Personal topic of interest - military not an ethnic mirror of society
09-23-2005, 05:32 PM
#1
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lastweek Lane - Watertown, NY
Posts: 10,133
Car Info: 02WRXpseudoSTiWannabeWagon
Personal topic of interest - military not an ethnic mirror of society
I can't deny this, but if you were to ask Salty, 1Regu, Oaf, and all of the other military-minded folk who come on this board, you'd probably get some pretty similar stories, answers, explanations....
I imagine Hella will be all over this.
To start off, I had had a question on my mind for quite some time that I eventually asked my Infantry company commander, a normal Airborne Ranger-type who happened to be 100% Chinese. I told him that I'd noticed that while the general population of the Army was not necessarily a mirrored sample of the US population, that the Officer Corps seemed to be made up of even less. I asked him why there weren't more minorities officers, especially with all of the incentives and college money. He told me that although we had the college fund and the loan repayment program, that they minority student unions had 10x the funds that the Army did, so many minority college students actually benefited far more from the full ride scholarships they got from the student unions.
Surprised the crap outa me.
I imagine Hella will be all over this.
To start off, I had had a question on my mind for quite some time that I eventually asked my Infantry company commander, a normal Airborne Ranger-type who happened to be 100% Chinese. I told him that I'd noticed that while the general population of the Army was not necessarily a mirrored sample of the US population, that the Officer Corps seemed to be made up of even less. I asked him why there weren't more minorities officers, especially with all of the incentives and college money. He told me that although we had the college fund and the loan repayment program, that they minority student unions had 10x the funds that the Army did, so many minority college students actually benefited far more from the full ride scholarships they got from the student unions.
Surprised the crap outa me.
Ethnic makeup of military differs from U.S. society as a whole
By Rick Maze
Military Times staff writer
A new congressional report says the military is not a mirror of society.
There are proportionately more blacks and fewer Hispanics in the military than in the population as a whole, according to a report on demographics of the all-volunteer force, released Friday by the Government Accountability Office.
There are other differences, too. There are substantially fewer women in the military and proportionately fewer service members have attended college than in the population as a whole.
The report was prepared at the request of Reps. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., and Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., to try to determine if the military is becoming more or less representative of the U.S. population over the past few years.
Rangel is interested because he has called for a return to a military draft, which he believes is necessary because the sacrifices of U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not being evenly shared.
The report shows there are some significant differences in the makeup of the military and the civilian work force in the U.S.
• Whites are underrepresented in the military. The U.S. work force is 71 percent Caucasian — or other ethnic groups included as whites — while the military is 67 percent white.
• Blacks are overrepresented, comprising 17 percent of the military and 11 percent of the civilian work force
• Hispanics are underrepresented, making up 9 percent of the military and 11 percent of the work force.
• Women, not surprisingly, are also underrepresented, comprising just 16 percent of the military, although policies and laws restricting assignment possibilities for women are the chief reason, not other recruiting factors.
• Deaths of U.S. troops in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom also have been disproportionate to ethnic makeup of the military, the report states. Based on the 1,841 deaths and 12,658 wounded service members as of May 28, when the report was being prepared, 71 percent of the dead are classified as white, 9 percent as black and 10 percent as Hispanic.
By Rick Maze
Military Times staff writer
A new congressional report says the military is not a mirror of society.
There are proportionately more blacks and fewer Hispanics in the military than in the population as a whole, according to a report on demographics of the all-volunteer force, released Friday by the Government Accountability Office.
There are other differences, too. There are substantially fewer women in the military and proportionately fewer service members have attended college than in the population as a whole.
The report was prepared at the request of Reps. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., and Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., to try to determine if the military is becoming more or less representative of the U.S. population over the past few years.
Rangel is interested because he has called for a return to a military draft, which he believes is necessary because the sacrifices of U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not being evenly shared.
The report shows there are some significant differences in the makeup of the military and the civilian work force in the U.S.
• Whites are underrepresented in the military. The U.S. work force is 71 percent Caucasian — or other ethnic groups included as whites — while the military is 67 percent white.
• Blacks are overrepresented, comprising 17 percent of the military and 11 percent of the civilian work force
• Hispanics are underrepresented, making up 9 percent of the military and 11 percent of the work force.
• Women, not surprisingly, are also underrepresented, comprising just 16 percent of the military, although policies and laws restricting assignment possibilities for women are the chief reason, not other recruiting factors.
• Deaths of U.S. troops in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom also have been disproportionate to ethnic makeup of the military, the report states. Based on the 1,841 deaths and 12,658 wounded service members as of May 28, when the report was being prepared, 71 percent of the dead are classified as white, 9 percent as black and 10 percent as Hispanic.
09-23-2005, 05:45 PM
#2
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lastweek Lane - Watertown, NY
Posts: 10,133
Car Info: 02WRXpseudoSTiWannabeWagon
A couple more things I've heard via the 'folklore' that gets passed around.
I've heard that while on an individual basis, you'll find true patriots no matter what race, color, or religion a soldier is, but in general minorities tend to be motivated less from patriotism and more due to the opportunity and incentives that service in the military provides.
I've also heard, second hand, but from a black Lieutenant friend of mine, that while the Army may officially be equal opportunity that the Equal Opportunity 'tools' that are available to assist minority soldiers is sadly insufficient in battling person-to-person bias. He told me that there is actually an 'unofficial', even unspoken organization, I'd say more like a fraternity, that exists to assist black officers. I don't remember what it is called, and I certainly can't validate it's existence, but I can definitely see how someone's boss could withhold his highest rating because he's a bigot and then justify it with some BS that seems to be a critical job-related shortcoming.
I've heard that while on an individual basis, you'll find true patriots no matter what race, color, or religion a soldier is, but in general minorities tend to be motivated less from patriotism and more due to the opportunity and incentives that service in the military provides.
I've also heard, second hand, but from a black Lieutenant friend of mine, that while the Army may officially be equal opportunity that the Equal Opportunity 'tools' that are available to assist minority soldiers is sadly insufficient in battling person-to-person bias. He told me that there is actually an 'unofficial', even unspoken organization, I'd say more like a fraternity, that exists to assist black officers. I don't remember what it is called, and I certainly can't validate it's existence, but I can definitely see how someone's boss could withhold his highest rating because he's a bigot and then justify it with some BS that seems to be a critical job-related shortcoming.
09-23-2005, 08:19 PM
#3
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: "It will take time to restore chaos." GWB
Posts: 3,461
Car Info: 72 Vespa with curb feelers
Originally Posted by gpatmac
I imagine Hella will be all over this.
Deaths of U.S. troops in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom also have been disproportionate to ethnic makeup of the military, the report states. Based on the 1,841 deaths and 12,658 wounded service members as of May 28, when the report was being prepared, 71 percent of the dead are classified as white, 9 percent as black and 10 percent as Hispanic.
Deaths of U.S. troops in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom also have been disproportionate to ethnic makeup of the military, the report states. Based on the 1,841 deaths and 12,658 wounded service members as of May 28, when the report was being prepared, 71 percent of the dead are classified as white, 9 percent as black and 10 percent as Hispanic.
No insult intended for those who've paid the ultimate sacrifice.
09-23-2005, 08:23 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Blue-faced in a red state
Posts: 2,256
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
Originally Posted by HellaDumb
If politicians to keep going down this diversity rathole, let's go ahead and put under-represented minorities and women on the front line to assure equality..... no I'm NOT serious.
No insult intended for those who've paid the ultimate sacrifice.
No insult intended for those who've paid the ultimate sacrifice.
Oh boy... I think what gpatmac might have been getting at is there is a discrepancy between the number of minorities serving as grunts and the number of minorities in positions of real authority.
And tackling the old boys network is not "going down the diversity rathole." It is instead a legitmate response to an antiquated (and inherently racist) system.
09-23-2005, 08:51 PM
#5
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lastweek Lane - Watertown, NY
Posts: 10,133
Car Info: 02WRXpseudoSTiWannabeWagon
I will add that the Army, and from my limited experience the rest of the military, is WAY ahead of any society that I know of.
1. There are clearly defined regulations that mandate fair treatment of all soldiers. It is arguably still 'not enough', but it's enough that in absolutely NO public circumstance will a soldier ever get away with making slurs towards ANY group....well, except for the enemy.
And anymore, we have to be very careful of what language we use to describe the enemy. It's also enough that the bigots in a position of authority have to carefully check themselves in every aspect of how they treat their subordinates. Of course that's no different than anywhere else in America, but I'll tell you that there are no "out of control sheriff's" who would rather wreck their careers than cow-tow to those who he feels are beneath him.
2. I once got my butt chewed but good for doing nothing. Shortly after the supposed homosexual got killed at Ft Campbell, there was a lull in the operations center late one night. One of my junior NCOs (ex-knuckleheaded Batt-boy
) was riffing and joking about the kid's death and it didn't occur to me to say anything to curtail what he was saying. By not saying anything to him, it established that that sort of talk was ok.
3. Personally I don't allow any of my soldiers to use any sort of racial slur no matter what race they happened to be. (Sure, sexist talk is always welcome but you've got to remember that I'm an Infantryman afterall.
) Anyhow, that meant no one. Black soldiers couldn't use the N word.... Further, if I ever sensed that a soldier had some difficulty in dealing with soldiers who were different than him, I'd target him for my 'psychology'.
4. My last thought but most significant, when you are underfire and especially when you're wounded, you don't care what color, race, religion, sexual orientation...someone is, because you know that they will "...Never leave a fallen comrade." It just don't matter! I speak from personal experience (although I've never had any issues working with anyone at all) that after the shooting stopped I came to realize a sentiment for my brothers who were in my platoon that went beyond love. I was so overwhelmed with pride and debt and awe and cohesion, esprit de corps..... that I instantly knew that I'd sacrifice it all in a split second for any one of them. The guys in my platoon were white, native American, black, hispanic. If one of them was purple or carbon fiber, I'd feel just the same.
I will concede, though, that we were a fighting unit. I imagine that that sort of feeling is common in the combat arms, but probably not so much in the support-type units. I don't know.
1. There are clearly defined regulations that mandate fair treatment of all soldiers. It is arguably still 'not enough', but it's enough that in absolutely NO public circumstance will a soldier ever get away with making slurs towards ANY group....well, except for the enemy.
And anymore, we have to be very careful of what language we use to describe the enemy. It's also enough that the bigots in a position of authority have to carefully check themselves in every aspect of how they treat their subordinates. Of course that's no different than anywhere else in America, but I'll tell you that there are no "out of control sheriff's" who would rather wreck their careers than cow-tow to those who he feels are beneath him.2. I once got my butt chewed but good for doing nothing. Shortly after the supposed homosexual got killed at Ft Campbell, there was a lull in the operations center late one night. One of my junior NCOs (ex-knuckleheaded Batt-boy
) was riffing and joking about the kid's death and it didn't occur to me to say anything to curtail what he was saying. By not saying anything to him, it established that that sort of talk was ok.3. Personally I don't allow any of my soldiers to use any sort of racial slur no matter what race they happened to be. (Sure, sexist talk is always welcome but you've got to remember that I'm an Infantryman afterall.
) Anyhow, that meant no one. Black soldiers couldn't use the N word.... Further, if I ever sensed that a soldier had some difficulty in dealing with soldiers who were different than him, I'd target him for my 'psychology'.4. My last thought but most significant, when you are underfire and especially when you're wounded, you don't care what color, race, religion, sexual orientation...someone is, because you know that they will "...Never leave a fallen comrade." It just don't matter! I speak from personal experience (although I've never had any issues working with anyone at all) that after the shooting stopped I came to realize a sentiment for my brothers who were in my platoon that went beyond love. I was so overwhelmed with pride and debt and awe and cohesion, esprit de corps..... that I instantly knew that I'd sacrifice it all in a split second for any one of them. The guys in my platoon were white, native American, black, hispanic. If one of them was purple or carbon fiber, I'd feel just the same.
I will concede, though, that we were a fighting unit. I imagine that that sort of feeling is common in the combat arms, but probably not so much in the support-type units. I don't know.
09-23-2005, 10:57 PM
#6
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: "It will take time to restore chaos." GWB
Posts: 3,461
Car Info: 72 Vespa with curb feelers
Originally Posted by dub2w
And tackling the old boys network is not "going down the diversity rathole." It is instead a legitmate response to an antiquated (and inherently racist) system.
Proper assimilation in a society would result in a color-blind society. In stead, this country is full of race baiters who try to tell one person that he is oppressed, and tell the other that he is an oppressor...
My point: Why the F in 2005 are we worried about how many white, yellow, brown, black, and rainbow people are working, fighting, dying?.... they are all freaking people.. not colors. This obsession with skin color IS DIVISIVE.
Last edited by HellaDumb; 09-23-2005 at 11:02 PM.
09-23-2005, 11:27 PM
#7
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lastweek Lane - Watertown, NY
Posts: 10,133
Car Info: 02WRXpseudoSTiWannabeWagon
Originally Posted by HellaDumb
This obsession with skin color IS DIVISIVE.
However, maintaining awareness of any divides due to skin color is necessary because if everyone went along thinking A+B=C, ie. "skin color doesn't make someone different, so no matter what anyone says there aren't any problems in the world due to color (or whathaveyou), because Christ! this is 2005 afterall..." then we'd be in a heap o' hurt.
The US Census tells me that my company (my AOR or area of responsibility) is 97% white. My company is the entire southwestern portion of Indiana. I have 3 out of 30 recruiters who are black, and 2 out of 30 who are women (one black, one white). Wouldn't it make sense if I were just a little more vigilant in ensuring that every one of my recruiters is treated, and treats others, fairly and without bias?
09-24-2005, 08:52 AM
#8
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: "It will take time to restore chaos." GWB
Posts: 3,461
Car Info: 72 Vespa with curb feelers
Originally Posted by gpatmac
But can't you see how while you're right you're also wrong? That is to say, I believe I understand your meaning but while there are many who are obsessed, I don't think banter in an open forum, or a study, or an article would constitute obsession.
The US Census tells me that my company (my AOR or area of responsibility) is 97% white. My company is the entire southwestern portion of Indiana. I have 3 out of 30 recruiters who are black, and 2 out of 30 who are women (one black, one white). Wouldn't it make sense if I were just a little more vigilant in ensuring that every one of my recruiters is treated, and treats others, fairly and without bias?
The US Census tells me that my company (my AOR or area of responsibility) is 97% white. My company is the entire southwestern portion of Indiana. I have 3 out of 30 recruiters who are black, and 2 out of 30 who are women (one black, one white). Wouldn't it make sense if I were just a little more vigilant in ensuring that every one of my recruiters is treated, and treats others, fairly and without bias?
What if Irish immigrants are underrepresented? Who is standing up for them?
What about mixed children? If my dad is Hispanic and my mom is Italian, heck, I'm mexican when I apply for loans or for competetive positions!
I'd like someone to convice me that "diversity" efforts today do not do more harm than good. If I wanted to created conflict and divisions in a population, I'd be fine with the status quo.
Last edited by HellaDumb; 09-24-2005 at 08:55 AM.
09-24-2005, 11:01 AM
#9
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by dub2w
Oh boy... I think what gpatmac might have been getting at is there is a discrepancy between the number of minorities serving as grunts and the number of minorities in positions of real authority.
And tackling the old boys network is not "going down the diversity rathole." It is instead a legitmate response to an antiquated (and inherently racist) system.
And tackling the old boys network is not "going down the diversity rathole." It is instead a legitmate response to an antiquated (and inherently racist) system.
Originally Posted by gpatmac
I've also heard, second hand, but from a black Lieutenant friend of mine, that while the Army may officially be equal opportunity that the Equal Opportunity 'tools' that are available to assist minority soldiers is sadly insufficient in battling person-to-person bias. He told me that there is actually an 'unofficial', even unspoken organization, I'd say more like a fraternity, that exists to assist black officers. I don't remember what it is called, and I certainly can't validate it's existence, but I can definitely see how someone's boss could withhold his highest rating because he's a bigot and then justify it with some BS that seems to be a critical job-related shortcoming.
The number of minorities serving as infantry grunts seems non-existent compared to artillery grunts. If you had a birds-eye view of infantry and artillery as a whole you'd have a black formation with a couple specs of rice (artillery) along side a white formation with a couple specs of black (infantry). At least it seemed this way while I was in. The Hispanic population being evenly mixed between the two. Seems certain ethnicities tend to prefer certain MOSs. Just throwing that out there.
The amount of minorities in a grunt position as opposed to positions of authority is false IMHO. I think it seems this way because there just aren't as many minority officers to pick from as opposed to white officers with exact resumes. So for every 3 white officers that are picked from the Colonel pool you have 1 black officer. The other 15 white officers in the pool retire as do the 5 black and Hispanic officers. Makes sense to me.
At one point my Battalion Commander was black (LTC. Garret), my Brigade commander was black (COL. Bray), even one of my company commanders was black (CPT. Broadnax) and one was Hispanic (CPT. Enos - great commander and prior enlisted). EVERY CSM i've served under at the Battalion, Brigade and Division level has been black or hispanic. ALL of them. I believe the FORSCOM commander was black during my time as well as a few other high position generals. Can't forget Gen. Powell and Gen. Shenseki. You also have Brig Gen. Coral Wong Pietsch (woman), Maj. Gen. Marcelite J. Harris (first black woman Maj. General and first woman aircraft maintenance officer and the first woman deputy commander for maintenance to name a few. There's a lot more.
As for there being a hidden fraternity there may well be one. I don't think it's necessary given the fact the military has always seemed to promote on competence rather than affirmative action. Doing so insures the officers being promoted are the best of the best. Sure, there may be one bad seed keeping a black officer from breaking COL at one point in time. If so, then such a hidden "fraternity" would need to step in to make **** happen. Still, the largest fraternity in the military is and has always been who you know, and which school(s) you've graduated from since WestPoint, The Citadel, etc.
Am I missing the argument here?
In my 4yrs of service race was NEVER an issue. I’ve seen people that you knew came from a racist background work side by side with minorities and become good friends with them. I've seen minorites that belonged to gangs prior to enlistment work side by side and become friends with the cornfed white boy from Nebraska.
If anything, the military breaks damn near every racial barrier that exists in the civilian world.
Last edited by Salty; 09-24-2005 at 11:06 AM.
09-24-2005, 07:10 PM
#10
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lastweek Lane - Watertown, NY
Posts: 10,133
Car Info: 02WRXpseudoSTiWannabeWagon
Originally Posted by HellaDumb
What shade of white? Do you mean russian? How 'bout Polish, Italian, or Irish? If we are going to be fair, we shoudl make sure every diverse group within the "white" label are treated fairly and without bias, right?
What if Irish immigrants are underrepresented? Who is standing up for them?
What about mixed children? If my dad is Hispanic and my mom is Italian, heck, I'm mexican when I apply for loans or for competetive positions!
What if Irish immigrants are underrepresented? Who is standing up for them?
What about mixed children? If my dad is Hispanic and my mom is Italian, heck, I'm mexican when I apply for loans or for competetive positions!
Are the civil rights organizations too hyper and micromanaging? In my opinion yeah, but I believe that they do serve a very necessary purpose. They can challenge anything they want, but they must still weather due process and prove inequality and discrimination in the courts.
Does the television try and be their court? Yes, but when that happens, I turn it off. Unfortunately, everyone watches TV, so I can't help but think that the TV puts notions in lawmakers and judges heads. THAT is just a fact of life.
Has there ever been unchecked discrimination in America, and has it overwhelmingly been white vs. non-white? I don't care what you say, there is absolutely no way that you could say no.
Now that there are civil rights laws in place and a slew of watchdog organizations to ensure they are adhered to, is discrimination still occuring? Yes, and like I said, if you were to argue that white people are among those discriminated against, I couldn't dispute that, but THAT would never have been an argument if the civil rights movement had never occured. It's a subterfuge answer to redirect the issue. CITE ONE EXAMPLE! If you cite the Affirmative Action repurcussions, I'll just tell you the beauracratic answer that the law accomplished what it set out to and as with any law that affects millions of people, there will always be a few unintended cases of damage. Laws are intented to ensure the greatest good for the majority, at least that's my opinion.
Now with regards to your argument, I personally haven't read anywhere where a white "hyphenated" American has ever been discriminated against based on their heritage. Could you please cite some examples and stop with the "...well, if we're gonna be fair there should be some laws that protect white hyphenated Americans or white immigrants..."? Why would anyone waste time drafting laws to stop an problem that doesn't exist.
Originally Posted by HellaDumb
I'd like someone to convice me that "diversity" efforts today do not do more harm than good. If I wanted to created conflict and divisions in a population, I'd be fine with the status quo.
For all I know, you're some sort of Hispanic-Italian-American or something. If you were a Latvian-South African-American, then maybe I'd really try.
09-24-2005, 07:17 PM
#11
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lastweek Lane - Watertown, NY
Posts: 10,133
Car Info: 02WRXpseudoSTiWannabeWagon
Salty is right with regards to black grunts vs. blacks in a position of authority. That wasn't my intent in making the topic; rather, it was black soldiers in general vs. black soldiers in the combat arms, specifically the Infantry. Then it was black soldiers in general vs. black officers in general.
The black grunt vs. blacks in a position of authority issue is actually outdated. It was an assertion made, I believe, back when there was a draft, specifically during Vietnam.
The black grunt vs. blacks in a position of authority issue is actually outdated. It was an assertion made, I believe, back when there was a draft, specifically during Vietnam.
09-26-2005, 11:31 AM
#12
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Couve in Washington State
Posts: 559
Car Info: 02 BRP 2.5RS-T
Salty's statement mirrors my experience in the infantry almost identically. Though I would also like to add we had more than a handful of other minorities as grunts...such as Filipinos, Gaumanians, Native American's and misc. Pacific Islanders. Also the Hispancis were a very diverse group...including those of Cuban ancestery, Mexicans, Panamanians, and a huge Puerto Rican contingent.
09-26-2005, 11:38 AM
#13
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by svxr8dr
Though I would also like to add we had more than a handful of other minorities as grunts...such as Filipinos, Gaumanians, Native American's and misc. Pacific Islanders. Also the Hispancis were a very diverse group...including those of Cuban ancestery, Mexicans, Panamanians, and a huge Puerto Rican contingent.
09-26-2005, 05:05 PM
#14
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: "It will take time to restore chaos." GWB
Posts: 3,461
Car Info: 72 Vespa with curb feelers
Originally Posted by gpatmac
Laws are intented to ensure the greatest good for the majority, at least that's my opinion.
Originally Posted by gpatmac
Now with regards to your argument, I personally haven't read anywhere where a white "hyphenated" American has ever been discriminated against based on their heritage.
During WWII, it wasn't just evily whitey discriminating against the Japanese, but whites from all parts discriminating against those dang krauts. It got so bad that many whites of German heritage changed their last names so people wouldn't know they were German (my name included). Examples like this go on and on.
09-26-2005, 06:14 PM
#15
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lastweek Lane - Watertown, NY
Posts: 10,133
Car Info: 02WRXpseudoSTiWannabeWagon
Originally Posted by HellaDumb
The majority is white. You sure you don't want to retract that?
That's how it works. It's not the majority (white people) making self-serving laws and if they happen to positively affect non-whites, so be it. It's law makers who are trying to continually improve America.....and line their pockets while they do it.
Originally Posted by HellaDumb
Ahahahaha... you're joking right? You must be from the bay area.
During WWII, it wasn't just evily whitey discriminating against the Japanese, but whites from all parts discriminating against those dang krauts. It got so bad that many whites of German heritage changed their last names so people wouldn't know they were German (my name included). Examples like this go on and on.
During WWII, it wasn't just evily whitey discriminating against the Japanese, but whites from all parts discriminating against those dang krauts. It got so bad that many whites of German heritage changed their last names so people wouldn't know they were German (my name included). Examples like this go on and on.
What I meant to say was, well generally the same thing but...right now. There are no white Americans being descriminated against based on their heritage....right now. Well, unless some skinny mick is working on an all black construction crew in the LBC. Of course, that wouldn't be racial discrimination no matter what slurs came out of anyone's mouth. That's just a case of bloody chum in a pool of sharks.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Rat
Interior, Exterior & Lighting
2
02-26-2004 03:49 PM