Part Two: Reverse Discrimination For Dummies

Today in our society's quest for racial equality all we have accomplished is allowing one double standard to merely be replaced by another double standard. This is hardly progress. As this present double standard has emerged it has been fully accepted by Liberals and the Main Stream Media that some members of minorities can openly display their racism and hatred towards the majority. As if that were not bad enough Liberals and the MSM not only accept this hatred they defend it as well by explaining that after so many years of "white man's rule" it is justifiable to "reverse" this racism, or discrimination, towards the majority. But in doing so these members of minorities are committing the same injustices and displaying the same vile hatred that the majority of the minorities and their leaders, such as MLK, along with many of the rest of us Americans have so vehemently condemned in the past.

It has become clear that while the majority of our population wants equality, a number of the minorities seek something else and that something is revenge. But in the affirmative action, equal opportunity, interracial relationship practicing modern America this untimely revenge stems mainly for past crimes or discriminations perpetrated against and committed by people in our past. So after a decades long struggle against such hatred and injustice, while striving for civil rights and equality, what Americans are now being shown is that it is actually all right to hate your fellow man, but only if you are a member of a minority and the people you hate are those evil Whitey's.

Part of this problem is the untruth that only the majority in a society can be racist, which in America's case that majority is for at least a little while longer still White. The truth however is of course that anyone can be a racist. Now, we all know this is true but nobody wants to admit it, least of all not minorities, the MSM or Liberals. So in true All-American 'Liberal speak' they have come up with "reverse discrimination" or, "reverse racism." As a result, in true Liberal PC logic, we are strapped with such nonsense as this:

Under federal law and in most states that have reverse discrimination doctrine, a white plaintiff is required to prove, before being allowed to go to trial that the defendant "is the rare defendant who would discriminate against those of the white race."

In other words, as far as our State and Federal governments are concerned, racial bigotry is a White majority owned experience and since it is so deemed such racial bigotry is rarely, if ever, seen from a minority. In now knowing of this State and Federal declaration of White only racism it is easier to understand why a Supreme Court nominee like Sonia Sotomayor is not considered to be a racist even after stating on seven different occasions that, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

In so often repeating this claim she has made this racial slur her personal mantra. Yet it is only those White American males in the US Senate whose job it was to vet this Supreme Court nominee but dared to question her about this racially biased statement that have been declared racists by Liberals and the MSM.

In my limited research, and thanks to The Volokh Conspiracy website, the origins of the term "reverse discrimination" seem to originate with a liberal writer named Holding Carter who is credited with using the term as early as 1955 and perhaps 1950. In '55 Carter used the term when accusing the NAACP of using "reverse racism" in an article for 'The Saturday Evening Post.'

However one poster added, "I remember a phrase "reversal of a discrimination" in the context as evil as the creation of a discrimination in some 1870's congressional proceedings."

Well at least they had it right in the 1870's.

No matter how old the terms "reverse discrimination", or "reverse racism" are they have been mostly associated with affirmative action. The term affirmative action was first used by JFK:

The actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President John F. Kennedy's 1961 Executive Order 10925, which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." The same language was later used in Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246.

By the way, to give you some idea of how important women's suffrage was in all of this, women were not included in affirmative action until 1967.

Definition: Reverse Discrimination

Noun

The unfair treatment of members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities.

Origin:
1965-70 Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

Regardless of the fact that now most dictionaries have a definition for reverse discrimination, and despite the fact that it has become so commonly used in our language, the plain simple problem is that there is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination. This so-called reverse discrimination is an American Liberal invention, or more idiotic PC Liberal speak, much like calling terrorist acts, "man made disasters." Racism is racism. Discrimination is discrimination. Terrorism is terrorism. The unjust morality of the sinful practice of discrimination or racism does not change when it is used against a majority. No matter what section of a society is discriminated against it is still wrong. You don't reverse discriminate, you just discriminate.

Yet the Oxford English online dictionary goes so far as to say that "reverse discrimination is positive discrimination!" I would bet my house, if I still had one, that the Oxford people who wrote this also believe that Al Gore is an all-knowing alien god.

By adding reverse to discrimination, or racism, also wrongly suggests that the discrimination or racism is justified or warranted. If our society were truly working towards equality for all it would not matter what color the person was, or what percentage of the population that person belonged to if they were discriminated against. In a truly equal society there would be no such nonsense as reverse discrimination or reverse racism.

While I understand that something needed to be done to eliminate discrimination in such areas as employment and school admissions I will never understand how affirmative action came to be the answer. Well except that we can always count on our government to get it wrong. Affirmative action does not eliminate discrimination it simply changes the persons who are being discriminated against! One of the first life lessons we learn is that two wrongs don't make a right. Yet our government missed that lesson by a light year as they somehow figured that by discriminating against one set of applicants today would correct the discriminations against another set of applicants yesterday!

According to the above definition of reverse discrimination the purpose of affirmative action, or "preferential treatment", was "intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities." Well they failed miserably in remedying anything because you cannot mollify the discrimination against someone in 1962 by discriminating against someone else in 1992! Discriminating against someone else today does not erase or absolve the discrimination against someone else in the past. That past crime still exist, and we have just committed another! This is not equality, it is certainly not a remedy. It is simply revenge sanctioned by our Federal government that is now legally perpetrated against people who had absolutely nothing to do with the unlawful discriminations of the past.

So when the White majority vanishes and they become a minority, in the future do we then discriminate against some other racial group in 2050 to "remedy" the discriminations of 2007? Affirmative action is a Liberal blueprint to insure that equality is never realized so that Liberals can continue to claim that a portion of our society remains in a victim status and that discrimination remains in our society for however few years America has left.

To help explain affirmative action we were handed more Liberal speak called "racially biased tests." This is something else I have never been able to grasp as I attended an integrated high school and we were all learning the same lessons. No matter what your race, math is math, science is still science, etc and it was all taught in the language of our nation, English. So just what is a racially biased test?

Well according to Liberal speak a racially biased test would ask questions that only a certain economic class, or race would know. So a racially biased test would maybe include a question about who was Rosemary Clooney? But it seems to me that would be more of an aged biased test.

In the case of the New Haven firemen the city spent $10,000.00 just to make sure that the test that was given was NOT racially biased. That statement alone helps to demonstrate what is wrong with our society. Yet when no African- Americans passed the test those firemen who did, including one Hispanic, still did not receive their rightful promotions. This fireman's test was strictly about what these firemen needed to know to perform their jobs at a higher level. What on earth could be racially biased about what a fireman should do in any given situation? What could be racially different in the common procedures, equipment, training or regulations and so on for a New Haven firefighter that could possibly affect the outcome of the test due to a fireman's race? And why in the world would a question about Rosemary Clooney be included on a test for the New Haven Fire Department?

The irony of this case was that the City of New Haven decided that they would not promote the firemen who passed because the city officials were afraid of being sued for not promoting minorities. For living in this atmosphere of fear and ignorance the city was justly rewarded by rightfully being sued by non-minority firemen who did pass the test but were not promoted.

In a sane society a minority who had passed the test but was not promoted would have been justified in suing the city. But in our psycho, Liberal, and self-flagellating PC society we must now fear the minority who does fail and bypass any non-minorities who do succeed! Or even in the case of the Hispanic fireman, ignore his success if not enough other minorities pass. Liberals, politicians, affirmative action and Civil Rights activists call this leveling the playing field. But in fact it is lowering the playing field. Through affirmative action we have not raised the bar for minorities. Instead we have not only lowered the bar we have also given some a complete pass. In doing so we are not only inflicting on all of our people a grave injustice but also we are destroying our society. This is similar to Obama's economic plan; instead of raising those in need up to a higher income level we'll just make everybody poor.

Both in the past and now in the present we have accepted less qualified people for admissions and employment due to race. This process is called 'dumbing down' society. Everybody knows it, everybody realizes that it is happening and everyone is fully aware of the dire consequences. Yet nobody will admit it. For you see, to admit it, to say it, or to even think it, is racist.

There is no such thing as a 'Superior Race.' But some individuals of every race are superior to others in intellect, ability and so on. Those people of all races will rise to the top in most situations. What was needed in our society was the chance for all individuals with "the goods" to compete equally regardless of race. What we have done instead, then and now, was to eliminate part of the competition due to race and allowed others less qualified to compete in their place. Other countries choose the best and the brightest. We have continued to choose by skin tone, first by one, now by the other. In doing so we are killing our society.

Whether it was 1950 or 2008, through discrimination we discarded the more qualified for the untrained. We eliminated the more intelligent in lieu of the average. We invalidated the hard working, determined and dedicated for the disingenuous. We abandoned the goal oriented for the undecided. We rejected the skilled for the incapable. Every successful society is a team effort. Yet we once discarded valuable team members because of race. Learning nothing from the past we are now discarding more valuable team members because of race. How much longer must we continue the insanity of discarding valuable team members of all races to remedy past wrongs?

Affirmative action is like trading Michael Jordan in his prime for a draft choice to be named later because he didn't look like we thought he should.

God Bless America

Semper Fi,
Mike

Part One: Cowards


Part Three: Playing The Race Card Game

"Copyright 2009.  Michael E. Tank   All rights reserved. No part of this document may be copied, faxed, electronically transmitted, or in any other manner duplicated without express written permission of the author."