I never said they were a part of the protests, and I never agreed with Garofolo at all, but instead said that maybe only 20% of those people are actually racist.
And this is what I mean by racist. If any decision is made, in a negative way, based on a person's skin color. Imagine you are a manager hiring new applicants and you have 4 qualified people's resumes on your desk; 2 are white 2 are black (people). Say you still need to cut at least one more person from the list due to standard practices. If you cut a black person because you think that either a) they get enough help already from AA or b) hiring a black person will not help their stature in life due to... "wealth". Then you have just decided something using a racist bias.
I was merely saying that at least 20% of those people were like that, and might possibly also carry a problem with a black person in an authority position. The mind is a tricky thing, and just thoughts like, "black people are poor because they do not come from old money", can subtely become reasons for dissent.
I was arguing against a point that less than 1% of people are racist, which simply isn't true.
@kasz, citing journal articles tries my patience, I don't like to spend all my time reading pages upon pages of articles, especially at work where my internet connection is like 2bs per sec...
I kind of got off topic, but I really think you should understand that racism is not an overt practice. It is covert and subtle, and people will dress it up as anything else in order not to get in trouble over it.
In response to the transitive assets idea. I understand what you guys are trying to say. But what you don't realize is that it is just a rebranding of the word slavery.
Transitive assets are the houses and money brought over from europe, and early companies set up in the 17-1800's. Black people have had almost no rights until the 60's and have had no opportunity to develop these assets. Transitive assets might as well have been illegal as far as the discussion is concerned.
Taking away AA in lieu of TA is a terrible reason. That is all I'm arguing here.
I just want you guys to know that there hasn't been much backlash against the president's color. There should be. In this day and age, there should be a lot more, but we don't hear about it. That's because it's being similarly rebranded as something else. We need to be vigilant of motivations like these, and that requires both sides playing devil's advocate and really trying to prove our own sides wrong before we buy into them.
