderstandings between acceptance and tolerance. The media tries to force everyone to see their views and accept them. Which will never happen. Everyone has different views and that won't change.

Toleration is what we should hope to achieve. You don't have to agree with people to understand that they have different ways of life.

Racism is a 2 way street. And I disagree that Batavia is the most racist city. It could be a lot worse.

I don't really care for racist comedians like Chris Rock and Martin Lawrence either. Or at least in their movies they have played roles that were making them have negative attitudes towards white people.

Unfortunately stereotypes have been placed for a reason. The best way to get rid of them is to prove them wrong.

Perhaps it is because I can remember an America that had its own version of apartheid in the 50's that changed by degree over the last 50 years. We have come a long way but there is still a long road ahead. Today we have the acceptance of the idea that economic inequality and the problems it causes are at the root of racial animus. In those communities that have enjoyed wide-spread prosperity problems of racial and ethnic differences shrink and all but disappear. A good example are the communities that develop around universities and tech industries where the focus is on the well being of the whole community in an egalitarian fashion. In these communities high priority is placed on the quality of life issues. Education, health care, the environment, government services are not looked upon as as encumbrances and a burden but as necessary for real community. Provide an even playing field that provides ecomomic opportunity for all of the community and the problems associated with race and ethnicity fade.

Chris your arguments are pedantic and a perfect example of why people come to distrust politicians as they muddle the waters of any topic. First point I'm going to make is that there is no such thing a wrong opinion, opinions arent facts therefore are neither right or wrong, the are viewpoints based on the sum of a person's experience, and mindset. Opinions can changed based on facts, learned or experienced.

Lets look at your highly touted civil rights laws and see what they have accomplished shall we. Integration is a big fail, sure there are schools that have a fair mix of races now, but the heavy handed laws have so unfairly weighted the system to minorities that a large proportion of schools are mostly minorities as the whites or even hispanics have been forced out. If a fight occurs between a black and white student, who do the laws and the resulting mindset resulting from those laws favor? Dont bother arguing the intent Chris as we all have seen the facts of the end results. After all the road to hell is paved with failed good intentions.

The same with neighborhoods, have equal rights intergrated places like detroit, rochester, la or even montgomery alabama or atlanta georgia. No I think not with the "Laws" in place neighborhoods that by law have the opportunity to be integrated are still polarized based on race first, then economic status.

Everyone that I know has also experienced what affirmative action and equal rights laws have put into place in the workplace. Anytime a minority is told they need to do their job the question of race is brought into the mix, discrimination real or imagined then becomes the issue, not the job performance. You can argue otherwise but there are always those people black, white, red or yellow that are lazy and try to get all they can with as little effort as possible. All that affirmative action does is give minorities a tool to use in their favor as a weapon to force their employers to accept their behaviors in the workplace, if the white worker fired or reprimanded under the same exact circumstances tried to claim discrimination, how far do you think it would go? It also forces quotas on employers to make the mix of minorites and their opportunities become more important than the job performance and aptitudes. I can tell you many friends of mine co-workers and otherwise that are of color, are disgusted at how the system has developed, hard working minorities like themselves end up being just as discriminated against as whites because they wont abuse the "system" and try getting somewhere by the value of their work ethics instead of by affirmative action.

These laws could be amended but politicians like yourself use the same tactics you exemplified with Mark here in this forum to bash those improvements that could be made by characterizing those that would make changes as "racist", libertarian, silly or ignorant. Laws arent always just or right. Some of todays civil rights laws as written are as useless as an anus located on an elbow. Prohibition is a great example of the rapid demise on well intentioned legislation that overstepped its ability to regulate behavior of the people they govern...that was not only not sucessful but introduced and enabled organized crime to enter into our
society, and greatly advanced governmental corruption to levels never before seen til that time, the effects of which are still lingering there today.

Feel free to respond as you see fit Chris, however my opinions as stated here are more for the rest of the forum readers....for them to compare my points to those you made with Mark in your arguements. My perspective is Mark was arguing for men's mindsets (apples) and you as a skillfull politician will turned it from that to a defense of the legislative effort of civil rights laws (oranges) and how Mark was belittling them.

I look foreward to hearing more from the others that havent spoken out Chris, then your responses as you, in my opinion have already gathered enough rope to hang yourself with your own words in this topic, further responses will most like do nothing more than finish the knot above the noose but again thats your right. I have faith that everyone can determine for themselves the validity of either side and either agree or disagree from this point on. And I really look forward to their input and hearing their opinions more than yours. Have a nice day (smiley ommitted so CM wont have to ask Howard to completely remove them )

it'a a problem if you happen to be white. just look at zimmerman down there in florida..he's not even white,however somewhere in his family tree there is a white guy,so now the issue is racism.....

Ed while I probably will dissagree with you as how achieve economic equity, I totally agree with you that, that is probably the best way to minimize if not nearly eliminate rascism as a problem.

I can see both sides of the issue with Mark and Chris, but the majority of votes tell the real story, it is still a problem in this country. I dislike many laws, so I am not convinced laws alone can change people.
With that said, the laws did integrate the population, opened our eyes to the bigger picture, but some people will not, or can not change.
So in my opinion, racism will outlive me.

Chris; "The point I'm making is that civil rights laws allowed a new generation to start one tick forward on the social clock. That's an important thing."

It is important, but not for the reason you think. It's like feeding a man versus teaching him how to fish. If the political elites and the so-called "best and brightest" keep making decisions for us as a society then our natural evolution is thwarted. I think race relations would be further along if no civil rights legislation had been forced on us. It is very wrong to believe that Americans would have the same attitudes today that they had in the 40's or 50's had there not been civil rights legislation. Even in the deep south or right here in Upstate NY, which the author of the article Howard linked to says is a hotbed of racism. He's wrong. We Americans really are better.

I know you are busy this evening, I just got bored for a few minutes. I'm out

The impact of the internet on society, within the context of fostering an experience that might quell racism is dubious. Frankly, people who isolate themselves in a room with a computer are less likely to explore diversity, rather to immerse themselves in like-mindedness- whether for good or ill. An ardent racist would be more inclined to visit sites such as http://www.kingidentity.com/ and avoid sites such as http://nyccgc.org/.

Have to agree with you on that one CM, the Internet can foster a great deal of racism and an ardent racist may find the internet his best source of neo nazi dribble.

Kyle: "Integration is a big fail, sure there are schools that have a fair mix of races now, but the heavy handed laws have so unfairly weighted the system to minorities that a large proportion of schools are mostly minorities as the whites or even hispanics have been forced out."

The white, middle-class exodus to the suburbs began before Brown v. Board of Education. It had little to do with urban minorities. The middle class, post- WW II, was affluent, mobile and looking for a life-style accommodated by the housing boom as exemplified by Levittown http://tigger.uic.edu/~pbhales/Levittown.html. By 1950 in the U. S., more people lived in the suburbs than anywhere else. In the wake of the population shift away from cities, minorities readily took their place in urban areas. Northern cities attracted southern African-Americans, representing a glut of unskilled labor opportunities, cheap housing and (for a time) less confrontational treatment. Although northern cities' economies were booming after WW II, the south remained ensconced in poverty. New Deal programs like the Social Security Act and Aid to Dependent Children were in effect, but welfare programs were locally administered and froze out African Americans. So comes the expression "Chicken Bone Express." Between 1940 to 1970 5 million or more people moved from the South to other regions of the United States- especially midwest and northeast cities. Ultimately rural African Americans became urbanized with 80 percent residing in cities.

The dramatic shift in racial balance in urban schools was not enforced by any government program. ...Nor was it a reaction to urban minority populations. It was the logical outcome of whites voluntarily leaving cities, being replaced by southern African-Americans. That shift also tanked city economies. As white populations shifted to the suburbs, so did manufacturing plants. Trollies stopped running, hotels closed, theaters closed, retail stores closed. The unskilled labor opportunities that kept urban African-Americans employed dried up. By the mid-60s urban minority unemployment had skyrocketed, leading to the riots in Watts, Detroit, Newark and Rochester.

“how can one respect, let alone adopt, the values of a people who do not, on any level whatever, live the way they say they do, or the way they say they should?”
― James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time

"RACISM" is not just with colors but, religious beliefs, culture differences, etc... There are those who hate others just not for their color. What it comes down to is, racism will always exist because, as long as there are thoses who refuse to live and work together as a whole. Society will never be free of racism! I do know that there are people out there who feel if you are against Obama then you are a racist, when in reality they are not. Obama just sucks!

Anyone who seriously argues that the Civil Rights Act has been a failure is void of understanding of history or is rigidly binding themselves to their ideology despite clear evidence otherwise. Race relations have markedly improved as the years have passed since the federal government forced the states to not treat black people as second class citizens and anyone can clearly see that (even though there is much work to be done). I am a moderate Democrat, but I understand that sometimes good solutions can come from outside of my own ideology. People who can't aren't worth the time of argument. We need more cooperation and compromise, and less of the shouting moral righteousness that's unfortunately dominating both ends of the spectrum.

If you doubt Martin Luther King's advocacy for federal intervention in the Civil Rights struggle, I suggest you read some his telegrams to JFK:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/CIgXQDB_1k67a-Jg1gNtHw.aspx

It would be extremely short-sighted to presume that the demonstrative actions of civil rights advocates were not intended to pressure the federal government into action- initially to enforce existing law; in extent to foment sweeping legislation for the advancement of racial equality.

"Public relations is a very necessary part of any protest of civil disobedience...the public at large must be aware of the inequalities involved in such a system (of segregation). In effect, in the absence of justice in the established courts of the region, nonviolent protesters are asking for a hearing in the court of world opinion." -Martin Luther King.

Re: the Birmingham March in 1963, Wyatt Tee Walker, one of the SCLC founders and the executive director from 1960 to 1964, "My theory was that if we mounted a strong nonviolent movement, the opposition would surely do something to attract the media, and in turn induce national sympathy and attention to the everyday segregated circumstance of a person living in the Deep South."

I don't intend to sound cynical, but the program of civil disobedience amounts to losing the small battles while winning the war. Media manipulation is essential to that aim. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference issued numerous press releases. Certainly the Million Man March was not intended to impress Bull Connor or Jim Clark. It was staged in Washington, D.C. for a reason.

Neither of those 2 quotes, CM infer asking for legislation. Theyare both talking about public exposure and media manipulation, true. But "abscence of justice in the courts", in my opinion, didn't mean new laws, King meant they should follow the law already in place, The Constitution. This is where the state's rights argument came in via the 10th amendment. The Kennedys believed that the basic rights in the first few amendments trumped the 10th. I think they went too far in pushing the legislation, but again, we'll never know who's right, can't change history. Getting the crap which was going on down south on TV and in front of the rest of the country is exactly what I'm talking about when I posit that communication started changing the attitudes of the country at large. You also point out that once transportation became better, more blacks and whites kept leaving the south for a better life and the more that continued, the more likely people with brains in the deep south would have decided "hey, we better change our ways or we'll lose our plantations" and they would have evolved. Once the civil rights laws were in place, they had someone to hate, the northern white liberal who wants to take away our heritage, or something close to that. That attitude is still around today.

Kyle, details are important and I insist on paying attention to them. Also, I'm not a politician.

The one consistant theme that has come out of this discussion is that most of us posting here do in fact believe that racism is wrong.

It seems some believe that the Civil Rights Laws changed attitudes abot racism and others do not.

I do no believe that Civil Rights Laws were wrong or bad, they did in fact establish equal opportunity, that can not be denied.

As I have stated over and over howeve, I do not believe that civil rights laws changed racism in it's truest sense, that is what people believe.

You can go down south and and still to this day racial overtones prevail, or for that matter go to South Boston.

As we speak there is an issue down south with the KKK trying to sponsor a stretch of highway down south. So in fact the KKK still exist, and yes the membership dropped from 1,000,000 to 5,000, but the emmergence of other hate groups has skyrocketed, based on that alone to state that Civil Rights laws have played a part in stopping racism come to question.

These hate groups use affirmative actio and other civli rights groups as a rallying cry, not an argument against.

When I said 'Moral Fiber' I mean exactly that, who we are as people, it was and is frank discussion about race, reason above rhetoric that has changed minds, not the laws themselves in my opinion.

Much of hard core racism is generational, to think of racism as simply black vs white is wrong, throughout history racism has reared it's ugly head.

The chinese who built our railroads were looked down on with disgust, the Irish immagrants weren't exactly welcomed, Howard brought up the Japanese Americans interned during WWII, the Europeans diosplaced during WWII I remembered that people referred to as Dumb DP's(Displaced Persons) when I was young.

I believe that Dave Olson is closest to the mark, racsim is being diminished as society evolves through better communications over the years, and that is a long, very long process. Who we are as a people, or in otherwords our moral fiber, is evolving over generations, the more that we communicate the closer we come to certain realizations.

I understand the argument that the civil rights laws encouraged this, I just do not agree that the cause and effect was better understanding, people blame affirmative action for not getting promoted, an example was in Hartford Ct, where two white firefighters passed an officers exam with perfect scores, yet two black firefighters got the promotion, it caused massive racial discontent not only within the Department, but within the community.

Our evolution as human beings is constant, it never ends, so working toward an end to racism is in my opinion, building bridges in communication and education. Gradually, as we actually have been seeing, these bridges are built.

My entire point with my first post on this issue was and still is that there is no magic bullet, no law that will make a racist change his mind, it has to begin with good people saying enough is enough.

Howard - They _fought_ for new laws. The whole point of their movement was societal action and legislation for the recognition of their rights.

Follow the link, Mark. The quotes are there. I did not include them in the post.

Changes nothing Mr.Barons, yes Martin Luther King was pushing for desegregation laws.

My statement still applies as far as I am concerned, but let me phrase it another way.

We can surely legislate the actions of men by passing laws to limit their activity but we can not legislate what is in a man's heart and mind.

I see a huge difference between Racism as a belief, and racially motivated actions. I recognize that anti-raicial activity can be countered by legislation, but I do not agree that racism can be eliminated through legislation. That is the only place that we differ.

Must be another Chris Charvella that ran for county legislature then.....guess I will have to bring this statement up if you ever run again, since you claim not to be a politician. Remember you yourself said you pay attention to details and they are important. Well turn your attention to yourself before make statements that contradict a simple detail such as that.

Gee Daniel thats a pretty interesting statement. How much of a improvement in race relations has there been? Before you make statements like that lets consider the Rodney King Riots, The Tawana Brawley fiasco, Trevyon Martin still might lead to another Rodney King like riot. Just google recent racial news stories it's all over the place. There is more acceptance of races but those that dont care still dont care and still practice racism despite civil rights laws, it's just mre subtle and out of the light rather than blatant and in your face.

sorry....doublepost

Kyle, one must take one at his word. and this is not a cut at Chris, I actually think this was one of his better post on his blogs

http://charvella.blogspot.com/2012/05/leaving-institutional-politics-it…

^
^
^
l
l
l
l
l
l