Am I a racist?

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=UCGal][quote=urbanrealtor][

Also, the OP could be sued super-badly by using protected classes.
.[/quote]
Is this true in a roommate situation? The OP said that he was interviewing for a room rental in his house… I thought the fair housing act stuff was applied differently in roommate situations…. but I could be (and often am) wrong.

Regardless, he’s limiting his options for great roommates if he rejects candidates based on ethnicity alone… It’s challenging to find compatible housemates… why eliminate for irrelevent reasons.[/quote]

I actually think there are some exceptions for roommate situations. I don’t recall if they are de jure or de facto exceptions. And I do get that one should be permitted to express idiosyncratic preference if sharing a room.

However, I stand by what I said.

If I were to post a roommate ad and added “NO JEWS PLEASE” I think that I would deserve the hate mail I would get.

I also think that a lawsuit would be in the offing.

Considering how many Jews I am related to, I suspect it would be a shitstorm.[/quote]

I’ve always thought roommate situations were the only exemptions, but from what I can find, it’s even broader than that:

Basic Facts About the Fair Housing Act
What Housing Is Covered?

The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws/yourrights

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=pri_dk][quote]African origin in the US connotes, but does not necessarily denote, descent from slaves.
Descent from slaves can connote lower social class and less affluence.
Lower class can connote propensity toward criminality.
Criminality is undesirable in a tenant.
Here is the problem with that chain:
It is literally true but complete bullshit.
Most welfare recipients are white.
Most criminals are white.
[…][/quote]

Someone needs to revisit their Logic 101 textbook.[/quote]

What was illogical about that statement?[/quote]

Let me try…

First, I highly doubt most whites would go through the sequence you’ve noted here. Most whites couldn’t care less if one’s ancestors were slaves or slave owners. They only care about what exists in today’s world.

Here’s what they see:

Also according to the Sentencing Project’s web site, in seven states (Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota) the black to white incarceration ratio is greater than 10 to one. The national rate is 5. 6 to one and the ratios range from 13. 6 to one for Iowa to just under two to one in Hawaii. Connecticut’s rate is about 12 to 1. The Project concluded that Connecticut’s black to white ratio is so high because Connecticut’s rate of white incarceration is very low whereas its rate for black incarceration is a little above the national average.

According to Justice Department data, in 2006 black men were being incarcerated at a rate of 3,042 per 100,000. This data also indicated that

1. about one in every 33 black men was a sentenced prisoner and the rate for white men was about one in every 205, for Hispanic men about one in every 79; and

2. black men represented the largest proportion of sentenced male inmates at yearend 2006 (38%); white men made up 34%; and Hispanic men, 21%.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0008.htm
——————

Based on info from the following link, blacks represent only 12.4% of the general U.S. population. In the link above, it states that they make up 38% of the sentenced inmate population.

Whites represent 74.5% of the general U.S. population, but make up 34% of the sentenced inmate population.

Clearly, ratios matter.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_B02001
—————–

Here, it shows the unemployment rate for African-Americans is twice that of whites:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
——————-

Birth rates for unmarried mothers [indicative of possible poverty level and use of government assistance — another non-PC thing, but we desperately need to address this problem with ALL races/ethnicities]:

White: 48.2%
Non-Hispanic Whites: 33.7%
Black: 72.5%

[pages 47-48]
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf
————–

TANF by race…again, one must take into consideration the ratios here (2003 stats, most recent I could quickly find — feel free to share more recent data, if it’s available, to show a higher percentage of whites using TANF):

African-American: 38%
White: 31.8%
Hispanic: 25.8%

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2003/1008.htm

—————–

We all know it’s politically correct to chastise people who are aware of these numbers, and keep them in the back of their minds when having to make quick (and possibly life-altering) decisions in their daily lives — a survival skill, mind you; and it might make one feel all warm and fuzzy to holler accusations of “racism” and “xenophobia” at people who disagree with one’s personal perspective. That being said, it’s irrational to think that people should stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality, just because others find it “offensive” if they don’t.

We will NEVER overcome racism if we are not allowed to discuss the REAL reasons behind many types of “racism” (a word that is used too loosely these days — a quick, verbal javelin to be thrown at one’s opponent when one is unable to honestly discuss the issues). *Real* racism — the kind that is used to kill, injure, or harm others — is evil, and it’s important that we don’t dilute the word “racism” by tossing it around like some used baseball.

If you honestly care about racism, and wish to eliminate it as much as possible, you have to acknowledge the many facts and statistics that justify people’s wariness when dealing with people from certain cultures or races. We cannot solve the problem of racism, if people aren’t willing to *honestly* investigate and define the causes of it. We need to find the *root causes* of it, and fix those first.

Can we please be honest and discuss things like grown adults, or must we always succumb to the lame name-calling that goes on when people lack the knowledge and debating skills needed to address a serious issue in a constructive way?

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=pri_dk][quote]African origin in the US connotes, but does not necessarily denote, descent from slaves.
Descent from slaves can connote lower social class and less affluence.
Lower class can connote propensity toward criminality.
Criminality is undesirable in a tenant.
Here is the problem with that chain:
It is literally true but complete bullshit.
Most welfare recipients are white.
Most criminals are white.
[…][/quote]

Someone needs to revisit their Logic 101 textbook.[/quote]

What was illogical about that statement?[/quote]

Let me try…

First, I highly doubt most whites would go through the sequence you’ve noted here. Most whites couldn’t care less if one’s ancestors were slaves or slave owners. They only care about what exists in today’s world.

Here’s what they see:

Also according to the Sentencing Project’s web site, in seven states (Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota) the black to white incarceration ratio is greater than 10 to one. The national rate is 5. 6 to one and the ratios range from 13. 6 to one for Iowa to just under two to one in Hawaii. Connecticut’s rate is about 12 to 1. The Project concluded that Connecticut’s black to white ratio is so high because Connecticut’s rate of white incarceration is very low whereas its rate for black incarceration is a little above the national average.

According to Justice Department data, in 2006 black men were being incarcerated at a rate of 3,042 per 100,000. This data also indicated that

1. about one in every 33 black men was a sentenced prisoner and the rate for white men was about one in every 205, for Hispanic men about one in every 79; and

2. black men represented the largest proportion of sentenced male inmates at yearend 2006 (38%); white men made up 34%; and Hispanic men, 21%.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0008.htm
——————

Based on info from the following link, blacks represent only 12.4% of the general U.S. population. In the link above, it states that they make up 38% of the sentenced inmate population.

Whites represent 74.5% of the general U.S. population, but make up 34% of the sentenced inmate population.

Clearly, ratios matter.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_B02001
—————–

Here, it shows the unemployment rate for African-Americans is twice that of whites:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
——————-

Birth rates for unmarried mothers [indicative of possible poverty level and use of government assistance — another non-PC thing, but we desperately need to address this problem with ALL races/ethnicities]:

White: 48.2%
Non-Hispanic Whites: 33.7%
Black: 72.5%

[pages 47-48]
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf
————–

TANF by race…again, one must take into consideration the ratios here (2003 stats, most recent I could quickly find — feel free to share more recent data, if it’s available, to show a higher percentage of whites using TANF):

African-American: 38%
White: 31.8%
Hispanic: 25.8%

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2003/1008.htm

—————–

We all know it’s politically correct to chastise people who are aware of these numbers, and keep them in the back of their minds when having to make quick (and possibly life-altering) decisions in their daily lives — a survival skill, mind you; and it might make one feel all warm and fuzzy to holler accusations of “racism” and “xenophobia” at people who disagree with one’s personal perspective. That being said, it’s irrational to think that people should stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality, just because others find it “offensive” if they don’t.

We will NEVER overcome racism if we are not allowed to discuss the REAL reasons behind many types of “racism” (a word that is used too loosely these days — a quick, verbal javelin to be thrown at one’s opponent when one is unable to honestly discuss the issues). *Real* racism — the kind that is used to kill, injure, or harm others — is evil, and it’s important that we don’t dilute the word “racism” by tossing it around like some used baseball.

If you honestly care about racism, and wish to eliminate it as much as possible, you have to acknowledge the many facts and statistics that justify people’s wariness when dealing with people from certain cultures or races. We cannot solve the problem of racism, if people aren’t willing to *honestly* investigate and define the causes of it. We need to find the *root causes* of it, and fix those first.

Can we please be honest and discuss things like grown adults, or must we always succumb to the lame name-calling that goes on when people lack the knowledge and debating skills needed to address a serious issue in a constructive way?

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=pri_dk][quote]African origin in the US connotes, but does not necessarily denote, descent from slaves.
Descent from slaves can connote lower social class and less affluence.
Lower class can connote propensity toward criminality.
Criminality is undesirable in a tenant.
Here is the problem with that chain:
It is literally true but complete bullshit.
Most welfare recipients are white.
Most criminals are white.
[…][/quote]

Someone needs to revisit their Logic 101 textbook.[/quote]

What was illogical about that statement?[/quote]

Let me try…

First, I highly doubt most whites would go through the sequence you’ve noted here. Most whites couldn’t care less if one’s ancestors were slaves or slave owners. They only care about what exists in today’s world.

Here’s what they see:

Also according to the Sentencing Project’s web site, in seven states (Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota) the black to white incarceration ratio is greater than 10 to one. The national rate is 5. 6 to one and the ratios range from 13. 6 to one for Iowa to just under two to one in Hawaii. Connecticut’s rate is about 12 to 1. The Project concluded that Connecticut’s black to white ratio is so high because Connecticut’s rate of white incarceration is very low whereas its rate for black incarceration is a little above the national average.

According to Justice Department data, in 2006 black men were being incarcerated at a rate of 3,042 per 100,000. This data also indicated that

1. about one in every 33 black men was a sentenced prisoner and the rate for white men was about one in every 205, for Hispanic men about one in every 79; and

2. black men represented the largest proportion of sentenced male inmates at yearend 2006 (38%); white men made up 34%; and Hispanic men, 21%.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0008.htm
——————

Based on info from the following link, blacks represent only 12.4% of the general U.S. population. In the link above, it states that they make up 38% of the sentenced inmate population.

Whites represent 74.5% of the general U.S. population, but make up 34% of the sentenced inmate population.

Clearly, ratios matter.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_B02001
—————–

Here, it shows the unemployment rate for African-Americans is twice that of whites:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
——————-

Birth rates for unmarried mothers [indicative of possible poverty level and use of government assistance — another non-PC thing, but we desperately need to address this problem with ALL races/ethnicities]:

White: 48.2%
Non-Hispanic Whites: 33.7%
Black: 72.5%

[pages 47-48]
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf
————–

TANF by race…again, one must take into consideration the ratios here (2003 stats, most recent I could quickly find — feel free to share more recent data, if it’s available, to show a higher percentage of whites using TANF):

African-American: 38%
White: 31.8%
Hispanic: 25.8%

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2003/1008.htm

—————–

We all know it’s politically correct to chastise people who are aware of these numbers, and keep them in the back of their minds when having to make quick (and possibly life-altering) decisions in their daily lives — a survival skill, mind you; and it might make one feel all warm and fuzzy to holler accusations of “racism” and “xenophobia” at people who disagree with one’s personal perspective. That being said, it’s irrational to think that people should stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality, just because others find it “offensive” if they don’t.

We will NEVER overcome racism if we are not allowed to discuss the REAL reasons behind many types of “racism” (a word that is used too loosely these days — a quick, verbal javelin to be thrown at one’s opponent when one is unable to honestly discuss the issues). *Real* racism — the kind that is used to kill, injure, or harm others — is evil, and it’s important that we don’t dilute the word “racism” by tossing it around like some used baseball.

If you honestly care about racism, and wish to eliminate it as much as possible, you have to acknowledge the many facts and statistics that justify people’s wariness when dealing with people from certain cultures or races. We cannot solve the problem of racism, if people aren’t willing to *honestly* investigate and define the causes of it. We need to find the *root causes* of it, and fix those first.

Can we please be honest and discuss things like grown adults, or must we always succumb to the lame name-calling that goes on when people lack the knowledge and debating skills needed to address a serious issue in a constructive way?

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=pri_dk][quote]African origin in the US connotes, but does not necessarily denote, descent from slaves.
Descent from slaves can connote lower social class and less affluence.
Lower class can connote propensity toward criminality.
Criminality is undesirable in a tenant.
Here is the problem with that chain:
It is literally true but complete bullshit.
Most welfare recipients are white.
Most criminals are white.
[…][/quote]

Someone needs to revisit their Logic 101 textbook.[/quote]

What was illogical about that statement?[/quote]

Let me try…

First, I highly doubt most whites would go through the sequence you’ve noted here. Most whites couldn’t care less if one’s ancestors were slaves or slave owners. They only care about what exists in today’s world.

Here’s what they see:

Also according to the Sentencing Project’s web site, in seven states (Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota) the black to white incarceration ratio is greater than 10 to one. The national rate is 5. 6 to one and the ratios range from 13. 6 to one for Iowa to just under two to one in Hawaii. Connecticut’s rate is about 12 to 1. The Project concluded that Connecticut’s black to white ratio is so high because Connecticut’s rate of white incarceration is very low whereas its rate for black incarceration is a little above the national average.

According to Justice Department data, in 2006 black men were being incarcerated at a rate of 3,042 per 100,000. This data also indicated that

1. about one in every 33 black men was a sentenced prisoner and the rate for white men was about one in every 205, for Hispanic men about one in every 79; and

2. black men represented the largest proportion of sentenced male inmates at yearend 2006 (38%); white men made up 34%; and Hispanic men, 21%.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0008.htm
——————

Based on info from the following link, blacks represent only 12.4% of the general U.S. population. In the link above, it states that they make up 38% of the sentenced inmate population.

Whites represent 74.5% of the general U.S. population, but make up 34% of the sentenced inmate population.

Clearly, ratios matter.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_B02001
—————–

Here, it shows the unemployment rate for African-Americans is twice that of whites:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
——————-

Birth rates for unmarried mothers [indicative of possible poverty level and use of government assistance — another non-PC thing, but we desperately need to address this problem with ALL races/ethnicities]:

White: 48.2%
Non-Hispanic Whites: 33.7%
Black: 72.5%

[pages 47-48]
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf
————–

TANF by race…again, one must take into consideration the ratios here (2003 stats, most recent I could quickly find — feel free to share more recent data, if it’s available, to show a higher percentage of whites using TANF):

African-American: 38%
White: 31.8%
Hispanic: 25.8%

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2003/1008.htm

—————–

We all know it’s politically correct to chastise people who are aware of these numbers, and keep them in the back of their minds when having to make quick (and possibly life-altering) decisions in their daily lives — a survival skill, mind you; and it might make one feel all warm and fuzzy to holler accusations of “racism” and “xenophobia” at people who disagree with one’s personal perspective. That being said, it’s irrational to think that people should stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality, just because others find it “offensive” if they don’t.

We will NEVER overcome racism if we are not allowed to discuss the REAL reasons behind many types of “racism” (a word that is used too loosely these days — a quick, verbal javelin to be thrown at one’s opponent when one is unable to honestly discuss the issues). *Real* racism — the kind that is used to kill, injure, or harm others — is evil, and it’s important that we don’t dilute the word “racism” by tossing it around like some used baseball.

If you honestly care about racism, and wish to eliminate it as much as possible, you have to acknowledge the many facts and statistics that justify people’s wariness when dealing with people from certain cultures or races. We cannot solve the problem of racism, if people aren’t willing to *honestly* investigate and define the causes of it. We need to find the *root causes* of it, and fix those first.

Can we please be honest and discuss things like grown adults, or must we always succumb to the lame name-calling that goes on when people lack the knowledge and debating skills needed to address a serious issue in a constructive way?

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=pri_dk][quote]African origin in the US connotes, but does not necessarily denote, descent from slaves.
Descent from slaves can connote lower social class and less affluence.
Lower class can connote propensity toward criminality.
Criminality is undesirable in a tenant.
Here is the problem with that chain:
It is literally true but complete bullshit.
Most welfare recipients are white.
Most criminals are white.
[…][/quote]

Someone needs to revisit their Logic 101 textbook.[/quote]

What was illogical about that statement?[/quote]

Let me try…

First, I highly doubt most whites would go through the sequence you’ve noted here. Most whites couldn’t care less if one’s ancestors were slaves or slave owners. They only care about what exists in today’s world.

Here’s what they see:

Also according to the Sentencing Project’s web site, in seven states (Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota) the black to white incarceration ratio is greater than 10 to one. The national rate is 5. 6 to one and the ratios range from 13. 6 to one for Iowa to just under two to one in Hawaii. Connecticut’s rate is about 12 to 1. The Project concluded that Connecticut’s black to white ratio is so high because Connecticut’s rate of white incarceration is very low whereas its rate for black incarceration is a little above the national average.

According to Justice Department data, in 2006 black men were being incarcerated at a rate of 3,042 per 100,000. This data also indicated that

1. about one in every 33 black men was a sentenced prisoner and the rate for white men was about one in every 205, for Hispanic men about one in every 79; and

2. black men represented the largest proportion of sentenced male inmates at yearend 2006 (38%); white men made up 34%; and Hispanic men, 21%.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0008.htm
——————

Based on info from the following link, blacks represent only 12.4% of the general U.S. population. In the link above, it states that they make up 38% of the sentenced inmate population.

Whites represent 74.5% of the general U.S. population, but make up 34% of the sentenced inmate population.

Clearly, ratios matter.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_B02001
—————–

Here, it shows the unemployment rate for African-Americans is twice that of whites:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
——————-

Birth rates for unmarried mothers [indicative of possible poverty level and use of government assistance — another non-PC thing, but we desperately need to address this problem with ALL races/ethnicities]:

White: 48.2%
Non-Hispanic Whites: 33.7%
Black: 72.5%

[pages 47-48]
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf
————–

TANF by race…again, one must take into consideration the ratios here (2003 stats, most recent I could quickly find — feel free to share more recent data, if it’s available, to show a higher percentage of whites using TANF):

African-American: 38%
White: 31.8%
Hispanic: 25.8%

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2003/1008.htm

—————–

We all know it’s politically correct to chastise people who are aware of these numbers, and keep them in the back of their minds when having to make quick (and possibly life-altering) decisions in their daily lives — a survival skill, mind you; and it might make one feel all warm and fuzzy to holler accusations of “racism” and “xenophobia” at people who disagree with one’s personal perspective. That being said, it’s irrational to think that people should stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality, just because others find it “offensive” if they don’t.

We will NEVER overcome racism if we are not allowed to discuss the REAL reasons behind many types of “racism” (a word that is used too loosely these days — a quick, verbal javelin to be thrown at one’s opponent when one is unable to honestly discuss the issues). *Real* racism — the kind that is used to kill, injure, or harm others — is evil, and it’s important that we don’t dilute the word “racism” by tossing it around like some used baseball.

If you honestly care about racism, and wish to eliminate it as much as possible, you have to acknowledge the many facts and statistics that justify people’s wariness when dealing with people from certain cultures or races. We cannot solve the problem of racism, if people aren’t willing to *honestly* investigate and define the causes of it. We need to find the *root causes* of it, and fix those first.

Can we please be honest and discuss things like grown adults, or must we always succumb to the lame name-calling that goes on when people lack the knowledge and debating skills needed to address a serious issue in a constructive way?

[all]

[quote=pri_dk]I find it difficult to keep up with the latest terms for various races. I know that blacks were once called “Negros,” and then called “colored” (my mother still calls them that but I know she doesn’t mean any harm by it.)

I grew up calling them “blacks” but now it seems that “African American” is the latest fashion. I don’t use this term because it has too many syllables and I’m too old to change my ways.

I’ve also heard the phrase “people of color” which sounds like the old-fashioned “colored” but I think it’s different because it includes anyone who isn’t white (I’ve always wondered if whites are should be called “people without color” – that doesn’t sound very flattering, but I’m sure those who coined the phrase “people of color” never meant to imply anything negative.)[/quote]

According to the additive color theory (prism/dispersion of light thing) black is absence of color (i.e. black people are people without color) and white is a blend of all colors.

[all]

[quote=pri_dk]I find it difficult to keep up with the latest terms for various races. I know that blacks were once called “Negros,” and then called “colored” (my mother still calls them that but I know she doesn’t mean any harm by it.)

I grew up calling them “blacks” but now it seems that “African American” is the latest fashion. I don’t use this term because it has too many syllables and I’m too old to change my ways.

I’ve also heard the phrase “people of color” which sounds like the old-fashioned “colored” but I think it’s different because it includes anyone who isn’t white (I’ve always wondered if whites are should be called “people without color” – that doesn’t sound very flattering, but I’m sure those who coined the phrase “people of color” never meant to imply anything negative.)[/quote]

According to the additive color theory (prism/dispersion of light thing) black is absence of color (i.e. black people are people without color) and white is a blend of all colors.

[all]

[quote=pri_dk]I find it difficult to keep up with the latest terms for various races. I know that blacks were once called “Negros,” and then called “colored” (my mother still calls them that but I know she doesn’t mean any harm by it.)

I grew up calling them “blacks” but now it seems that “African American” is the latest fashion. I don’t use this term because it has too many syllables and I’m too old to change my ways.

I’ve also heard the phrase “people of color” which sounds like the old-fashioned “colored” but I think it’s different because it includes anyone who isn’t white (I’ve always wondered if whites are should be called “people without color” – that doesn’t sound very flattering, but I’m sure those who coined the phrase “people of color” never meant to imply anything negative.)[/quote]

According to the additive color theory (prism/dispersion of light thing) black is absence of color (i.e. black people are people without color) and white is a blend of all colors.

[all]

[quote=pri_dk]I find it difficult to keep up with the latest terms for various races. I know that blacks were once called “Negros,” and then called “colored” (my mother still calls them that but I know she doesn’t mean any harm by it.)

I grew up calling them “blacks” but now it seems that “African American” is the latest fashion. I don’t use this term because it has too many syllables and I’m too old to change my ways.

I’ve also heard the phrase “people of color” which sounds like the old-fashioned “colored” but I think it’s different because it includes anyone who isn’t white (I’ve always wondered if whites are should be called “people without color” – that doesn’t sound very flattering, but I’m sure those who coined the phrase “people of color” never meant to imply anything negative.)[/quote]

According to the additive color theory (prism/dispersion of light thing) black is absence of color (i.e. black people are people without color) and white is a blend of all colors.

[all]

[quote=pri_dk]I find it difficult to keep up with the latest terms for various races. I know that blacks were once called “Negros,” and then called “colored” (my mother still calls them that but I know she doesn’t mean any harm by it.)

I grew up calling them “blacks” but now it seems that “African American” is the latest fashion. I don’t use this term because it has too many syllables and I’m too old to change my ways.

I’ve also heard the phrase “people of color” which sounds like the old-fashioned “colored” but I think it’s different because it includes anyone who isn’t white (I’ve always wondered if whites are should be called “people without color” – that doesn’t sound very flattering, but I’m sure those who coined the phrase “people of color” never meant to imply anything negative.)[/quote]

According to the additive color theory (prism/dispersion of light thing) black is absence of color (i.e. black people are people without color) and white is a blend of all colors.

[NotCranky]

“….and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.”

Everything is legal if you just use the system…

[NotCranky]

“….and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.”

Everything is legal if you just use the system…

[NotCranky]

“….and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.”

Everything is legal if you just use the system…

[NotCranky]

“….and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.”

Everything is legal if you just use the system…

[Author]

Posts