A Tribute to the Persecuted White, Hetero, Man

[Tuberski]

I am a hetero white male.

1) Affirmative Action. I am competing for a job with a black man and we are both equally qualified. If the deciding factor is the color of his skin-fine.

If I am more qualified than him and he gets it because of the color of his skin-bad.

2) Advocacy Groups. All of these groups NAACP, Gay Pride, etc, etc,:

If White people shouldn't have this groups what happens? Everybody else gets accepted and we have a new cultural norm.....except for hetero white males. That is where a lot of rascism comes in BECAUSE of these groups. If you exclude anybody from these groups they will feel indignation and anger. How then, if hetero white males have so much power, are these groups going to change anything?


Stop blaming white males, does it make your life better in any way?

Hating homosexuals, blacks, hispanics, women et al doesn't make my life better so I reject it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GP
Unless you want a Balkanized world of people competing for victim status, the whole thing is silly.

Apolytoners, this is an example of a strawman argument -- when someone like GP presents a claim of something that I do not support, and making it appear that I do support the presented claim.



When minority advocacy groups invite heterosexual white men to participate in their groups as allies, there definitely is no harm.

I was invited to become a member of the Black Student League on our campus, even though I am white. But unfortunately, I have not had time to join and participate in that group.


I do not see how white, heterosexual men are being discriminated against or persecuted against, in today's society. There are infrequent instances where the misuse of AA has resulted in REAL discrimination against a white man, but that is the exception, not the norm.

[Carver]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In South Africa, an African-American visiting the country was legally white.

Tks, for the info. I'll have to investigate this further.

[Shi Huangdi]

Black Dragons sounds too much like a 15 year old with angst- if I told someone IRL my username was Black Dragon they'd think I was disturbed or something. I still have my Black Dragon avatar though- and Paitkis, I thought I was the murderer of peoples, not the Turk, what happened?

"I actually happen to agree. Without the Reformation, I don't think you'd have a Voltaire or Locke."

Hard to say. The Church had alrady lost alot of it's power over secular states, and keep in mind many of the enlightened despots sponsoring the philosophes were Catholic or Orthodox. There was already alot of stuff people were getting away with, take Erasmus for instance.

In any case, I don't deny that the Church of this era was in desperate need of reform, or that Protestantism did not make significant contributions to humanity, particularly with regard to civil liberties. Catholicism has benefitted both as well too though- think Bartolomew De Las Casas. But in any case it is absurd to excuse the treatment of the Irish because they were Catholic.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MrFun


Apolytoners, this is an example of a strawman argument -- when someone like GP presents a claim of something that I do not support, and making it appear that I do support the presented claim.

Re-read your first post. Try to think for a minute. Really strain those brain cells. You will realize that you are according status to victimhood.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There was already alot of stuff people were getting away with, take Erasmus for instance.

He was periously close to be excommunicated. He knew the line, and didn't tread past it.

The Reformation allowed the whole idea of the overarching church to be destroyed, and new thoughts to come out. I mean the WHOLE idea of Protestantism is that faith, and not good works redeems. Calvinism takes it farther and says no one knows who will be saved, but God. This is a very equalizing force. Suddenly, a woman could be the elect, but her husband might not.

[Boris Godunov]

Handing out the status of oppressed minority to a group based on past oppression of them is, IMO, fallacious and wrong. Ergo it is rather childish to assert that white hetero men are somehow less derserving of anything because they weren't oppressed 150 years ago or whatever. Any discussion of oppression should be made about the here and now, so historical considerations are nice trivia but irrelevant.

In the here and now, there is still rampant inequality against racial and religious minorities, women and homosexuals. Ergo society needs to address this inequality, hopefully through peaceful social change. I don't anyone but the most extreme supports quotas of any kind, and everyone should know by now that quotas are illegal and not a part of AA.

DF:

So long as sex ed is taught in public schools, I will insist they must give a portion of time to discussing homosexual behavior in the same boring, clinical way they discuss heterosexual behavior.

[David James]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
David James, you are an idiot.

How kind of you. It's nice to be appreciated. Unfortunately, I appear not to be the only one. Read on.

"You know, this is silly. The Irish were only "persecuted" (and I use the term with a lot of reservation)"

Cromwell massacaring the Irish doesn't merit the term persecution!?

"after the Reformation when they continued to support Catholic Pretenders to the English (and later British) throne."

My, you have an ignorance of history.

Persecution of the Irish dates back to the Middle Ages, where it was not considered murder to kill an Irishman. But of course the most Notorious persecutor of the Irish people came before the support of the main support of the pretenders to the Throne- Charles I and Charles II were both protestant. And I think you can hardly blame the Irish for supporting the house of Stuart considering how their liberties were being denied. Persecution of the Irish continued well after the threat of Catholic pretenders had ended into the 20th century. Discrimination against the Irish occured in the United State as well where there was no threat of Catholic pretenders.

But wait... back in the Middle Ages, if my imperfect ignorance of history isn't too imperfect, I seem to recall the fact that England was ruled by French speaking people called Normans. And they didn't seem to mind persecuting the Anglo-Saxons of the Realm, I might add. And, and - if I may be so bold as to actually point out some facts here - the conquest of Ireland began in 1166 and ended a few years later. I'll let you connect the dots as to who the conquerors of that era were.

Next off, Charles I and Charles II are both of the House of Stuart, so why the Irish would support their descendents if these two had persecuted them is beyond me . Moreover, Charles I was married to a Catholic and had Catholic sympathies whilst Charles II was a closet Catholic, Protestant in name only. So if these two were persecuting Catholics in Ireland I'm afraid you're going to have to look elsewhere than their alleged status as Protestants.

" If anything, the rest of the world owes Protestant Northern Europeans a load of thanks for showing the world that human liberty is possible, for the fight against Catholic persecution later turned into a fight for civil liberties."

Bull****. By the Way, David, did you know that the Irish parliament had passed a law during the the English civil war proclaiming that it was the law of the land that no man should be persecuted on account of religion? Soon after Cromwell would arrive, who would proclaim that "if by freedom you mean the freedom to celebrate the mass, this we do not permit". Not to mention how when predominantly Protestant United States took Texas and Mexico slavey was extended there soon after.

I'm not going to go and defend everything Cromwell did; yes he massacred a lot of Irish but he did the same in England and Scotland as well, often among people who had formerly supported him. Cromwell is an unfortunate feature of England's ascent from government by decree to Parliamentary rule. It is a reminder that the freedom we enjoy has often been bought by the shedding of blood of innocents.

As for my claim about Protestant Northern Europeans, I'm going to stick with. Sure, they were not angels themselves but, to paraphrase someone else's paraphrasing of Churchill to support AA, it was better than the alternative. You also seem to have ignored the fact that the Calvinist Dutch suffered mightily at Spanish hands. But hey, I'm sure you think that the world would be a better place had the Dutch Revolt failed. And not to mention 30 years of bloodshed in Central Europe brought about by the unwillingness of the Habsburgs and the Papacy to respect the religious choices of the people.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Black Dragons sounds too much like a 15 year old with angst-

The transition from Me Too to Big Dog!!

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Handing out the status of oppressed minority to a group based on past oppression of them is, IMO, fallacious and wrong. Ergo it is rather childish to assert that white hetero men are somehow less derserving of anything because they weren't oppressed 150 years ago or whatever. Any discussion of oppression should be made about the here and now, so historical considerations are nice trivia but irrelevant.

In the here and now, there is still rampant inequality against racial and religious minorities, women and homosexuals. Ergo society needs to address this inequality, hopefully through peaceful social change. I don't anyone but the most extreme supports quotas of any kind, and everyone should know by now that quotas are illegal and not a part of AA.

DF:

So long as sex ed is taught in public schools, I will insist they must give a portion of time to discussing homosexual behavior in the same boring, clinical way they discuss heterosexual behavior.

You are on a roll, big guy...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GP


You are on a roll, big guy...

*bows*

Too bad this isn't about slave reparations, then you'd really see me get my gander up.

[monolith94]

It would be great if corporations and businesses were entirely meritocracies. If they were pure meritocracies, I'd entirely be in favor of getting rid of affirmative action.

The problem is they're not. We have, right now, people in positions of economic power who are racist, whether overtly or in the closet. A black man and a white man can compete for the same job and despite a black man being more qualified, the white man might get it, due to an inherint racism in the system. Affirmative action doesn't reinforce the stereotype that black people can't get jobs on their own: it reinforces the (correct) stereotype that businesses tend to have some racist members.

In a perfect world there would be no affirmative action, and there would be no racism. But you're not going to tell me that we live in a perfect world, are you?

p.s. The United States is not 80% white. Within 20 years, it is projected that whites will in fact constitute less than half of the populace.

p.p.s. We owe (for freedom of liberty and what have you) the revolutionaries of the United States, the revolutionaries of France, and those in England who made King John sign the magna carta to thank, to be specific...

[Shi Huangdi]

"But wait... back in the Middle Ages, if my imperfect ignorance of history isn't too imperfect, I seem to recall the fact that England was ruled by French speaking people called Normans."

Right, but it was still the English crown. But that's irrelevant, the original question is if the Irish had been persecuted. Whether done by Anglo or Norman, the Irish had been persecuted. You disputed whether that had happened.

"Next off, Charles I and Charles II are both of the House of Stuart, so why the Irish would support their descendents if these two had persecuted them is beyond me ."

It's only beyond you because you are stupid and ingnorant of history. James II had suspended the penal laws against Catholics(as well as dissidents against the Church of England).

"Moreover, Charles I was married to a Catholic and had Catholic sympathies whilst Charles II was a closet Catholic, Protestant in name only."

Their being Protestant is what counts though- although Charles II made a deal with Louis XIV to restore England to Catholicism, the plot never was enacted. You rationalized the persecution of the Irish in that they supported Catholic Pretenders to the throne. I pointed out the main persecutors of the Irish people came before the era when they were supporting Catholic Kings in exile.

"

I'm not going to go and defend everything Cromwell did; yes he massacred a lot of Irish but he did the same in England and Scotland as well, often among people who had formerly supported him."

Right, but his actions in Irish were far, far, worse. After his conquest of Ireland many Irish were also in fact sent away to the New World to be slaves in the Caribbean.

"Cromwell is an unfortunate feature of England's ascent from government by decree to Parliamentary rule."

Most people use harsher words then "unfortunate" when discussing massacres on the scale he comitted.

"You also seem to have ignored the fact that the Calvinist Dutch suffered mightily at Spanish hands."

Trying to worm out of this by changing the subject, are we? We are discussing the persecution of the Irish.


You said that Irish persecution started when they were supporting the Catholic pretenders to the throne. In fact the worst of it came before Cromwell, and it continued until well after the threat of Catholic pretenders was gone. Your original statement was stupid, incorrect, and insulting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Affirmative action doesn't reinforce the stereotype that black people can't get jobs on their own: it reinforces the (correct) stereotype that businesses tend to have some racist members.

The idea that it is a correct sterotype that businesses tend to have racist members is a stereotype .

I also think that it has been far, far overstated, how many people in business are rascist. And secondly, who are we to decide who business' hire? They are private, no? But then again, that is another topic.

[Jac de Molay]

I guess diversity is like pornography-no one can really define it but "they know it when they see it" I just wonder what MLK jr. would think about a system that judges people on the color of their skin, and not the content of their character...