I'm sure that .50 an hour will not even cover the costs of the rising food prices - but I'm glad that it offers a decent padding to offset, at least some of it.

The Battle of Blair Mountain – read the story, it depicts what life without unions was like.

It wasn’t the unions that caused industries to leave this country or for products to have a limited life span – it was greed that caused them to leave and it’s greed that causes corporations to fight unions down today. You can believe all the corporate propaganda you want – it may give you some peace of mind as you continue consuming their wares – often on the backs (and graves) of those whose pay and working conditions are like Blair Mountain use to be – those poor people who took the jobs we’ve lost when greed called to the corporate kings.

Now the pawns can’t wait to throw their money into the coffers of the empires trove – take your trinkets, your gmo foods and stuff them all in the plastic bags, then save your .10 a gallon on gas using the complementary empires reward card - as you drive to the next palace of perpetual consumerist joy… (non-union of course & proud of it)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

It's such a relief that someone eles has those views - sometimes more than once in a day.




We could certainly use some good philosophy about...
New forms of goverment -- we are a hell of a lot of people (globally) and the relatively few in charge can not possibley provide an adequate representation of the populations they dominate.
Definately need some philosphical visions of nations linked by mutually agreed upon laws of the commons - of laws guide the use of the land free of ownership - of volunteers ready to sit in a committee because they have knowledge and experience about the cause of the committee, and a will to contribute to society.

Philosophers who can bring about a more logical perspective about freedom and liberty and community and honor and.....

We have so far to go the likes of Noam Chomsky cannot do it alone.

Know any good philosophers?

I don't expect much will be proven with any certainty because excutive privilege supercedes the courts - however, there is a severe lack of transparency in much of what this administration has been doing - but I will say that given the equally severe lack of congressional support might be a justification for lack of transparency.

Either way the divisive behaviors on the Hill have certainly trickled down which may be the only support the 'trickle down' theory is likely to receive.

ARTICALE EDIT: HIGHLIGHTED AREA = MY ADDITION

Well, America did away with the half-pence but they didn't have Walmart then. Maybe Walmart should pay to keep those pennies minted, after all, it would propable be cheaper for them then doing away with the penny.

back atchya -- it was worth posting it again too.

OH and I think your cards are beautiful (I don't believe in the reading part) but they're beautiful just the same.

The Working Poor

According to the US Census Bureau, in 2010, 21 million people lived in working-poor families. This translates into nearly 9.6 percent of all American families living below 100 percent of poverty have at least one family member working.

Working Poor Facts

•Female-headed households were more than twice as likely to be among the working poor as male-headed households in 2008.
•Among families with at least one member working at least half a year, families with children were 4 times more likely than families without children to live in poverty in 2008.iii
•According to a survey on hunger and homelessness conducted by the United States Conference of Mayors, 88.5% of cities participating in the survey cited unemployment as one of three major causes of hunger in their city.
•Thirty-nine percent of all adults served by Feeding America have completed high school or equivalent degree with no further education beyond high school. ii
•34 percent of all households served by Feeding America have had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care. ii
• Sixty-five percent of working families that received SNAP were single-parent families.

Texas will refuse to expand Medicaid under the new healthcare. This creates a coverage gap for workers. You see,

“The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has announced that people below 133 percent of the poverty line in states that refuse the Medicaid expansion will not be assessed a penalty for not purchasing insurance that is unaffordable to them.”

Well that’s good because they couldn't afford to pay the penalty either.

If Texas refuses to expand Medicaid then many thousands of hard working people, and their children will not have affordable access to healthcare. That should make a lot of Texans happy, right? Yea – good going Texas who cares about those people who work as maids, cleaning people, nanny’s, and who take care of the elderly and those people who take part-time jobs because they can’t find anything else – and the heck with their kids too.

But you know, those people still get sick, they still take their kids to the emergency room, and without the ability to pay for medicine, there will likely be a lot emergency room visits --- WHO PAYS FOR THAT? It won’t come from the Federal government

“States have many good reasons to expand their Medicaid coverage. It will create a healthier workforce, bring jobs into the state by increasing the demand for health care and other goods and services, and provide greater economic security for millions of families. And it’s almost entirely covered by the federal government, which is paying 100 percent of the costs for the first two years and 90 percent of the costs in the long term”

Good thinking Texas, and all the other states who have claimed they will not expand Medicaid either. Sounds like more tax revenue will have to be collected.


OH, and all those poeple out there who want to make abortion illegal, you don't care about them after they're born (see above) so why do you care before?


Oh- and all those poor people who won’t be able to afford birth control on their poverty wages – looks like you’ll have a lot of starving kids in Texas, you have to build some tough skin to see that every day and still be able to blame them for their situation and walk away indignant - but don’t worry apparently most of you never noticed it before, why should that change.

If an individual wants to self-identify as African American as a means of group affiliation, it is no different than any other label which servers the same purpose, which is to recognize others with whom you share a commonality. If the desire is to acknowledge common links to the past, like how I came to be born an American, then I agree that the group designation should not excuse or cause the propagation of racism.

Does that definition for African American suffice as the exclusive reason for some people to refer to African Americans as “my people”?




Perhaps the terms used throughout this thread have caused confusion: African American, racism, my people, slavery, implicit & systemic, and discrimination - or - perhaps after hearing these words related consistently,even outside of this thread, some of us are left with the idea that African Americans tend to think of themselves as the only target of racism of any kind.

Which could be the explanation for the question that was asked of you - how has such discrimination affected you? It was a logical question becasue is racism against African Americans is so systemic than associating one's self to the term (African Americans) as 'my people' leads others to think you have suffered some oppressive form of racism.

To discuss discrimination “along racial lines” we have to include all racial minorities because it is not only “African” Americans (my people) who are subject to the kind of implicit and systemic racism we have been discussing.

If I use the definition of African American, the group identity I described at the start of this post, we would have to agree that not all people of color are African Americans – so I’m not sure why the term was ever introduced to the thread to begin with.

Perhaps it's due to the bias of my own experience as previously stated.

perhaps after hearing these words related consistently,even outside of this thread, some of us are left with the idea that African Americans tend to think of themselves as the only target of racism of any kind.




Of course not – and several of us have supported the idea that racism is on-going with examples. And some of us have noted that racial minorities other than self-identifying African Americans are victims of the same discrimination.



So then – how did the term African American and the ‘my people’ association come up in this conversation?

Thanks for the supportive response. I continue to assess my own biases with every report and study I read about discrimination. It's a topic that involves so many dimensions, it's hard not to evolve with so much input from so many different perspectives.

Yes. Why is it that we have to reference people of color as African Americans? How many generations have to be born here before people assume a national identity?

Secondly, there has been so much intermingling of ethnicities in the United States that we have blue eyed black people and nappy haired white people – who claim to be African American and any of those people may have grown up speaking Spanish, Mexican, or Portugeuse… in their home.

So in the context of the quote above, we might assume that the term African American is not a source of pride but rather a self-imposed ‘Scarlet Letter’ that has been embroidered into the fabric of a sub-culture who uses the term as a blanket excuse to (as the OP title suggests) use the ‘race card’.



As stated earlier in the thread, gender bias is vastly different from racism so the comparison between gender awareness and African American awareness is absurd.



What of all the people who voluntarily migrated from various African states who have become American citizens – are they African Americans? How would you suggest they self-reference? What is it about the term ‘African American’ that applies to some and not others?

My answer would be sub-cultural enculturation rather than any direct link to a family history of slavery.



I think you mean how those who adhere to the sub-cultural concept of “my people the African Americans” perceive their own lack of power to control their lives as being attributed to being treated as if they came here as slaves. That perception is handed down through their sub-cultural roots in BOTH implicit and systematic ways – not unlike ‘some’ of the actual discrimination that they may face.



The question has been asked – Can you relate any personal instances of suffering from implicit or systematic racism. That’s a REALLY important question because when people assume that they lack internal control to rise above their situation, they naturally blame external opposition. Such opposition is well documented in some areas like, criminal prosecution (or persecution) but is it less documented in other areas because it only exists as a misguided cultural perception?



One person’s truth can only apply to that one person. When an individual assumes or accepts the role of the oppressed, that a person will perceive their own lack of internal control as being suppressed by external forces. Why do you think you are oppressed? What specific incidents of implicit or systematic racism have led to your oppression? No answer is required, just questions to make you think.

Could it be that, like me, if you cannot work to resolve racism from within ‘the group’, that you are simply one of the white oppressors? In other words, if you are not part of the ‘in-group’ then you are part of the ‘out-group’ and you must give up the right to wear the scarlet letter. What affect would that have on how you view your geneology?



I believe that the assumption being made about physical characteristics may have been accurate in the past, but it no longer serves as an adequate reason for the claim of discrimination.

Have you ever heard the phrase: “it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, then to speak and remove all doubt” ? In many cases verbal communication, behaviors, and attitude are more important factors that can lead an individual to believe he or she has been the victim of racism. Unfortunately, we tend to stereotype groups of people with similar characteristic and personal attributes. There is no doubt that part of the perceived victimization stems from the individuals own sub-cultural norms.

If retaining the history of one’s heritage requires adhering to sub-cultural norms, attitudes, and beliefs, without incorporating the more normative attitudes and beliefs of the primary culture then what will occur is self-inflicted segregation. Terms, like African American tend to be one of the structural components of said segregation.



(social) There is definitely systemic social discrimination, I know from personal experiences, that it is much harder for White people to access social assistance programs than it is for minorities and there are far less of such programs available to Whites. (probably not the association you were looking for but it’s another side of the coin)

(educational) Our entire educational system has failed in many ways, one is a lack of funding in the poorer areas where families are not able to pay more taxes, or contribute financial support for programs in their local schools. Another is the failing of parents and the lack of parenting skills combined with the perpetuation of sub-cultural beliefs which become the excuses for behaviors that are associated with a stereotypical view of a group. Perceived discrimination often follows (that’s why it’s systemic, it thrives in systematic ways).

(healthcare institutions) There are some issues within healthcare that tend to be associated with racism, and some are but often they are the innocent types of discrimination. When a patient has no health care insurance or only minimal benefits, many health care professionals offer less treatment options or lower cost options with the knowledge that even those may not be affordable for their patients. But there are so many other barriers that prevent proper care and a portion of them are due to sub-cultural beliefs and norms. It should be noted here that no single minority corners the market on lower levels of health care and we also have to recognize that much the healthcare concerns deal with gender disparity rather that racism.

(judicial – is well documented form of the racism as has been discussed. There have been many suggestions for corrective measures and the issues continue to be studied and attempts have been made to correct some problems, but it’s an issue that is multi-dimensional and will require huge structural changes which will be costly to states and localities. The greater the cost and the more intrusive the fix the harder it is to get put into place. Not a good excuse but an excuse that implicates a wider systemic problem, lack of motivation to force these changes by the white majority who are least affected by the issue.

One last ‘thinking out loud’ comment:
Could it be that keeping the label (African American) is part of keeping the excuse for perpetuating a sub-cultural attitude?
“I’m African American, my schools are bad, I’m discriminated against, I’m oppressed.”
The idea that only African Americans, whose outward physical attributes do not neatly fit into a single category, live in poverty, attend terrible school districts, lack quality healthcare and are deprived of equal opportunity to succeed - has been dispelled.

If a person claims that discrimination prevented a chosen course of action but the individual goes on to achieve or surpass the target goal, than we cannot necessarily consider the original claim of discrimination as attributed to systemic racism. That type of situation and claim are very often mistaken to be systemic racism when the case was isolated to the prejudice of another individual. You know – like in the constant claim that not all Christians believe and act like every other Christian.

I've steared away from this part of the discussion specifically to see how it would develop and the same time examine my own bias pertaining to the "my people" issue.

Background: In the 70s I was completely empethetic to the plight of 'African Americans'. Keep in mind that in my youngest days everyone around me used words like negro and colored. Colored was suppose to be a better word becasue it reference 'people of color' rather than having any previous bad connotation. But in the 70s the PC term was 'African American'. I bought that term becasue it was a self-referntial designation and I wanted to be repectful.

I made several efforts to suggest ways that my high school could help the racial tensions that were so volitile. I was told by 'African American' group members, in not so nice terms, to stay out of it they didn't want any help from the white oppressors...

That kind of attitude IS part of the implicit racism that still exists today but that part exists not in the white institutions but in the black institutions. More recently I have noticed a huge reconcilition as Black Christian congregations have begun to unite with White Christian congregation to fight the prejudice and bigotries that exist on so many fronts today.

I think we are making advances in racial equality but we have to admit that the systemic racism that still exists, is not one-sided.

Additionally I would like to relate another, more recent, experience that continues to keep me thinking and self-evaluating. I made a move to the inner-city, not the up-town section either because the only things that keep me out of mordib poverty are living on student loans and a fabulout P/T job that provides me with health and dental insurance.

What I have witnessed and experience here is a melding of ethnicities. I have seen some of the most beautiful children with so many mixtures in their blood and so many kids and adults ignoring physical charachteristics. Black people can no longer be considred African American - not in my neck of the woods.

But that does not preclude some Black people from having the attitude that they are African American 'people' who have a heritage of slavery. That is a systemic part of continuing racism.

So let me ask you --- what emotion is tied to prejudice and why does it 'justifies' some prejudice but not other prejudices?

then Christian is Christian is Christian. If you read my post above this one - do you think I will catch hell for using the same comparison? I do becasue not all Christians, contrary to what most of them claim, believe the same thing or in the same way.

Since we know for fact that not all Christians hole the same attitudes and beliefs - then we know that idea must generalize to other religious populations - therefore, muslims can be as different in their beliefs and attitudes as Christians.

American Christians went to Africa to bolster Christian hostility toward gays and lesbians. In Uganda, it was Christians who supported the death penalty for gays and lesbians.

In this country, children as young as 14 have been censored from radio programs for thier hostile attitude and verbal hatred of gays and lesbians. Pastors have recently been taped preaching to their congregations things like - they (gays & lesbians) should rounded up and put in a gated community until they die.

Christians in this country (male and female)in the past and present, have played a major role in limiting the freedom and equal opportunites of women.

Christians in this country are insisting on teaching public school children illogical concepts as an alternative to science. WHY IS THAT A REALLY BAD IDEA?

Well, recently North Carolina wanted to pass a law that would forbid scientists from making reports about rising sea levels derived from using the latest scientifically designed tools for calculations. The state's reason was that such data would hurt the coastal development in that state.

The language in the legislation was adjusted before being passed. The state reps now want the scientists to look at the ‘so-called’ scientific literature that debunks rising water levels and would like scientist to re-evaluate their findings by incorporating what they learn….DUH!!!!

So back to one of the branches that shot off the topic - How far do trust such mentality, how much rope do you give it, before you fear that words and illogical concepts will become violent acts?

AND ONCE AGAIN - I repeat:

What is it about 'class' that causes racism and other bias to continue?

I asked before to give you an opportunity to join the discussion in a meaningful way.

As you or original statement stands, it has different connotations and rather than make assumptions I asked for further input about the statement.

Would you like to join the discussion becuase I would like to hear how you relate class to racism and other bias?

That's why it's important for employers to either have the knowledge necessary, or to higher a well educated human resource manager. The cost of that higher salary is worth it in the long run.

Yes - I could attribute your insight to woman's intuition but I don't want to show any gender bias.



I appreciate your response and the good points you have made. Sometimes I reply directly to another person's post but sometimes I include comments within the reply for the benefit of other posters involved in the thread - like the reminder that there is a bigger picture.

I agree, there is gender discrimination but considering the attempted gender-biased legislation we've been exposed to in the last few years I'm not as optimistic about our (women)level of achievement. - that's ok though, it just make me want to maintain the effort.

On the other hand, I appreciate optimism which is why I consider the current social, economic, and environmental issues to be an opportunity for making changes but I don't necessarily think that 'fixing' some of the old stuff is progress, some things simply require full scale change.

they're all good posts when they continue to inspire discussion.



Oh – so that’s in regards to the states that have considered Affirmative Action bans particularly targeting College admissions, including: Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Colorado, Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma and California.

Washington State simply banned all government agencies from any form of discrimination in employment, agency processes, and education which, of course, disallows the use of equalizing factors that have been inherent in the federal AA guidelines.

Missouri did not make it to the ballot, not enough signatures. Colorado struck it down; Oklahoma failed in 2008 but is on ballot for Nov. 2012.

Michigan has been prevented from implementing their ban because the courts perceived a direct conflict between the Michigan constitution and the new law (to ban). So far Michigan has refused to make changes that would allow both laws to exit – so that one is still up in the air.

California and Texas have, so far, won any court battles, but there are still some in the pipeline and Nebraska colleges also dealing with the effect of and AA bans.

California and Texas – two of the earliest to ban AA in colleges had noticed some wide disparities in the diversity of their populations. The institutions were allowed to develop their own strategies to be complicit with their states laws. [

quote] April 3, 2012
The university has tried to compensate for the drop in those students by using other admissions criteria, including a "comprehensive review" of applicants, admitting the top 4 percent of graduates from any high school and decreasing the weight of standardized tests, the opinion said.
But affirmative action proponents say the measures have not been enough to boost opportunities for historically excluded minorities.

So they’re still working on other avenues to assure they have diverse and inclusive campuses and I certainly respect their efforts.
Texas has had more luck with this strategy:



Nebraska is still experimenting as their universities had developed strong diversity programs for outreach, recruiting and assistance programs that were targeting particular diverse groups. Now they are illegal. Their programs were designed to reach,assist and persuade the best of those populations to apply. They have lost some funding and associations with grantors who only funded because of the inclusive nature of the programs. Nebraska is tying a different approach to try to maintain diversity –



Obviously the ‘fix’ for AA is not a simple matter of state legislation. In fact AA guidelines were established to be the simplest and most economic way of bridging the gaps that exist between minority populations and the social inequalities that stem from innumerable sources.

It was originally thought that existing inequalities would begin to fade with desegregation and federally legislated Acts specifically targeted at protecting the rights and opportunities of minority people. But we have failed to successfully address discrimination at the appropriate levels – like our primary public school systems, for one. Our judicial systems, from congressional penal legislation to protective services up to the Supreme Court levels have failed minorities miserably as well.

We are looking for root causes but they will never be found as long as the ‘majority’ is unable or unwilling to see and acknowledge that both implicit and overt forms of discrimination are as widespread as they really are.

I personally don't AA is the ultimate answer - it designed to be bridge the problems that were suppose to be resolved. But they won't be resolved until 'equality' is not a matter of legislation but a matter of social desirablity.

EDIT: lots of grammar error in the above - tying to do too many things as once, I think. My appreciation to those who try to muddle through it.

Being happy and being pragmatic have different effects on behavior. Women who go with the 'happy' effect will find themselves out of a job becasue there is simply too much competition with others, even men, who are pragmatic enough to take that lessor paying job. Of course this is speaking to new employment and not to promotion. But we have been discussing the avenues of regress that are available to woment who are discriminated against by their employers.

The rest of that post was an explanation supporting the notion that we will not return to the previous state of normal with regards to pay and benefits.

At this point women are rising to highest levels of managemnt and ownership by creating their own organizations or joining newer ones at the ground level. The pay will not be what current 'fortune' corporations pay their upper most managment but there is more job satisfaction for such women and thus better quality of life.

We need to understand the great big picture and that our current laws are a very small part of picture. We are affected by so many other global economic and environmental issues that we have to face the fact that even OUR laws may no longer insulate us against those outside forces.

Certainly we need to be discussing them, but to do so without considering the bigger picture assumes that those laws insulate us from those larger issues.

The great economic gains of the middle class in the last century were achieved from inside that insulated view. We have lost it all becuase we did not consider the effects of our behavior on the rest of the world.

You can consider that more angst but at least consider it.