<p>McCain lost it this week:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/541847-mccain-frustrated-angry-old-scurrilous.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/541847-mccain-frustrated-angry-old-scurrilous.html</a></p>
<p>I can’t believe the stuff I’m reading on this thread. Look at what you people are posting. Heavens alive! As was pointed out, plenty of people were not prejudiced before the dawn of the civil rights era. How do you think the movement got started if not for people who wanted to take action? People who would be very elderly now. How old would Dr. King be? It is a legitimate question to wonder if Senator Obama is qualified to be President, after all he doesn’t have much of a record to rely upon. He’s an empty vessel being filled by others’ hopes and aspirations. Some of you folks are going to be in the elderly range soon and I wonder if you will feel differently about your life perspective, experience, and judgment.</p>
<p>Oh, and the little old ladies in my church (who are black) are suspicious of Senator Obama because he’s “just a kid.”</p>
<p>To those of you who don’t want to leave Iraq until we “win the war”:</p>
<p>Could you please define what “win the war” means? Do you mean that we get access to Iraqi oil? That a democratic government takes over in Iraq? That someone signs surrender papers? That we get to leave with our dignity intact?</p>
<p>ZS–of course there were many unprejudiced people before the civil rights era. No one has said differently in this thread.</p>
<p>But, I would find it hard to fathom anyone not believing that, as a whole, racial attitudes in this country have improved since the time of civil rights. I don’t think very many folks in this country would stand for a return of the Jim Crow laws, or of the run of the mill discrimination which existed even where it wasn’t enshrined in law. Do you? Yet, it was accepted by many with little question at one time. Yes, as a whole, the country has changed. And that’s a good thing.</p>
<p>It says nothing about any one older person, to say the above.</p>
<p>Garland, I respectfully disagree. I think the change was brought about by people who came of age before the civil right movement. People who are elderly now. If you go back and read this thread, it’s not pretty at all.</p>
<p>ZS–I think we are talking at cross purposes here. Yes, of course civil rights happened because of people who were adults at the time, and brought about the changes. But, they were the minority, clearly, else those embedded laws and attitudes woudln’t have needed to be fought so fiercely. If they were unsupported relics, Jim Crow etc. would’ve have faded away peacefully. No Movement would have been necessary.</p>
<p>Have you seen pictures of the faces of the crowds at Little Rock?</p>
<p>Garland, yes I’ve seen those pictures.<br>
I do think we’re talking at cross purposes. I’m not arguing policy or history, I’m saying that our online community has gotten really nasty again and am calling attention to that.</p>
<p>Hmm, and I thought it was presently a discussion of whether racism is less prevalent than in the past, (as a side thread). And I don’t see the nastiness of stating that; it does seem self-evident, and a reason to celebrate, though we still have a long way to go.</p>
<p>We definitely have a long way to go, but I will say this. I am not the person my parents were, in terms of racial attitude, and my daughters are more open and accepting than I. In this respect, I think as a country we’re heading in the right direction.</p>
<p>No Garland, I was commenting on some of the nastiness I’ve seen on this thread, in connection with the ageism on other threads. I though each poster was entitled to comment as we see fit within the TOS?</p>
<p>I guess what I’m saying is that the generation that is now elderly is the same group of people who sparked the civil rights movement so to generalize that they are backward or ignorant about race is inappropriate. Some are, but many are not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What the heck did I do to spark that? (I’ll just back away, peaceful like.)</p>
<p>Garland, that didn’t come out the way I intended and I apologize. I was just saying that I had stepped into the discussion for a side reason of my own.</p>
<p>Actually, the discussion I was engaged in, had nothing to do with past or present racism.</p>
<p>I was addressing a specific point. </p>
<p>That not one person --any person ever-- can be judged as a group: Either as a race, as a generation or as a resident of a particular time and place.</p>
<p>Anyone that disagrees, I am sad to say, is not much better than your run of the mill racist. Strong but true.</p>
<p>Period.</p>
<p>It is the essence of racism.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Z–No problem. That makes more sense. We may often disagree, but we *know *each other pretty well, overall, I think.</p>
<p>I think so too Garland. I have great respect and affection for you. I didn’t like the post as soon as I entered it, but thought it would be sleazy to try to remove after I believed it had been read.</p>
<p>“That not one person --any person ever-- can be judged as a group: Either as a race, as a generation or as a resident of a particular time and place. Anyone that disagrees, I am sad to say, is not much better than your run of the mill racist. Strong but true.”</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but this is nonsense. One can certainly make valid generalizations about the prevailing views of most people at certain places and times. Of course, because they are generalizations, they aren’t true of every single person. But it’s just silly to dispute that the racial views of most white people 50 years ago were very different from those of most white people today. Even the people who supported civil rights had different views from today. As I recall, this entire discussion arose out of an asssertion that an 86-year-old white woman probably grew up with racial biases. As modified by “probably,” this is so clearly true that arguing otherwise can only be based on some kind of ideology and not on an understanding of reality. Nobody is saying that this 86-year-old was a cross-burning, robe-wearing, venom-spewing racists. But I feel quite secure in saying that the majority–almost certainly the large majority–of American white women (and men) who were aged 35 in 1957 would not have wanted their teenaged kids to date a black kid. If you think otherwise, you must live in a different America than I do.</p>
<p>The way to end discrimination based on race is to admit the truth…</p>
<p>We don’t know our race… no one really knows his or her whole family tree.</p>
<p>The only thing we can be sure of… we ALL have roots in Africa.</p>
<p>ALL HUMAN LIFE originated there.</p>
<p>So all college applicants can honestly say, they have African heritage.</p>
<p>If everyone admits their African heritage, schools won’t be able to discriminate based on race. </p>
<p>End racism NOW!!</p>
<p>Sorry, missed this the first time around:</p>
<p>
This is, I suppose, “enlightened liberalism” to those that believe they have inoculated themselves against charges of bigotry with their “forward-looking” views and political indignation. It is an up-date, I expect, of the wisdom of the dog-eared adage: I hope I [they?] die before I [they] get old. </p>
<p>If true, I suppose death cannot come soon enough for this or any 86 year old woman that does not see that they are by definition --being 86 years old-- racist comprised of the hatred of their era/class/race/gender.</p>
<p>As Hunt says:
</p>
<p>But, being perhaps too old fashioned myself, not true for me:
Being as I say a bit of a throw-back, I habitually, if naively, view this or that person as an individual possessed of individual feelings and judgments not determined or confined by the prejudices against their race, gender or social circumstances. </p>
<p>To judge a person by their actions is often harsh, if necessary; to judge a person by their race, gender, religion or circumstances is harsh and bigoted such that it cannot be soft-pedaled --not even by people of good intentions trying to make the “progressive” judgment of “My Generation” once made popular by such remarkable social theorists as Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey.</p>
<p>How old are “My Generation” Pete and Roger these days? </p>
<p>I expect a bit long in the tooth.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Woodwork, would you tend to agree or disagree with the following statement: “Most black Americans living in 1874 were illiterate.”? Would it fall under the category of “fact” or “unfair generalization”?</p>
<p>If we can back off the topic of racism and focus on McCain, I think David Ignatius has a pretty positive article on him. It reminds me of the reasons why I used to like him. But here is the last paragraph:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[RealClearPolitics</a> - Articles - McCain’s True Voice](<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/the_humble_and_healed_mccain.html]RealClearPolitics”>McCain's True Voice | RealClearPolitics)</p>
<p>And sone reasons why I’m no longer sold on him:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Wonder</a> Land - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121745962594698731.html?mod=todays_us_opinion]Wonder”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121745962594698731.html?mod=todays_us_opinion)</p>