Racism will never die...

The recent George Zimmerman trial tends to bring back to the forefront of society's hot topic regarding racism in the US.  The colloquial meaning of racism is often a euphemism for discrimination.  Racism involves the power to subjugate one race under another.  Under this meaning, racism has been long gone because since a majority of Americans are categorized as white and if need be, simply enforce their numerical advantage over all other races.  While one can make the argument today that all the minorities could band together and perhaps negate the 'white' power, that wasn't always the case.  Especially a hundred years ago where the majority was clearly white.  The fact that such a progression could have been allowed is proof of one of two possibilities: Either democracy failed to maintain the white advantage or...enough white people weren't racist to allow equality for minorities.  But I digress because we're not talking about the power to subjugate.  We're really talking about discrimination.

There's nothing wrong with discrimination.  In fact, it's essential to discriminate in order to survive.  We have to have a means to discern differences.  It can mean the difference between life and death.  You need to know which mushrooms are edible and which are poisonous.  Discrimination also allows what people and children do naturally....establish pattern recognition.  Again, many liberals think they can draw a line in the sand somewhere regarding discrimination.  Somehow it's okay to determine there's a difference between kale greens and collard greens and mustard greens but somehow bad to determine differences between Asian people vs Black people vs Latin people.

Now most people would not disagree with much with what I just said since these things are pretty self-evident and that isn't where their point of contention would lie.  Where it would lie would be in how certain races are being treated.  That they should be treated 'equally'.  But even people who make such arguments will draw another line.  They won't apply those rules to themselves.  I look at their circle of friends and people they date and there are obvious patterns.  Take a look at your facebook friends and the pictures they post with their friends.  Be honest and see how equally distributed their friends' races are.  Skewed?  I'd bet good money that they are.

So the next line of defense, after they concede they can't show evidence of 'equal outcome' within their personal lives, is giving an 'equal chance.'  The 'Equal Chance' line of argument essentially means each encounter with a new person, there are no preconceived biases.  That also goes out the window because that is to deny you have a memory.  No matter how equal you want to be, walking down a dark alley alone as a black person in a hoodie approaches you, you are going to be prepared for the worst scenario.  Even though you may not outwardly act on it, it's impossible to claim non-bias.  It is simply a survival-mechanism to prepare yourself.  Anyone who claims otherwise is simply lying and not interested in seeking truth.

What is left from the argument is to have a the 'Benefit of the doubt' approach.  You don't act on your bias but you acknowledge it.  At that point, the argument is no longer a position in opposition of the one I've put forth but one in agreement.

What happens next is the definition changes from 'discerning differences and pattern recognition with a certain expectation of outcome' to 'acting on that bias without giving the benefit of the doubt.'  A counter to this is to go back to the previous retort of accusing the liberal of not dating a certain race or not having enough Mexican friends.  They will ultimately say they do give everyone an equal chance but they just don't prefer certain types of girls to date or guys to date.  What they've done now is taken the person in question and evaluated them against their own personal values (tidiness, how they dress, blonde or brunette, has broad shoulders, language barrier, etc.) and established a level of compatibility in relation to social interaction.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

The problem is liberals draw another line in the sand saying personal social interactions are okay to do this 'compatibility test' but if you're an employer you're not allowed to do this when screening for employees.  Why not?  Is this not also a social interaction?  If I want to barter my apples with someone who has oranges, isn't that a social interaction?  I would argue such transactions are social because they involve another person.  Isn't friendship simply two individuals who voluntarily help each other at random intervals?  I seriously doubt a friendship exists where one person only gives and the other always receives.  No one wants to be friends with anyone who doesn't 'give back.'  So what is that?  It's a acknowledgement of someone voluntarily giving and in return an expectation of the other to also voluntarily give.  All relationship interactions are, in one form or another, an exchange.

There's no line in the sand.  It's really all the same.  You or I picking a new friend vs. an employer picking an employee.  We are all testing for compatibility.  There should be no double-standard.

Since it's in our nature to discriminate and the fact that minority leaders like Jesse Jackson will always frame any situation where it's between a white person and a black person as a racial issue, the topic of racism will never die.  You can't even criticize a black president without being called a racist, even when you have criticized a white president.  THAT is bias - always jumping to the conclusion everything is racially motivated.  But the reason why that is the case is the black leaders want to maintain their position of power and leadership.  A problem always need to exist for these people to have a job.  The last thing people like Jackson want is racism to die.