Support NeoGAF

[DY_nasty]

This ad reminds me so much of some mid 90s domestic abuse ads I used to see...

its so bad

 

[rando14]

Those are horribly written, and can you post sources?

Sphagnum's link. How are those horribly written?

 

[way more]

I like how pointing out white privledge exists makes certain people assume they are being guilt tripped. If you feel guilty that's on you.


If I read that Americans spend the most on cosmetic dental care but have worse dental health than the UK I don't cry, "quit trying to make me feel bad." I just process that information and try to understand it.

 

[Mumei]

Do colleges send manilla folders to denied applicants with a picture of the person who took their place and a copy of their transcript? People always seem to know they've specifically been screwed over by Affirmative Action.

This was more in relation to affirmative action relating to gender, but it works here, as well:

"Not long ago, I appeared on a television talk show opposite three "angry white males" who felt they had been the victims of workplace discrimination. They were in their late twenties and early thirties - just on the other side of the Guyland divide. The show's title, no doubt to entice a large potential audience was "A Black Woman Stole My Job." Each of the men described how he was passed over for jobs or promotions for which all believed themselves qualified. Then it was my turn to respond. I said I had one question about one word in the title of the show. I asked them about the word "my." Where did they get the idea it was "their" job? Why wasn't the show called "A Black Woman Got a Job," or "A Black Woman Got the Job"? These men felt the job was "theirs" because they felt entitled to it, and when some "other" person - black, female - got the job, that person was really taking what was "rightfully" theirs."​

Oh, and if anyone is interested in a description of white privilege, Wikipedia is usually pretty good about describing these sorts of topics:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to advantages that white people are argued to benefit from in certain societies beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc). The term connotes both obvious and less obvious unspoken advantages that white individuals may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice. These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth; greater presumed social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely. The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal. It can be compared and/or combined with the concept of male privilege.

One of the results of these, of course, is increased wealth disparities, but defining white privilege was "generally having more wealth" is, if nothing else, misleading. Even a poor white person can (and does) benefit from the social and institutional advantages of being white in American society, relative even to a rich black man.

Of course, the usual objection to this is that, "But there are poor white people and rich black people, so you can't make blanket statements like 'White people are privileged,' because not all of them are!" And while intersectionality is a very interesting topic, when we refer to any kind of privilege we are comparing people on that single axis of race.

I'd also just like to point out that the single biggest cause of the destruction of the black family is the Drug War, which is also one of the best examples of white privilege in action. Take the Seattle police:

In 2002, a team of researchers at the University of Washington decided to take the defenses of the drug war seriously, by subjecting the arguments to empirical testing in a major study of drug-law enforcement in a racially mixed city - Seattle. The study found that, contrary to the prevailing "common sense," the high arrest rates of African Americans in drug-law enforcement could not be explained by rates of offending; nor could they be explained by other standard excuses, such as the ease and efficiency of policing open-air drug markets, citizen complaints, crime rates, or drug-related violence. The study also debunked the assumption that white drug dealers deal indoors, making their criminal activity more difficult to detect.

The authors found that it was untrue stereotypes about crack markets, crack dealers, and crack babies - not facts - that were driving discretionary decision making by the Seattle Police Department. The facts were as follows: Seattle residents were far more likely to report suspected narcotics activity in residences - not outdoors - but police devoted their resources to open-air drug markets and to the one precinct that was least likely to be identified as the site of suspected drug activity in citizen complaints. In fact, although hundreds of outdoor drug transactions were recorded in predominantly white areas of Seattle, police concentrated their drug enforcement efforts in one downtown drug market where the frequency of drug transactions was much lwoer. In racially mixed open-air drug markets, black dealers were far more likely to be arrested than whites, even though white dealers were present and visible. And the department focused overwhelmingly on crack - the one drug in Seattle more likely to be sold by African Americans - despite the fact that local hospital records indicated that overdose deaths involving heroin were more numerous than all overdose deaths for crack and powder cocaine combined. Local police acknowledged that no significant level of violence was associated with crack in Seattle and that other drugs were causing more hospitalizations, but steadfastly maintained that their deployment decisions were nondiscriminatory.

The study's authors concluded, based on their review and analysis of the empirical evidence, that the Seattle Police Department's decision to focus so heavily on crack, to the near exclusion of other drugs, and to concentrate its efforts on outdoor drug markets in downtown areas rather than drug markets located indoors or in predominantly white communities, reflect "a racialized conception of the drug problem." As the authors put it: "[The Seattle Police Department's] foucs on black and Latino individuals and on the drug most strongly associated with 'blackness' suggest that law enforcement policies and practices are predicated on the assumption that the drug problem is, in fact, a black and Latino one, and that crack, the drug most strongly associated with urban blacks, is 'the worst.' This racialized cultural script about who and what constitutes the drug problem renders illegal drug activity by whites invisible. "White people," the study's author's observed, "are simply not perceived as drug offenders by Seattle police officers.​

This is why despite the fact that all evidence indicates equivalent rates of drug use by whites and blacks, nearly seven times as many black people are arrested for drug offenses as whites are. This is why when people are asked to close their eyes and imagine a drug user, ninety-five percent imagined a black person. Only five percent of the respondents reported picturing a person of a different race - and the same group also perceived a typical drug trafficker as black. This is because of a cultural script we have around the issue of drugs, and one of the major benefits of whiteness is that criminality is not assumed about you, even unconsciously, by other people and especially by law enforcement. If you're white and you live in the United States, you benefit from this.

 

[Dead Man]

Sphagnum's link. How are those horribly written?

First one uses different scales to complicate what is really a very simple metric, second one is fine, and the third one makes basically the same statement twice. Really the bad one is the first one.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Define "white people".

Caucasion?

 

[Dead Man]

Caucasion?

Define Caucasian. The simplest definition of white is those that are called white when look at by strangers, I guess.

 

[antonz]

Until Humanity views itself as Humanity and not separate sections of Humanity there is always going to be issues.

When a bunch of cavemen got together and decided to build Rome, Athens, Carthage, Alexandria etc. instead of staying in mud huts you had your first large scale example of societal privilege. We have to continue to work towards that day when we are all just humanity but its not that easy and when you finger poke people it tends to make issues worse.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Define Caucasian. The simplest definition of white is those that are called white when look at by strangers, I guess.

European desent would be acceptable too.

 

[sphagnum]

White guilt is one of the most awful, annoying things about white people. Seeing someone complain about white people's advantages but is unwilling to work in a goddamn soup kitchen is one of the largest cases of cognitive dissonance in modern white liberal culture. "I feel bad but...I'm not willing to sacrifice anything enough to help you out!" Nice message.

It's also, ironically, another sign of white privilege. By covering themselves in the garb of white guilt, the liberal gets to come off as enlightened about his or her racial position without having to actually do anything to address the root causes of the problem. They can wash his or her hands of the situation because, clearly, they're not abetting the system - how can they? They feel bad! They donate to charity! They're not like those other white people who don't want to help black people. Hey waitaminute what's that about reparations? Well let's not get all in a tizzy....

And then they vote for a guy like Obama because he's black and that makes them feel like they've Done Their Part in Ending Racism, when it doesn't in fact do anything.

 

[DY_nasty]

Until Humanity views itself as Humanity and not separate sections of Humanity there is always going to be issues.

When a bunch of cavemen got together and decided to build Rome, Athens, Carthage, Alexandria etc. instead of staying in mud huts you had your first large scale example of societal privilege. We have to continue to work towards that day when we are all just humanity but its not that easy and when you finger poke people it tends to make issues worse.

Not to pick on you or anything, but some people want to be "humanity" and have their culture/heritage as well. They'd just like to not be slighted for it. I'm all for being the human race but that day is a long, long ways off. These are the baby steps.

Not this ad though. This ad sucks.

 

[vas_a_morir]

European desent would be acceptable too.

West European descent is more accurate. The difference between West Europe and East Europe can be as big as Japan to Vietnam... (Maybe not that big of a difference, but still)

 

[Angelus Errare]

As this debate increases in length, the chances of someone mentioning being able to use the n-word increases by 1.

Likewise, as this debate increases in length, the chances of someone ascribing "black culture" to a clearly racist based question increases by 2.

 

[WanderingWind]

Oh, good. I was worried this wouldn't become a liberal vs conservative slap fight.

 

[DY_nasty]

Oh, good. I was worried this wouldn't become a liberal vs conservative slap fight.

Eh... Its bound to come up because of the two different brands of racism each end of the spectrum is known for.

 

[Desavona]

So is this only in America? Because here in Australia I get harassed by cops all the time for no reason and I'm southern Euro. I also get funny looks from people in the North Shore or The Shire. And just the other day I walked into Tiffany's and was followed by the security guard until I left.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

such bullshit

 

[Chie Satonaka]

Truth

I just wanted to say that every time a thread on this subject comes up, I look for your posts. Always a great read.

I also find it curious that the people who seem convinced that this is a myth never seem to respond to them.

 

[WanderingWind]

Eh... Its bound to come up because of the two different brands of racism each end of the spectrum is known for.

"Known" for. The liberal who doesn't actually do anything is a Fox News contrived line of bullshit that anybody without an idiotic agenda should be able to see past.

 

[Tesseract]

I stopped taking you seriously when you said white privilege is just something that's used to guilt trip people who "work harder".

you applaud mac's ironical taunt but condemn mine? putting aside the fact that i'm on your side and suspect whites are privileged, there's some serious confusion of association with causation going on in this thread. is white privilege true for any unfavorable circumstance shared among minorities relative to whites? what the fuck is white privilege, everyone here seems to have their own loose interpretation.

 

[sphagnum]

Oh, good. I was worried this wouldn't become a liberal vs conservative slap fight.

More like a left-wing circular firing squad.

]"Known" for. The liberal who doesn't actually do anything is a Fox News contrived line of bullshit that anybody without an idiotic agenda should be able to see past.

Not really, it's a pretty spot-on description considering the "left" hasn't gotten off its collective ass since the 1970s and done much when it comes to economic issues.

 

[DY_nasty]

"Known" for. The liberal who doesn't actually do anything is a Fox News contrived line of bullshit that anybody without an idiotic agenda should be able to see past.

I'm just talking about the common types of things you hear from the ignorant ends on both sides.

Right is usually your more direct, in your face, "Maybe if they stopped spending all that time in jail..." while the Left seems to nurture more patronizing, and many times outright dismissive tones that revolve around "I don't see race".

you applaud mac's ironical taunt but condemn mine? putting aside the fact that i'm on your side and suspect whites are privileged, there's some serious confusion of association with causation going on in this thread. is white privilege true for any unfavorable circumstance shared among minorities relative to whites? what the fuck is white privilege, everyone here seems to have their own loose interpretation.

There are many "loose interpretations" because it has many forms. Its a broad phrase because it has a broad definition. Plenty of people have posted links and their own personal definitions and it should be easy to get an idea of it even if you're doing nothing more than using a collection of context clues.

 

[chronos4590]

It's also, ironically, another sign of white privilege. By covering themselves in the garb of white guilt, the liberal gets to come off as enlightened about his or her racial position without having to actually do anything to address the root causes of the problem. They can wash his or her hands of the situation because, clearly, they're not abetting the system - how can they? They feel bad! They donate to charity! They're not like those other white people who don't want to help black people. Hey waitaminute what's that about reparations? Well let's not get all in a tizzy....

And then they vote for a guy like Obama because he's black and that makes them feel like they've Done Their Part in Ending Racism, when it doesn't in fact do anything.

Exactly. People like to think they're separating themselves from the "others" cause they're not being Blatant racist but those mentalities are no better then the mentality they're trying to socially separate themselves from.

 

[WanderingWind]

I'm just talking about the common types of things you hear from the ignorant ends on both sides.

Right is usually your more direct, in your face, "Maybe if they stopped spending all that time in jail..." while the Left seems to nurture more patronizing, and many times outright dismissive tones that revolve around "I don't see race".

One is racist, the other is misguided and futile attempts at solving racism as a problem. Pretending - and I'm not addressing you here - that they're somehow on equal footing on the stupid scale is just beyond even engaging with words. It demands a physical reaction.

Not really, it's a pretty spot-on description considering the "left" hasn't gotten off its collective ass since the 1970s and done much when it comes to economic issues.

Jesus Christ. Yeah, Democrats and other liberals have just ignored any and all economic issues for 40 years. Never touched the stuff. It's like poison to their people.

 

[Tristam]

This is literally impossible to avoid.

The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative.

Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political “football game” that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives.

Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball through tricks of tokenism: false promises of integration and civil rights. In this profitable game of deceiving and exploiting the politics of the American Negro, those white liberals have the willing cooperation of the Negro civil rights leaders. These “leaders” sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains. These “leaders” are satisfied with token victories and token progress because they themselves are nothing but token leaders….

- Malcolm X

Think of this the next time election time rolls around and the Democrats come rolling around trying to get the minority vote after ignoring them for four years.

Each side is equally as harmful, but for different reasons.

Now this is not to take away from those white people who do try to be active and helpful in minority communities. I'm talking about the people who claim something is "racist" to appear as if they have the pulse on what is offensive or disparaging to another group of people as opposed to objectively, legitimately fighting that racism, ten fold.

Yeah I'm not sure I would describe the advances in the 50s and 60s as mere 'token' gains, but I'm sure some conservatives--most of whom hate Malcolm X with a fiery passion--treasure that quote.

 

[DY_nasty]

I fucking love Malcolm

One is racist, the other is misguided and futile attempts at solving racism as a problem. Pretending - and I'm not addressing you here - that they're somehow on equal footing on the stupid scale is just beyond even engaging with words. It demands a physical reaction.

I agree that they can not be responded to or treated the same.

 

[The Librarian]

This is literally impossible to avoid.

The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative.

Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political “football game” that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives.

Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball through tricks of tokenism: false promises of integration and civil rights. In this profitable game of deceiving and exploiting the politics of the American Negro, those white liberals have the willing cooperation of the Negro civil rights leaders. These “leaders” sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains. These “leaders” are satisfied with token victories and token progress because they themselves are nothing but token leaders….

- Malcolm X

Think of this the next time election time rolls around and the Democrats come rolling around trying to get the minority vote after ignoring them for four years.

Each side is equally as harmful, but for different reasons.

Now this is not to take away from those white people who do try to be active and helpful in minority communities. I'm talking about the people who claim something is "racist" to appear as if they have the pulse on what is offensive or disparaging to another group of people as opposed to objectively, legitimately fighting that racism, ten fold.

Said before LBJ came in and did what no president had done since Reconstruction: pass major civil rights bills.

Explain to me how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are "token victories." I'll wait.

 

[sphagnum]

Yeah I'm not sure I would describe the advances in the 50s and 60s as mere 'token' gains, but I'm sure some conservatives--most of whom hate Malcolm X with a fiery passion--treasure that quote.

They were great advances, no doubt. But they were also concessions that the bourgeoisie gave to black people to maintain the status quo of the capitalist system, ultimately resulting in a situation where black people (and other minorities) continue to remain at the bottom of the social totem pole but now can't even organize effectively without being called "reverse racists" because, clearly, they've already won!

Malcolm X was a socialist, he wanted total victory, not partial advances that would just help further legitimize capitalism anyway.

 

[sphagnum]

Said before LBJ came in and did what no president had done since Reconstruction: passing major civil rights bills.

Explain to me how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are "token victories." I'll wait.

I like how you edited out the part where you asked to be shown how the Democrats have been ignoring minorities for the past four years. Perhaps because it undermines your argument?

 

[WanderingWind]

They are, in many ways 'token' gains. That's not to say they didn't or don't have use. But the fact that the USA was not required to answer for their treatment of people by the world, definitely makes them token gains. We gained, but only about a 6 inches, not the full ruler. While that's not to say we'd gain everything at once, the USA still has a lot to answer for. We still have yet to have a serious talk about race. We still have issues with perception of race through violent means. Black people today are still hugely disadvantaged in today's world, and in some ways, worse than we were in the 60's.

No, there is no argument that they weren't not "token" gains.

...there is no way you're serious. You almost had me going.

 

[DY_nasty]

Lin

this is your "too little too late" moment

 

[sphagnum]

...there is no way you're serious. You almost had me going.

Nobody is saying that it's a bad thing that the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed if that's what you're getting at, just that they are suboptimal in achieving equality and in fact helped legitimate the system that causes oppression of black people in the first place.

 

[The Librarian]

I like how you edited out the part where you asked to be shown how the Democrats have been ignoring minorities for the past four years. Perhaps because it undermines your argument?

Not really, but I wanted to focus on how Lin was going to muddle through an explanation to describe what LBJ did was "token."

To name a few things what Democrats did in the 111th: They tried to get the Dream Act through, they got DADT rid of, and they passed healthcare reform. Now Obama is advocating for an increase in the minimum wage.

 

[WanderingWind]

Nobody is saying that it's a bad thing that the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed if that's what you're getting at, just that they are suboptimal in achieving equality and in fact helped legitimate the system that causes oppression of black people in the first place.

So, in your mind, what would've been better than passing Civil Rights, considering they weren't optimal? And how, exactly, do you become so unaware of history to even suggest (not you) much less state as some sort of fact that black people were better off in the 60s because liberals?

No. You don't get to say shit like that and have it become a serious discussion. It's ridiculous and that's where that ends.

 

[Freezie KO]

Malcolm X... for when you care so much about human rights that you're willing to side with a militant racist segregationist.

 

[sphagnum]

Not really, but I wanted to focus on how Lin was going to muddle through an explanation to describe what LBJ did was "token."

To name a few things what Democrats did in the 111th: They tried to get the Dream Act through, they got DADT rid of, and they passed healthcare reform. Now Obama is advocating for an increase in the minimum wage.

Some of that is good stuff (Dream Act and getting rid of DADT - I think Obamacare is an abominable giveaway to corporations though) but it mostly focuses on everything-but-the-big-problem, which is capitalism itself. Advancing the minimum wage is a bandaid meant to stop the bleeding of poor people rather than the solution to their problem, which is socialism. Likewise for minorities, they will never be able to become equal with white people under a system controlled by the white bourgeoisie.

That's how Malcolm would have seen it anyway and I'd agree with him.

So, in your mind, what would've been better than passing Civil Rights, considering they weren't optimal? And how, exactly, do you become so unaware of history to even suggest (not you) much less state as some sort of fact that black people were better off in the 60s because liberals?

Revolution.

 

[DY_nasty]

Malcolm X... for when you care so much about human rights that you're willing to side with a militant racist segregationist.

some people like any means necessary over pacifism - and know how to separate the good from the bad

better than repping che for no reason other than having cool shirts /shrug

 

[vas_a_morir]

Revolution.

What kind of revolution? What would be the goal?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Is this the part of the thread where I quote Combat Liberalism?

 

[Freezie KO]

Ah yes, someone with the opinion that black people, when segregated, attacked violently, and treated like second class citizens should not take up arms to protect themselves amidst church bombings, attack dogs, and firehoses.

Please tell me more about your eclectic worldview. Maybe I can learn something. Or maybe my brain will shrink.

Let's flip a coin.

Calling white people the devil and saying the black race is superior is clearly a way to fight racism.

 

[WanderingWind]

Revolution.

Yes, that would've worked out well. A minority, with less access to firepower and without the backing the largest military force in the world, rising up violently. I'm sure that would've been much better than the alternative for black folks in the 60s.

And true socialism as a cure to the world's ills? Really? Is this a schtick or something you believe?

 

[DY_nasty]

Revolution.

lol

Calling white people the devil and saying the black race is superior is clearly a way to fight racism.

And at the same time, he was entirely necessary. High roads aren't the only way to reach your goal. I don't agree with everything he said, but to dismiss him entirely because of some of his more extreme views is something many won't do because it does not outweigh the good.

 

[The Librarian]

Some of that is good stuff (Dream Act and getting rid of DADT - I think Obamacare is an abominable giveaway to corporations though) but it mostly focuses on everything-but-the-big-problem, which is capitalism itself. Advancing the minimum wage is a bandaid meant to stop the bleeding of poor people rather than the solution to their problem, which is socialism. Likewise for minorities, they will never be able to become equal with white people under a system controlled by the white bourgeoisie.

That's how Malcolm would have seen it anyway and I'd agree with him.

*backs away*

The problem is that black folk got the civil rights act and after that pretended that the civil rights movement was over. It is still on-going. The civil rights act in itself made many major in roads; however, as a collective, black people are still behind - severely so. Please argue that these acts and laws have improved the living situation of a bulk of black people. They help, but they're not enough.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about this because you're being completely nonsensical, but I'll tell you where you're at fault.

First off, you've turned your position from white liberals have only passed "token victories" to saying that they've passed some great legislation, but it's still not enough. Those are two different positions. I am arguing against the former. Let's take a look at the definition of "token": slight; perfunctory; minimal. Legislation that makes "major inroads," as you put it, cannot be, by definition, "token."

 

[blame space]

free avatar

 

[Stet]

Calling white people the devil and saying the black race is superior is clearly a way to fight racism.

You know he didn't believe that at the time of his death, right?

 

[BocoDragon]

Malcolm shed his Nation of Islam radical beliefs and converted to mainstream Islam during his Hajj. It's why he was murdered. The beautiful thing about Malcolm is that he admitted he was wrong after taking a life journey where he ate with, slept with, bathed with people from all over the world, with no one giving a flying flip about race or the color of his skin, and truly embraced him as a brother.

It would be disrespectful to dismiss Malcolm because of this Nation of Islam beliefs, because shedding them is what got him murdered to begin with.

I remember watching the first half of the movie and not liking the guy at all. I talked shit about him the next day. Then I saw the last half....... oh.

 

[JJDinomite]

Oh man, I was like, 'please don't be my alma mater, please don't be my alma mater." And I went to University of Wisconsin, and I was like 'fuuuuuu' but then I saw it was Deluth not Madison, and I'm like whatever.

Woo UW-Madison!

Also, a very dumb campaign.

 

[sphagnum]

What kind of revolution? What would be the goal?

Socialism, obviously. Considering America was already an advanced capitalist nation, it wouldn't have to go through the kind of soul-crushing industrialization that the USSR had to go through, which would make it much easier to enact once power is gained instead of falling into some kind of weird dictatorship of the party. That said, I'm not partial to the idea of "New Africa" being established in the South like a lot of black radicals had at the time simply because it is literally segregationist, but I can certainly understand why they would have pushed for it and it probably would have been more progressive than what black people currently are stuck with. I think that sort of black nationalism/separatism was very obviously a response to white oppression, so while it's also not the best solution (which is total cooperation of the races in the proletarian struggle), I think it's entirely obvious why it was proposed.

That said, nobody asked me what was a more realistic solution to the problem. They asked me what would have been a better solution, and revolution, if it succeeded (a big if indeed!) would have absolutely been a better solution. But if you must work within the mundane "realism" of the liberal order, then it would have been best, I think, if black people had been able to continue to try to push the Democrats to become ever more social-democratic in their economic stances after the 1970s by keeping the heat on them through social unrest. The material conditions didn't really work out that way though.

*backs away*

Oh god no a socialist! Anything but that! Can't have any of them running around! Didn't they get the memo that communism is dead??

 

[Psychological Intellect]

I think i'm lost

 

[WanderingWind]

Stupid liberals. Always worried about mundane ol' reality.

Well reasoned and you're correct in that my language is not the most consistent in my argument. I still feel that more could have been done though. Where we are sitting now, everyone acts like things are just peachy and there is no more inequality, because hey, the Civil Rights Act was passed! Everyone rejoice!

...then why was this thread made? Or you know, all the fighting going on to continue to equalize things in legislation? You can't say "we've made major inroads" and talk about how great legislation that was passed last year was and still suggest everybody just ignores racial, gender and sexual equality issues. They're very much front burner topics and strides are being made constantly. We're not there yet, clearly, but the fight is ongoing.