You ALWAYS said the " the four Asian tigers " i noticed that in that "anarcho capitalism " thread . I didn't jumped in to correct you there because it was not my intention but here i couldn't hold back LOL .

In a multicultural society you racially and culturally alienate the workforce and this creates social tensions which can be a threat to the stability and security of your society .

If racism is privatized how can a immigration based country work ? . And how can you stop social tensions occurring when this countries alienated workforce will revolt and demand justice ?.

But if racism is privatized some people will not be allowed to put such posters in private owned subways . Secondly this shows us that there are anti discrimination laws in Hong Kong http://blogs.wsj.com/chinare....article

But actually eventually laws do make it go away. It's generational. If you grow up thinking that breaking the law is a bad thing, and then there are laws against race related crimes, then new generations will conclude that racism is a bad thing.

Let's say that the company then accepts the race. They'll be doing so for business. The racism will not go away and the same tension will exist (probably even more fervently).

really? so the Civil Rights Movement only made the problem of racism worse?

or we could create a society where there is no hiring and no one owning businesses (someone can try to start one up but, unless it is just them working without any subordinates, they will likely be unsuccessful) and so in effect no racism could possibly arise because no one needs to get hired, especially by a bigoted boss.

and btw, racism, specifically that of whites against blacks, is NOT natural to the extent that it rose in the Americas and around Europe. sure, a bit of resentment between different types of people may possibly naturally arise, but mass movements of businesses not allowing individuals to work for them for bigoted reasons, mass murders, enslavement, etc., is a product of both government and big business. the racism towards black in America specifically was manufactured in early America, prior to the country becoming a sovereign nation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

"Chapter 2, "Drawing the Color Line" addresses early slavery of African Americans and servitude of poor British people in the Thirteen Colonies. Zinn writes of the methods by which he says racism was artificially created in order to enforce the economic system. He argues that racism is not natural because there are recorded instances of camaraderie and cooperation between black slaves and white servants in escaping from and in opposing their subjugation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Anyway, I'm not going to argue about something in a vegetarian thread. I just wanted to be the person that felt cool for randomly inputting lame jokes for cheap laughs.

Your not denying the freedom to discriminate too in that leading to a alienation in that leading to social tensions in that leading to mass revolt

Oh cut the bull crap . Right Wing pundits will always trash a populist book .

Yes the constitution has anti racist laws . What about " all men are created equal " its that not a law ?. So your against anti racist laws but how can you be for the constitutions anti racist stance which is a law ? .

Nah, fuck it, you guys would be complainin. Okay, so can we agree that businesses are just worried about money? Well let's say that there are employers that are favoring white people over brown people. White people are more likely to get employed than brown people... but if that's the case than white people are able to demand higher wages while brown people would offer to work at lower wages. Businesses are of course going to choose lower wages over higher ones.

were these the critics that said that it was horribly written?:

http://www.amazon.com/Patriot....5230017

i've read a good portion of it so far and i will say the only thing i attest to so far is Zinn's insinuation, basically, that we planned Pearl Harbor.

you are talking about a society where we would jump from a God fearing, white male dominated society directly to your society without any kind of transition that involves education. there will undoubtedly be bigoted people in your society simply on that fact alone. and yes, they would be denied freedom... in the workplace. you only have a choice of which master to rent yourself out to. that is not freedom of choice. that is freedom to choose to whom you will be subordinated.

or, out of pride for the white race, they will secretly offer higher pay to white people, effectively reinstating racial inequality.

see, you need to understand the history of the book. history books of that time were uncharacteristically in favor of preconceived conceptions and had many important omissions such as Columbus simply being a great discoverer and not mentioning his attempt to conquer the Natives, the origins and seriousness of slavery and indentured servitude, slave and indentured servant rebellions, etc. many of the things that you learned in history class were in your history books thanks to Howard Zinn. his book was simply the other side of the story. and for the record, he is well documented. his research was based off of letters, diaries, and other documents written by the people of the US rather than the US government and company. of course, for that reason, it only shows one side. that was the whole point of the book; to counterbalance a school history with a serious lean.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

"I wish that I could pronounce Zinn's book a great success, but it is not. It is a synthesis of the radical and revisionist historiography of the past decade. . . Not only does the book read like a scissors and paste-pot job, but even less attractive, so much attention to historians, historiography and historical polemic leaves precious little space for the substance of history. . . . We do deserve a people's history; but not a simpleminded history, too often of fools, knaves and Robin Hoods. We need a judicious people's history because the people are entitled to have their history whole; not just those parts that will anger or embarrass them. . . . If that is asking for the moon, then we will cheerfully settle for balanced history.[11]"

"The ironic effect of such portraits of rulers is to rob 'the people' of cultural richness and variety, characteristics that might gain the respect and not just the sympathy of contemporary readers. For Zinn, ordinary Americans seem to live only to fight the rich and haughty and, inevitably, to be fooled by them.[13]"

http://realhiphop4ever.ucoz.com/forum/41-3934-8#100590

if you can't read each of these comments and realize that each of these people are so blatantly conservative (their patriotism is bleeding through like ink on a white shirt pocket) that the reviews hold no merit, then i don't know what to tell you. someone who commented on the book i linked up earlier wrote a statement i think is pertinent here:

"The beautiful irony of this book is that it is supposed to correct the "biases" of Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States." Apparently, Schweikart does this by wearing his biases on his chest like a medal of honor. Good history is not supposed to be "patriotic."
I am amused by the review saying that this is a book for adults. (Apparently kindergarteners are reading Zinn now). In these terms, adult is supposed to mean Republican and unwilling to accept that American history is not a "glory story.""

the people who wrote that review are the same people (like my father) that would be quick to get pissed off at anyone who brought up the Al Shifa bombing as a US sanctioned terrorist attack or any other attack that we have sanctioned and they would justify them as "humanitarian initiatives".

i know you said you don't follow politics, but COME ON! haha! liberal? we're one of the most patriotic 1st world nations, we're the most religiously extreme country in the west... i mean come on, the US has almost all the symptoms of a fascist state. in general our conservatives would be considered ultra conservatives anywhere else in the world and our liberals would be moderate conservatives.

well, what do you expect? it's one of the cruxes of our disagreement.

exploitation is simply the use of something for profit. an employer is renting a person during allotted times for the purposes of extracting their labor, which is then used for profit, or exploited. a worker is rented and used for labor which is used for profit. he is a wage slave.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Yeah and that creates inequality and what inequality creates ? social tensions and that's whats happening now black communities are like that because there are low to no incomes coming there that's why they are called GHETTOS .

EXACTLY !!. In Europe at least you won't see this . The political spectrum is way different

Oh and about the whole exploitation thing, workers exploit employers also.