From: Rahul Dave (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Dec 01 2000 - 00:29:12 PST
Very nicely put!
I got this from you:
> (I think this is my final effort to explain this position...)
> Yangkun, The Supreme Court did not call Duke Power "racist". It said Duke
> Power's hiring requirements unintentionally discriminated between
> applicants based on race. There's a difference between the terms.
> Discrimination is an action or result; it might be motivated by racism, or
> by neutral motives (Duke Power), or even by good intentions.
Or even by lack of experience or exposure to other communities, or
fear of the new or unknown..
> No doubt there are some racists in America who like protectionism, both to
> keep their salaries higher and to keep other people down. But how many of
> the 50,000 WTO protesters do you really think fall into that category? For
> the majority of them, the well-intentioned ones who think their policies
> will benefit everyone, it's reasonable for you to argue that their
> policies are flawed. But to argue that they are "racist" is not only to
> misuse a word, but to charge well-meaning people with having an evil
> intent, using an emotionally-charged, denigrating term. That's just wrong.
Leaving the rioters out, a lot of these people felt strongly enough about
their convictions to take the time out from regular lives to make sure they
were heard. Whatever we may think about these convictions, I think that atleast
is very commendable.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 00:33:53 PST