News-Record.com

Allen,

You have made some good points and you've also brought up some embarrassing memories. One point you leave out is just how many North Carolinians felt he was voicing their very opinions. He became what got him elected, he knew his positions would give many the hope of returning to yesteryear, a place where all their prejudical dreams would come true.

When we moved here in 1977, I remember having to tell my northern family & friends that there were people in NC who did not support Helms' politics, but I just didn't know who they were yet. Some praise Helms for his honesty and forthrightness (even if we disagree).

I thought he was a product of his times who would learn, eventually, that the world turns. I was only half-right.

Allen,
As one who publicly stood against Jesse Helms' racial stance forty years ago, I find it the highest irony that you and the News & Record, who now not only fully support racial discrimination but actively practice it, are incapable of seeing that you and Jesse Helms actually walk hand-in-hand.

Even if one disagrees with the N&R's hiring policy, and regards other policies such as affirmative action as misguided or obsolete -- are these things really morally equivalent to the racist, segregationist views of Helms?

Are there not differences of intent, scale, and outcome that set one apart from the other?

Uh, NO Ed there aren't.
Jerry's got his head on straight.

So let me see if I've got this right, Jerry and Lilly:
Jesse Helms' contempt for civil rights laws that provided equal access to voting, public accommodations and education are comparable to the News & Record's attempts to hire a more diverse work force?

Why the need for diversity? If people are all the same, it shouldn't matter what color their skin color is. If you don't believe they are (hence the need for "diversity") then aren't you labelling people and discriminating? Are we supposed to believe that the N&R should hire more blacks to get a "black perspective"? Is there truly a "black perspective", and if you think there is, aren't you discriminating and labelling people based on skin color? That's the problem with "diversity" efforts- the underlying assumption is predjudice.

I have more in common with many of my black friends then a lot of white people I know, but in the N&R and affirmative action world, that would count for nothing. It is assumed that skin color will make my perspective entirely different. Forget about things such as economics and culture that tend to really make a difference in perspective. No, with the N&R it's always about race. All day, all night. Perhaps your ed-board needs more diversity to broaden it's narrow minded perspective.

I believe affirmative action is not necessarily a bad thing in many cases, but that is different than a push for diversity for the sake of diversity. Diversity is racial stereotyping, pure and simple. I think that was Jerry's point.

But back to the N&R- just like so many college campuses, they believe in diversity in race, sex, and religion, but not ideology. They grant token space to guys like Charles Davenport, but the papers editorials are all from the left and usually have a race angle because the N&R is obsessed with race. How about some diversity on the ed-board? No, we can't do that. We might hire someone who isn't obsessed with race and doesn't want to apologize for the South, Jesse Helms, or Guilford County to impress our Yankee friends (and I am from Ohio, so I can say that).

Jesse Helms was wrong about many things, but he was also right about many things. He has had a number of blacks on his staff over the years, and I haven't heard any of them say a bad thing about him. Of course, to the N&R, they are probably considered race-traitors, because only liberal blacks truly count. Also, Jesse Helms approached race as a states rights issue- the same way he has approached many other non-race issues. That is one reason why so many people who may not have agreed with Jesse on racial issues still voted for him. He was opposed to a large federal government and very protective over state's rights.

It's funny how Democrats who switch positions are said to have "grown" but Republicans who switch are being disingenous. We have a man, Ted Kennedy, who killed someone in a drunk driving "accident", but now he's is the sobered up "Uncle Teddy".

What about former Klan member and beloved senator, Robert Byrd? I guess he has "grown", but not Jesse. It is clear that the lack of ideological diversity on the N&R staff has warped it's perspective.

Those of us who really do believe in a colorblind society where we all can get along and live together apparently don't get it in the eyes of the N&R.

Sam, I would argue that people are not all alike. They share many commonalities but there are many differences as well, some obvious, some subtler.
Southerners have different life experiences from Northerners; women from men; blacks from whites; Latinos from nonLatinos and so on.
I can't imagine you know what it's like to grow black in the South (unless, of course, you are black) or what's in like to be a woman in the workplace.
Or maybe you do? If so, please share with us how you gained those insights.

Bledsoe: "I find it the highest irony that you and the News & Record, who now not only fully support racial discrimination but actively practice it, are incapable of seeing that you and Jesse Helms actually walk hand-in-hand."

Johnson: "Jesse Helms' contempt for civil rights laws that provided equal access to voting, public accommodations and education are comparable to the News & Record's attempts to hire a more diverse work force?"

Sue: Jerry? Can you respond to Allen or are you going to drop a loaded comment and never return? Inquiring bloggers want to know...

Allen,

I'll bet that a black person who grew up poor has more in common with a white person who grew up poor, than with a black person who did not grow up poor.

I do know what it is like to be passed up for a job because I was a white male, and the company was pushing diversity, and they must have assumed that as a white male, I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I do know what it is like to have to borrow thousands of dollars in student loans to go to school because I did not have rich parents who could simply write a check, yet made too much money to qualify for aid, while many minorities went for free due to scholarships that were based on skin color alone. I know what it's like when you get passed up for "minority only" internships with large companies. I know what it is like to go to a well integrated school and have many friends of different colors, including my best friend (T.W. Andrews Class of '88). I know how destructive it is when people such as yourself try to extend your own experiences into the present as if it is still 1954, when so much progress has been made. I know how destructive it is when you attempt to superimpose the sins of some white people 40 years ago on to all white people today (especially the dreaded white male).

You assume that I can't "imagine" your situtation, while clearly you act is if you are all too familiar with mine and other caucasians. I'm not claiming a heavy cross to bear by any means. But not all women in the workplace or blacks in the South carry such a cross either. Do your homework. There are more women enrolled in college now than men. The black middle and upper class is expanding rapidly. Yet, what excuse does the poor, lower class white man have? Is he a victim? If so, of what? Do you even care?

I grew up in a generation where we all get along pretty well. While there are some cultural characteristics that are more closely identified with certain races, these tend to be more closely tied to economics. There seems to be far fewer cultural differences between middle and upper class blacks and whites, than between the middle and upper classes and the lower classes.

Men will never understand what it is like to be a woman, because sex is a much more definfing characteristic than race. Men of all races have far more in common with each other than they will ever have with women of their same race.

I don't gloss over the racial injustices that occurred in the South when you were growing up. Forced segretation was never justified, and it made no sense that as a black child, you had to sit somewhere else. Blacks were treated like second class citizens, and that was wrong. However, you refuse to admit the world has changed, and you seem to constantly dig up these ghosts of racial inequality that seemed designed to place guilt on all white people or stir up controversy where none exists. Racism hasn't ended, but it is not simply a white problem or white creation. You would never know that by reading the N&R.

You imply that my experience was that of the oppressor, and yours was that of the victim and as such, I will never understand where you are coming from. This is a stereotype, but it is also misguided. People are different, but skin color is such a small part of that difference in this day and age. By focusing on it so much as a defining "diverse" characteristic, you are missing the forest for the trees.

No, Sam, I have no idea what is it like to be a white male and am not presumptuous enough to believe that I do.
As for gender being a more defining difference than race, how can you possibly know that?
Have you been black for even a split-second? Or a woman?

What is a black person or a white person? What shade does your skin have to be before you are considered "black"? What about national origin? Is a person from the West Indies a different type of "black" person than someone from Africa? What about South Americans? What about a white person from Italy versus a Scandinavian? Is one more "white" than another? Does a certain level of melanin in the skin tranform a person from X to Y? That is the difference between race and sex. For sex, you either ARE or you ARE not. There are no degrees. There are only two sexes, and they are biologically different.

I stand by my position that I as a white male have much more in common with my black male friends than I will ever have with a woman. Men and women are wired completely differently. Race is superficial. If you choose to define yourself by race, then you are paying way too much attention to it than other people are (at least in this day and age) and you will probably always have a reason to see the jar as half empty.

That is why I am so opposed to what the N&R has been doing lately. You can't have it both ways. You can't say race shouldn't matter and yet label people or attempt to define them that way, or conversely say that race does matter but shouldn't be used to divide people. The very word discrimination means to selectively categorize. By defining people by race, you are discriminating. Only when you look at people as individuals will you get past the unpleasant scars of history.

You seem to think that all blacks are the same and have the same experience and that all whites the same and have the same experience. I don't have to be black to know that neither is true. Yes, blacks as a whole do experience predjudice (which is NOT the same thing as racism), but whites also experience the same thing from non-whites. Some white people speak of all blacks in derogatory terms and vice-versa. But there are also plenty of people within each race that don't like each other either for stupid reasons (class warfare?).

I'm not trying to attack you personally, because I think you are sincere. But I do think that the N&R is more about revenge for past wrongs then moving forward, and I think your personal perspective is way too narrow. If all whites are held accountable for the sins of a FEW (and it really was a few wealthy people that benefited from slavery and segretation) from a generation ago, they will not listen to you now. I don't like the racist history of this country anymore than you do. I wasn't a victim of it like you were so we are different in that respect. However, I didn't cause it, and I didn't benefit from it. This crap about all white people benefited indirectly from slavery, etc. is garbage. Tell that to a 5th generation white millworker who just got laid off after working side by side with a black millworker for 30 years who also got laid off. How did the white worker benefit over the black worker? Economically and socially, they are in the same boat.

As a young man, Allen Johnson had to sit in the blacks only section of the Carolina Theater. He went to segregated schools. Now he is the editor of a major North Carolina newspaper. I went to an integrated school, integrated theaters, and borrowed every cent of my education. I have a huge debt to pay off for many years to come. Who has more power? Me or Allen Johnson? How did I benefit directly or indirectly from the bad things that Allen Johnson experienced growing up? Where did those "benefits" get me? Was my law degree a result of that benefit or a result of my personal choices? Could Allen Johnson have made the same choice, or was my career path for "whites only"? It couldn't be a benefit for whites only because we have four fine black district court judges in this "racist" county, and many fine and prominent black lawyers in this "racist" county and across this "racist" state. So how did I benefit?

It still comes down to the same thing- the differences between people are usually due to many factors other than race. That is why the "diversity" movement is a crock. It is built upon and fosters discrimination. "You are black, therefore you must feel/think/believe...you are white, therefore you must feel/think/believe..." The science is faulty, and so is the reality. It is insulting to everyone.

Sam, as a lawyer, you probably won't be surprised that I will return, upon cross examination, to the question you continue to evade: How do you KNOW it? How do you know how a black person thinks? What he or she feels? You can only assume, based on how you feel and your own experiences and your own sense of reality.
Similarly, I don't know what it's like to be a white man for the very same reason. I have not walked in your shoes.
Another point: Different doesn't have to be bad. It can be a good thing ... a source of new energy and ideas.
If we were all the same this would a much less interesting world.

I don't claim to speak for all white people or for all black people. That is my point, I don't believe there is such a thing as a "black persons way of thinking" any more than I do that there is a "white persons way of thinking." Racial diversity efforts assume such things exist. Your reply and past postings seem to indicate that you believe you are able to convey such thoughts on behalf of an entire race.

You see a "black person" as a type of entity that has some monolithic thought process and experience. I can't claim to know how all black people think anymore than I can how all white people think. But I do know how SOME people think, black and white Sometimes race is a factor, sometimes it is not. You seem to be saying that I can't understand your perspective because you are black. Maybe that's partially true, but it could also be that I simply don't know you well enough. If a black person gets the hell beat out of them by their parent as a child, will that effect their outlook more so than their race? What if it is a white victim? Is it the beating or the color of the skin? If they grow up poor or rich, will that shade their outlook more than race? What about single parent families- is that more likely to define a person than race?

I don't walk in my shoes as a "white man", just a man. You see everything in racial terms, and that is sad. As someone who claims to hate discrimination, you seem to be in a hurry to pigeonhole and define people by the color of their skin.

How many Jews are on staff at the N&R? Does the N&R believe there is "Jewish" perspective, or a Catholic one? What about an upper class black male perspective? What about an unsuccesful Asian perspective? What about the perspective of a bankrupt white female? What about the "gay" perspective? Isn't it important to have the perspective of someone based solely on who they choose to sleep with? What about midgets? Any push for diversity there? What about transplanted Northerners? Don't forget the trailer park crowd, either. This is the folly of diversity- it comes in many forms, but the N&R only seems to care about race. A black man will have a black man's perspective, right? What if he is a gay black man, will you still get the same perspective? Which perspective would have more value, his blackness or his gayness? You should hire people for what they can bring to the table, not because they fit the mold of some mythical character by sheer virtue of the color of their skin.

By the way, you seem to have bought into the whole critical race thing. I don't buy, but it is an interesting read. Particularly Richard Delgado's work. He was teaching a few courses at SMU when I was in law school there. I had a few similar exchanges with him over "The Rodrigo Chronicles". But CRT sets up a paradigm that will always be impossible for a white person to disprove. Anyway, it does a good job of cutting threw some of the bull from the supposedly enlightened left, even while leaving some of its own.

I wonder what is underlying this diatribe against diversity, Sam? Perhaps you resent it that others don't share your ethnocentric view of the world. Perhaps, too, the experience of African-American males is so very different than that of European-American males that there is little common ground for discussion, and you are not seeing that. In my experience, I have found that until we EA males accept that fact of life, nothing more can be accomplished.

So here's my suggestion. Instead of railing against Allen for being something he can't be, stop typing and start LISTENING. Maybe then you will understand a little what he is trying to tell you.

As for the conscious efforts of the N&R to diversify its staff, the voices of the multiple streams of cultures that pepper the Triad need to be heard. To say that those voices can be blended into some kind of vanilla pudding is to spoil the richness of the cultures and dilute the stories they have to tell.

As for the "folly of diversity," there is no such thing. We live in an incredibly diverse world. The only reason that the N&R and organizations like it have to have diversity policies is that in spite of the diversity of our population, our spokespeople are overwhelmingly white and male.

So, in a sense, rather than diversifying the N&R we are actually 'regularizing' it, to reflect the world around it.

"The only reason that the N&R and organizations like it have to have diversity policies is that in spite of the diversity of our population, our spokespeople are overwhelmingly white and male." Like Allen the editorial page editor -white and male? No, the problem is not a lack of ears, it's that too many people think the conversation should be one sided. Point all the fingers at the "EA" male as you say without realizing that we are making the problem worse by blaming a new generation that had nothing to do with, and is sickened by the racism of the past. You will persuade no one if you accuse them of being racists. Mr. Christopher, you apparently have not been reading very well. You missed the part where Allen got on me for being something HE can never be (another example of how the tolerance crowd believes tolerance goes only one way).

Don't try to put me in the angry white male crowd or the unenlightened. I am more intelligent than that. You used the term "ethnocentric" to describe my view as if that is derogatory, but isn't Allen's view the same? In fact, my whole argument has been against ethnocentrism. Diversity is based on ethnocentrism. It is the belief that a person will have a certain viewpoint based on skin color or sex alone. That is illiberal. But as an apologist liberal, you probably have not grasped how hypocritical your stance truly is. I suggest that you read some critical race theory writings. I don't agree with the conclusions of this theory, but I think the more prominent authors expose the hypocrisy and indeed the damage that the supposed racially tolerant and enlightened white liberal has inflicted. Most people of this ilk tend to view black americans as novelties to be pitied, and measure their own self worth by how sympathetic and tolerant they are of blacks and other minorities. It makes you feel better knowing that you are a "good person" that helps those poor black folks out and tries to educate ignorant white people. This is patronizing and demeaning to black americans. To me, they are my friends (or enemies as may be the case) but they are never a monolithic group of people that must be understood that way.

Your empathy and so called tolerance is actually another way of categorizing minorities into inferior categories (otherwise, why the need for empathy?) An apology from the powerless is meaningless when compared to an apology from the powerful.

The experiences I have had with many of my black friends is no different than my experiences with many of my white friends. Sure, black americans are subject to more racial slurs, and I know that has a negative effect on people (and that is a two-way street). But that is the ignorance of a few, not the actions of the many. My point is that other factors in life probably effect ones perspective more than race. For some people, race is everything. But for others, it is not. Why are some forms of "diversity" worth more than others? How do you know that you have achieved "diversity"? If you don't count everyone (like the midgets), aren't you being intolerant or at least placing a lesser value on them? Why choose Jesse Jackson over Clarence Thomas? Both are black, but are they expected to have the same perspective simply because they are black?

This started out as an article about Jesse Helms, that was turned into a comment on the N&R by Jerry Bledsoe. I think Jerry is right about the hypocrisy of advocating racial healing and equality while simultaneously pursuing a discriminatory hiring process. Good intentions don't make such a discriminatory policy any more palatable than when it was done with bad intentions. I have said before that I don't necessarily oppose affirmative action, but I do oppose the concept of diversity as an end. They are not the same thing. I am not unenlightened because I think diversity is a crock. Perhaps you should engage in a little Socratic logic on this topic and see where it gets you. Slogans are easy, thinking your philosophy through to the end is much harder.

Isn't it possible that the reason the N&R or news media is "white and male" as you say (if it truly is) has nothing to do with discrimination? What about the fact that the major news media is disproportionately owned or managed by Jews? Are they discriminating against non-Jews? Isn't there a non-discriminatory reason for this? What about the NBA or the NFL, do they consist of a majority of black males because of racism, or some other reason? If you look for racism, you can always find it, but it is a false logic. Just because B follows A does not always mean that A caused B.

Mr. Spagnola, we have encountered one another before, and you made the same mistake with me the last time. You make assumptions about me and about my beliefs based on a small amount of evidence, or perhaps based on the puffery you've learned in the legal profession. Whatever, you have not listened to me and I don't think you've been listening to Allen as neither of us have claimed the views you have attributed to us.

To wit (and I will only speak for myself): "blaming aq new generation that had nothing to do with it..." I am doing nothing of the kind. I am blaming the current generation for its own sins. Racism is what it is. It isn't my father's it's all mine. If I discriminate because of a man's skin or because of a woman's sex or because someone is short then I possess values for which I am responsible and for which I have to answer and, if I have caused suffering because of my prejudice, then I owe redress.

Yes, I HAVE been listening, you haven't. Allen kept asking you to listen and you responded with essays which boiled down to "I don't have to listen to you, Allen, but you do to me." I'm not asking you to agree with him, but for heaven's sake, man, in all of your rhetoric, you never gave him or his point of view the respect they deserved. I'm sure that is great court technique but in human relations it sucks. Tolerant? No. Humane? Probably. Necessary for survival of the human race? You bet.

(Incidentally, I hate the word tolerance. To me that word is incredibly condescending. The only people I actually tolerate are people who think Rush Limbaugh has the answer to everything.)

Finally, your condescending tone aside, I find most of the individuals I know, black and white to be just that - individuals. Race does not impart any special sanctification on someone any more than a law degree does (sorry, Sam). However, saying that does not make racial issues in our country go away. They exist. How we deal with them now will make a difference to how well each new group learns to live with one another in the next fifty years. No matter how much we want to make race and the conversation around diversity go away, no matter how much the word diversity rankles, the fact remains that the majority of Americans will be non-white by 2030; GCPS schools will have a majority of non-white students in 2010.

I am emphatically NOT some sanguine "kum-ba-yah sit around the campfire 'we shall overcome'" white liberal who wants to make everything better for those "poor black folks." I am a pragmatist. Our nation's current course is rolling against the tide of the demographic changes that are upon us. We either need to change with that tide or fade in the midst of our anachronistic wailings.

This will be my last word on this. Perhaps you are blinded by your own enlightenment, because you have completely missed the boat on the points I raised- the diversity movement is inherently divisive. As one who claims to dabble in reality, you should realize that it is not human nature to apologize for acts that one did not commit. If you keep on insisting on such an apology, you will only cause resentment, and eventually apathy.

I have not made being a lawyer relevant to anything only except when drawing an analogy. I have claimed no special skill or position of knowledge because of that, so I don't appreciate the implication. I have listened to Allen, and I don't agree with him, but I have listened. For you to imply that I am too busy shouting to hear what is being said is actually arrogance on your part. In fact, you do expect me to agree. Otherwise, you wouldn't be complaining that I didn't hear Allen. You see, from your ivory tower unless I shut up, I am blinded and refuse to see. Because I don't subscribe to liberal orthodoxy, I am unenlightened and do not hear. I hear and understand completely, I just think it is wrong, and in reality it is your side that must not be listening because you haven't truly responded to anything I said. It is clearly you that have made the assumption about me. If I am not with you, I am against you. That is narrow minded and wrong.

If racism is the big problem, then why are only whites being asked to apologize? Because only whites are racist? Isn't THAT racist thinking? I agree with you that we are all responsible for our own individual prejudices, the problem with diversity movements is that they imply group guilt, when people don't think in groups. I am in no position to apologize for past wrongs committed by whites any more than Allen is in a position to accept such an apology on behalf of all blacks. I can be responsible for my own acts, but that is not a race issue.

By the way, I do seem to recall meeting with you before, and agreeing with you in part and disagreeing with you in part. At least you were thinking about it...

Love & Mercy

At least one more point on this discussion: Recognizing, respecting and even appreciating our differences is not an all-or-none proposition.
You can do it and also celebrate commonalities, which are numerous.
Let's say you befriend someone from another country. Because you grew up in different places under different circumstances each of you is likely to see the world from at least a slightly different context. It doesn't mean one of you is better than the other. It doesn't mean you can't be friends. It DOES mean you can share and learn from one another without compromising your uniqueness.
In other words, we in America don't all have to act as if we're white males (what some folks mean when they grouse that all of us should just "act American") to get along.
What is America anyway but a combination of cultures?

Allen, that is the essence of the meaning of the word 'diversity.

I agree with you entirely on that last point (except for the use of the straw man in the "act American" bit- "some folks?" who?). I have no personal animus against either of you, and the debate is always fun. But I still think the N&R has an irrational obsession with race, which has been my premise for quite some time.

Allen,
Would you care to explain exactly how all white males act so we can see your bigotry full force?

PS
Just as I said, you and Jesse Helms clearly walk hand-in-hand

All white males aren't alike, Jerry. But they share some common experiences. Surely you have more than that to add to the discussion?

Yours and the News & Record’s views on race are the essence of this discussion, Allen. And you, perhaps unwittingly, have given us a glimpse into your real thoughts.

You wrote: “…we in America don’t all have to act as if we’re white males…” That clearly shows that you believe that white males act in a defining way.

So what would a person have to do to act as if he, or she, were a white male? Act like Bill Clinton? Billy Yow? Billy Graham?

If some local white politician had said, “We in America don’t all have to act as if we’re black males….,” you, the N&R newsroom, and much of the Greensboro blogosphere surely would be putting up a great hue about the racism inherent in such a statement.

But, as usual, you and the newspaper give your own racism a pass.

Samuel Spagnola is right when he says that the N&R has become obsessed with race, and he’s not the only one who’s noticed it. A good example is today’s news story and Lorraine Ahearn’s column last week about an investigation by what the N&R has branded a “secret police” unit in the Greensboro Police Department.

The N&R has no idea what that investigation is about, or how many people are the subjects of it. Yet it allows people close to one of the subjects of that investigation, and perhaps other subjects themselves, to brand the police chief and the police department as racist for conducting it. No evidence is offered that race is even a factor in this investigation. Nor does the N&R seem to give any consideration to the possibility that the cry of racism may be an attempt to cover up wrongdoing and quell the investigation. That certainly has happened in the past in Greensboro.

This is irresponsible reporting, but sadly it has become all too typical at the N&R, especially when race can somehow be interjected.

Jerry, you quote only a shred of my earlier comment in the thread. I also wrote:

"Let's say you befriend someone from another country. Because you grew up in different places under different circumstances each of you is likely to see the world from at least a slightly different context. It doesn't mean one of you is better than the other. It doesn't mean you can't be friends. It DOES mean you can share and learn from one another without compromising your uniqueness."

Even Sam Spagnola and I seem to agree on this point. He wrote:
"I'll bet that a black person who grew up poor has more in common with a white person who grew up poor, than with a black person who did not grow up poor."

I believe that can be true in some cases. The point isn't, again, that all white males think alike.
The point is that they tend to share more common experiences with one another than black males. Similarly, Southerners, white and black, are likely to share common experiences.
That's not racist to me. It's common sense.
Each of us is a member of a group with shared interests or characteristics: geography, language, gender, lifestyle, economic class, hobbies, etc.
But in the hierarchy of those categories, I think race is a more pervasive and significant one, for better and for worse.
Consider the recent Supreme Court decision on the racial competition of juries in a Texas murder trial.

"The experiences I have had with many of my black friends is no different than my experiences with many of my white friends. Sure, black americans are subject to more racial slurs, and I know that has a negative effect on people (and that is a two-way street). But that is the ignorance of a few, not the actions of the many. My point is that other factors in life probably effect ones perspective more than race."

Mr. Spagnola, I wonder if your friends on the receiving end of those racial slurs agree with your thinking that "race is superficial." It's my belief that if you had been subject to racism and discrimination all of your life, you would see race as a significant factor, perhaps even more significant than your gender, economic background, or your regional culture.

I'm sorry you were passed up for a job because you are white -- but as a white male, your opportunities and potential earning power still outstrip that of all females and all blacks by a very wide, comfortable margin. It will continue to do so as long as the concentration of wealth and political power (and not incidentally, control of the media) in this country remains overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male.

Why all the bickering about race. Its not about the color of the skin, but the content of the character. Did you all forget that somewhere along the way?
It's all about how you represent. I don't give a damn what color you are.
If you are black and act stereotypical, then hey, call it what it is.
If you are white and act stereotypical, then hey, call it whatever it is.
All I have read so far is just dividing the races.
Tupac Shakur: "I see no changes all I see is racist faces, misplaced hate makes disgrace to races".
Keep it REAL everybody.

Jerry, I wish you could make your points without resorting to hostility and insults, like comparing Allen to Jesse Helms, a clear mismatch from any angle. I like hearing what you have to say, but your need to bludgeon the N&R staff frequently obscures your larger point.

How would you suggest the N&R report a story wherein some party claims that race or racism is a factor? Should reporters actively censor such statements by witnesses, crime victims, criminals, and public figures?

If they took a public pulse of opinion regarding their hiring policies, would you like for them to censor your accusations of discrimination and racism as well? It would only be fair to apply the policy across the board.

Isn't better if the newspaper's objective is the whole story, warts and all? I'd prefer they report what happened, and not try to indoctrinate or instruct me on what is "real" racism. I would feel sure we could agree on this.

last para: "Isn't IT better", obviously.

"your opportunities and potential earning power still outstrip that of all females and all blacks by a very wide, comfortable margin. It will continue to do so as long as the concentration of wealth and political power (and not incidentally, control of the media) in this country remains overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male" - you obviously didn't read too carefully anything I wrote.

I am self employed, so if I earn anything it's not due to skin color. I have MANY black clients, MANY hispanic clients, and MANY caucasian clients. I did not recieve any money from the government or from any other white people to get started, so your insinuation that my potential and earning power has something to do with race is groundless. Once again, it only shows that you (like the N&R) make assumptions about race that when you examine them closely, fail completely. In fact in my case, many of my fellow law students who were minorities graduated into a much better situation then I did because of the color of their skin. Many were very talented and deserved the opportunities that were presented to them, but I as a white male, recieved no such consideration by virtue of my race alone. So don't throw the myth of white privilege out at me.

There is a huge amount of wealth concentrated in "white men", but these are rich white men. They don't pass out money to other white men solely because they are white. This is about class differences, not race. How many presidents have been Ivy League? How many other schools are there that aren't Ivy League. Way, way, way more white men went to the other (non- Ivy League) schools if at all, and have no access to the river of power that runs through the country. Yet, you assume that because they are white, they are somehow privileged. Money is passed down from generation to generation. However, my family has been in the U.S. for three generations on one side, and much longer on the other. None of us are rich, nor did we receive any of the largesse held by the rich and powerful.

You cannot lump people together like you have done, and make blanket assumptions about their relative positions in life.

You also forgot that I mentioned racial slurs go more than one way. I have been called racial names before, and I could care less. To me it is ignorant. If race is more than superficial, then we must all be of different species with brains that are wired differently so as to result in a particular outlook. I don't believe this is true at all, and if you do then you are beginning to cross into the dangerous line of eugenics which gave us the Third Reich. I don't say that loosely or too inflame, but once you begin to categorize whole races as something other than having more or less melanin in their skin, you open a pandoras box. (ARE Asian's really smarter than the rest of us solely because they are Asian?)

Don't confuse race with culture, and don't assume that each race has a particular culture inherent to it.

I thought I had given my last word, but I didn't like the assumption that was made, nor the fact that it was so far from reality.

Oh yeah, and by the way- the N&R is STILL obsessed with race. Two weeks ago they ran an editorial on the Lynch/Klenner suicide murders, and managed to tie it in with the Klan/Nazi/Communist shootout of November 3, 1979 even though the two events had nothing in common other than they occurred in Greensboro. The story was on the anniversary of the Lynch/Klenner murders, but I guess the N&R couldn'r resist throwing some racial component into it from left field such as tying it into the Truth & Reconciliation Commission. They had to really be creative to come up with it. Let's see, how can we turn the Lynch/Klenner murders into a story about race...I thought it would be impossible, but the N&R did it...Get well soon.

I appreciate the thoughtful comments,and I know we need to move on to other subjects. But, before we do, a reading suggestion: "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. It contains some interesting empirical data on race and perception.

Here are your words, Sam:

"I do know what it is like to be passed up for a job because I was a white male, and the company was pushing diversity, and they must have assumed that as a white male, I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth."

The fact that you're self-employed now has nothing to do with it. You brought up job discrimination.

"your insinuation that my potential and earning power has something to do with race is groundless."

We disagree. What I said isn't an insinuation; it's a statistical fact.

We agree on class privilege. Many white men live very rough, poverty-stricken lives.

But buy them a nice suit and send them to rent the house/get the job/close the deal/win the case, and they're more likely to have success than a black person of equivalent circumstances (and an equivalent nice suit.) If you doubt that, ask your black friends.

"You also forgot that I mentioned racial slurs go more than one way. I have been called racial names before, and I could care less."

You're able to not care less because those slurs pose no threat to you. They don't carry the weight of a history of genocide, lynchings, slavery, and institutional racism. Why should you care? They can't hurt you -- you're a white American, a member of the most privileged and wealthy tribe on the planet.

You've got a major ax to grind on this subject that I don't share. I'm glad you have a safe outlet for all your anger here on the N&R boards, and hope that you feel better for having expressed it.

I was wondering how long it would take before someone accused me of being "angry" simply because I offered an opposing viewpoint. Typical of the left- people who don't agree with them are "mean spirited" and "angry". I am not angry in the least, and it is a shame that you can't engage in an intellectual debate without being accused of having an alterior motive or an "axe to grind". My whole point has been against whining about race either way- and that the N&R has an unhealthy (angry?) obsession with race.

Sam: We agree on this point. I too am a white male. Otherwise we don't agree at all. Any comment, besides hating the N & R with Jerry, about Jesse and his lifetime of misguided thinking? Whatever your opinion on Allen, it doesn't change the legacy of bigotry of Jesse Helms.

Sam, not "simply because you offer an opposing viewpoint", but because you wrote several term papers on it, and still can't let it go.

Let it go.

Suggested reading for everyone in this blog string: "A Country of Strangers: Blacks and Whites in America" by David K. Shipler.

And, as I have said on other strings, but feel I must say again, Jerry Bledsoe, you disappoint me and I say that as a black female journalist who came to the craft partly because I admired your work as a journalist. And I'm not saying this because I don't fully agree with your views -- I don't fully agree with Sam's views either -- but because every time there's a post on race, you sink to being mean and nasty. Shame on you.

Also, for those of you troubled about the push for diversity in newsrooms, check this out: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-15-missing-minorities_x.htm

Sam, the connection we made between the Nov. 3, 1979, and June 3, 1985, events in our "Bitter anniversary" editorial was that both were "volcanic eruptions of violence (that) rocked Greensboro twice in less than six years a generation ago."

We made no reference at all to race.

Are you obsessed with the subject?

Ah, but the story did mention the acquittal of the Klan/Nazi's, and implied at the injustice of it (implying the verdict was racial- as it may well have been). But why use 6 years to connect the events? Why not do a story on the four things that rocked Greensboro in the course of 10 years, or 20? Klenner/Lynch, while spectacular, did not "rock" Greensboro. It just seemed that the N&R came up with a tenous connection for the sole purpose of once again bringing up Nov. 3, 1979. The anniversary was that of Klenner/Lynch, not Nov. 3, 1979, so why couldn't the story be limited to that? What is magical about 6 years?

Perhaps the N&R's intentions had nothing to do with race, but given the track "record" (no pun intended) of the N&R and so many recent stories about race, my opinion is certainly not an unreasonable one. We reap what we sow.