« The Democrats Don’t See The Light | Home | First Amendment Rights My Ass! »
Shades of Black … The Colors of Racism
By Matt Margolis | August 18, 2003
There are some people out there who believe that black people can�t be racists. The sentiment is that racism is only racism when it is the majority discriminating against the minority.
Too many people believe this fallacy, enough people on the Supreme Court felt this way, and thus, discrimination remains legal with college admissions, employment, etc. etc. etc.
A dark-skinned Black waiter at an Applebee’s restaurant near Atlanta alleged that his light-skinned Black supervisor was discriminating against him. To settle the suit, the company paid him $40,000.
This is amazing to me. I don�t really hear about these stories often� they may be more common than I am aware, but nevertheless, this blows my mind.
Dwight Burch, a former employee, accused his manager at the Jonesboro, Ga., restaurant of repeatedly referring to him as a “tar baby” and “Black monkey” during his three months at the restaurant. Burch also alleged in his suit that his manager told him to bleach his skin and that he was fired when he threatened to report the man to officials at Applebee’s headquarters.
This goes beyond mere name-calling. This guy actually lost his job as a result of this racism. I totally agree the guy deserved the settlement he got. I believe that people who have been discriminated against ought to be able to seek damages for it. As long as racism can be proven � which in this case it clearly can be.
This is what civil rights is supposed to be about � when equal opportunity has been denied, the wrong should be made right. I am glad that racism within the black community can be recognized as racism. The article does however paint the situation somewhat differently. Mention is made of the term �colorism� � a euphemism for racism within the black community.
I think we should move beyond the labeling game and the creation of new words and terms to hide the reality of what occurred here. It is racism. There�s no other way to define it. To offer a new �-ism� to make distinction between two different executions of racism is to suggest one is different or perhaps less severe than the other. It�s a made up term meant to diminish the seriousness of such ignorance. The mere creation of the word �colorism� to distinguish discrimination within the black community between discrimination between two different groups implies that some forms of racism are more equal than others.
�Colorism� is a euphemism for racism. Plain and simple. If people can�t recognize the fact that there is nothing different between racism against blacks by whites, whites by blacks, blacks by blacks, or any other combination of races, religions, ethnicities, etc. etc, than we�re forgetting the whole point of what the civil rights movement was all about.
I am not going to remind you, if you don�t know, then I can�t help you.
While I’m On The Subject of Race…
I was thinking about this particular situation vs. the �affirmative action� issue. Then I realized a parallel and a discrepancy with �equal opportunity� and the War in Iraq.
Some of the people who were against the United States for going into Iraq had problems with the �preemptive strike� doctrine of the Bush Administration. Democratic candidates for President have expressed their issues with the doctrine, as well as other Democrats and liberals whom you and I all have had conversations with.
I came to the realization that the same people who were against the �preemptive strike� against terrorism are for the �preemptive strike� against racism.
Let me clarify.
�Affirmative Action� is justified on the basis that opportunities are being given to minorities who might not achieve a particular goal, such as admission to college, or a job, because of his or her race.
For instance, companies are expected to hire a certain number or percentage of minorities, in order to give them the opportunity of having a job they may otherwise not have gotten because of the possibility they�d be denied a job due to racism.
So, while no racism has occurred. No discriminatory actions have been made against any individual, employers have been assumed that they may discriminate anyways, and in order to prevent that, quotas are enforced. So, while a minority applicant has never experienced actual discrimination, the company may just have to hire him or her, even if he or she is not the most qualified applicant, in the efforts of �equal opportunity.�
That is a �preemptive strike� against racism that has not yet occurred. However, liberals generally don�t take issue with this preemptive strike. They do however take issue with preemptive strikes against terrorism.
Why? How can the �preemptive doctrine� be rejected in one situation, but encouraged in another?
Hypocrisy, maybe? Yeah, I think so.
Now, to make my positions clear, I believe in the �preemptive strike� doctrine on terrorism, but not against racism (in the form of quotas). For one thing, a �preemptive strike� against racism merely begets more racism, and is inherently racist itself. It does not combat racism, or solve it. A �preemptive strike� against terrorism saves lives. It protects us from terrorism only at the expense of the lives and freedom of evil terrorists. Preemptive strikes against racism gives minorities admissions, jobs, etc. etc. at the expense of other people who may just be more qualified.
As seen in this case in Georgia, a man who experienced racism was able to obtain damages after being victimized. When you wait for terrorism to occur before you combat it, you�re dead. That�s it. There�s no way to rectify that. You�re dead. You can�t undo that. You can�t seek damages after you�re killed.
No government policy is going to change a person�s intolerance towards another person. However, Bush�s policy of preemptive strikes against terrorists will save lives. It protects America from evil people who wish to harm and kill us.
So why are liberals soft on terrorism? Why are they so against preventing terrorism from hitting us first, but are willing to fight racism by discriminating against the majority? Why are they willing to take a chance with terrorism but not with racism?
Why are liberals willing to risk their lives for political correctness? Excuse me for saying so, but I�m not willing to risk my life or the lives of others to keep liberals from being offended. Liberals have things backwards. They should be fighting terrorism before it happens and fight discrimination after it occurs. You can�t legislate morality, but you can save lives by hitting your enemies before they hit you.
Topics: Thoughts |
Related Posts:
August 18th, 2003 at 4:18 am
The color consciousness goes both ways. Ever heard the saying:
“Light, bright, almost white”?
It’s not meant as a complement.
August 18th, 2003 at 8:37 am
How many shades of white are there?? Are we going to discriminate between whites and off-whites? the beiges? the taupes? tan, untan? the freckled? the moled?
August 18th, 2003 at 12:48 pm
I’m discriminated because I am white and I get sun-burned easy. My fiance’s family (who are Hispanics)calls it the white man’s tan. Can I sue for $40,000?
August 18th, 2003 at 1:02 pm
Sue them for everything they got!!! Make a good impression before the big day. Send home the message that white Americans take no crap from no one!!!
August 18th, 2003 at 5:57 pm
Matt- there is another point I believe you have overlooked. Namely, legitimate organizations in the US are under far more enforceable penalties for racism than terrorist cells spread around the world are.
If the Microsoft company engages in racist policies, then it is well within the capabilities of the US gov’t to enforce sanctions against it.
If a foreign power is aiding and abetting terrorists, there is no institution that has the capability to enforce sanctions against said power, not even the vaunted UN.
August 7th, 2004 at 8:20 pm
When you ask just about any African American what the idea beauiful black women is the answer is always haley berry and vanessa williams. There are very many beauiful darker skin black women out there like viva fox, lauren hill, angela bassett just to name a few. It’s time for black people to know and accept that it is ok to be dark skinned and that it is beauiful,also, it starts in the black home,school and community A child or anyone should never be subject to such degrading remarks regarding his or her skin color.
December 29th, 2006 at 2:06 am
I’m 17 and the distinction between dark and light skin has always been evident. I just grew to except it, but now becoming mature in my appearance and views; its also become evident that this distinction is hurtful. I have a 13 yr.old younger sister who is dark skinned and it bothers me that she finds it harder to be accepted by other kids than I do. And it’s not b/c she isn’t as pretty as me because beauty runs in my family nor because of her personailty because she is a very caring and attentive person. Its because the ignorant views that are pushed on others by either their parents or videos that tell them that to be light skinned black people are better and more attractive than dark skinned black people. She is a vey smart girl so in time I know she’ll come to see her beauty but it breaks my heart that her peers aren’t as smart as she and that she has to be exposed to their ignorance.