dumb

Well put, Pat. Only a liberal would label your article as “dumb.” Oh, I see one already has! But it goes to show that the mere fact that there is always a liberal waiting to pounce with name-calling is all the reason whites need to avoid participation in discussions about race.

After a while, you come to the realization that such discussions serve only that purpose. No one is interested in reaching out to whites anyway. They never were. The only whites they tolerate are the ones who try to prove they aren’t racist by either self-deprecating or randomly accusing other whites of being racist.

Kinda makes the whole effort an exercise in futility. And most of us are well past the guilt anyway, so f* it.

“In reality, any claims of a colorblind approach are utterly false. No one is colorblind. Claims of colorblindness are just a way for white people to express their opinions on race while being able to put up what they believe to be a credible defense for not being racist.”

Where’s your evidence? Do you know what colorblind means?

If your view is that people’s ideas - e.g., choosing to regard race as an irrelevant factor - are determined by their race, then why have a discussion? After all, anything you say is just some rationalization that “white people” use to cope. Since you purport to know what white people claim without even meeting them, why have a discussion? Just tell me your skin color and I’ll tell you what you believe.

I am of caucasian ancestry but I don’t have a clue what Patrick means by a ‘white view’. I’ve lived and worked in several areas of the country where I was the minority. I know first hand what discrimination is because I have experienced it first hand. Not ‘reverse discrimination’ or any other politically correct evasion of truth, just plain old fashioned discrimination.

I also attended UW-Madison, when Donna Shalala was the Chancelor and racial crimes were only counted as such if it was ‘white on black’ crime. When 4 ‘afro-americans’ kicked the crap out of a citizen while hurling racial epithets at him, it was not deemed a racial crime. It was clearly criminal discrimination and brutal assault but not adjudicated as such because the administration in power would not permit it. You see, discrimination was narrowly defined as only being words or actions from a majority person or group that affected a minority person or group. The cowards that Eric Holder unintentionally refered to are those that promote one-sided racial perspectives and greater than equal opportunity agendas. You’ll find them in positions of power, pursuing their one-sided agendas.

Hope….. change……

But being white means having white privilege, most do not even realize what this is or that you even have it. I agree with patrick in that everyone has a voice. This is true. Part of the process of understanding and learning about these things is to talk about them.

“If you say something about black people and Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson says you are a racist…”

Who cares what these two clowns think? They both are nothing more than race-baiters. They deserve as much attention in our society as paint drying on the wall.

The reason this is dumb is because the author clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

“We will never be the only white person in the room when a race issue comes up and have everyone turn to us, expecting us to speak for all white people on the subject.”

Is this for real? I am a White person and I have been this situation before and had open, honest discussions. It is sad that someone who has never been the only white person in a crowd is writing to the rest of us about race relations.

In addition, to the overall point of the article: there is a reason why Whites do not and should not have their opinions on race taken as seriously of those in the minority. While yes, you are correct that we do have a completely different perspective, the important point is that our perspective is lergely unexamined and on the periphery on a daily basis. Put simply, we dont have a qualified perspective on race b/c we dont think about it as often as people of color who have been thinking about it frequently their entire lives. They have been forced to think about it much more than us and therefore possess more knowledge,insight, and perspective.

Here is an imperfect analogy: say that you are taking some class, yet you do not attend very often. However, there is another student that goes to every single class. Now, a third student shows up who needs to be taught the material by one of them. Who should teach them? Yes, you are surely affected by the class and most certainly have your own perspective, but it is the student who is regularly exposed to the material that would teach it better, have a better grasp of the material, and thus should dominate the dialogue. (That is unless you are saying that the absent student is somehow naturally smarter than the regular attender, a premise that would be quite bigoted if extrapolated to our race conversation).

Put simply, those with better knowledge in a debate should have the upper hand. That is not to say that White’s should be left out (and Whites are not left out currently), it just means that the people who know the true effect of a racialized society are the minorities that are most affected by it.

The comments posted here bashing whites is all the justification whites need to avoid any participation in race dialogue. Whites have rights and we’ll defend those rights if it means depriving you of yours. Get used to it!

so minority students need to submit to the majority, haven’t we fought this war once? ulitimatly that’s the conclusion of the opinion. it’s time to be progressive and move forward on this issue… you kept repeating “whites are the majority” (yes they are here on campus), it just exasperates the problem.

But Pat a least you care to articulate your ideas on this issue…and for that i give you credit, even though i don’t agree with some of the things in the opinion.

This comment board looks like the sign-in for a klan meeting.

With all the sophisticated racist/bigotry rhetoric being expounded, a specific topic is NEVER addressed. In our society we all are aware it is acceptable & fashionable to bash Roman Catholicism - this is a fact! The Pope is mocked/ridiculed in cartoons & in stage presentations such offenses are never seriously condemned by academia, however, there is never any mention of the the prophet Mohammed in similar vanes, not even in to the slightest degree - Double standard? You bet! This hypocrisy is rampant & in our hearts we all know it is true. I do not promote lampooning the Prophet, nor any other religious figure or belief - apparently, the fear of a race riot or terrorist attack disuades many who can always find a soft ‘victim’ in anything Catholic. I seek no favoritism, merely justice & fairness in these matters, but then again we all know …..