|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 1, 2013 5:08:49 GMT
This is unbelievable. I didn't believe it until I read it for myself. I will be calling my Congressman and telling him to get this appalling crapola OUT of our Military and OUT of our government. It's racist and it's sexist. "A controversial 600-plus page manual used by the military to train its Equal Opportunity officers teaches that "healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian" men hold an unfair advantage over other races, and warns in great detail about a so-called "White Male Club." “Simply put, a healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian male receives many unearned advantages of social privilege, whereas a black, homosexual, atheist female in poor health receives many unearned disadvantages of social privilege,” reads a statement in the manual created by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI). The manual, which was obtained by Fox News, also instructs troops to “support the leadership of people of color. Do this consistently, but not uncritically,” the manual states. The military manual goes into great detail about a so-called “White Male Club.” The Equal Opportunity Advisor Student Guide is the textbook used during a three month DEOMI course taught at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. Individuals who attend the training lead Equal Opportunity briefings on military installations around the nation. The 637-page manual covers a wide range of issues from racism and religious diversity to cultural awareness, extremism and white privilege. I obtained a copy of the manual from an Equal Opportunity officer who was disturbed by the course content and furious over the DEOMI’s reliance on the Southern Poverty Law Center for information on “extremist” groups. “I’m participating in teaching things that are not true,” the instructor told me. He asked not to be identified because he feared reprisals." personal.crocodoc.com/AkQ0Rg2 |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 2, 2013 14:26:48 GMT
Let's see.....
This is based upon every study, in both a narrow or broad context, I've read in the last 50 years related to "white Christian male advantage" in the United States (that could actually be further limited to White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male advantage) and I've never read of a single one that contradicts it.
Anyone that isn't aware of this fact hasn't been reading the hundreds of studies published on discrimination in America.
Why would anyone oppose a statement made by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute that is based upon established fact? We might not like the fact that this needs to be included but we can't argue with the fact that it's true.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 3, 2013 3:13:10 GMT
Well, for starters it's against the law to discriminate based on sex and race.....which is exactly what this "training" is doing. It's teaching people to hate.
In actuality, the reverse of that statement you posted is true. The white male is THE ONLY unprotected group around. As a white male.....YOU can get fired at will without cause and for no other reason than they don't like you. Try firing a female or a black for no reason other than you don't like them....and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 3, 2013 12:27:07 GMT
Well, for starters it's against the law to discriminate based on sex and race.....which is exactly what this "training" is doing. It's teaching people to hate.
In actuality, the reverse of that statement you posted is true. The white male is THE ONLY unprotected group around. As a white male.....YOU can get fired at will without cause and for no other reason than they don't like you. Try firing a female or a black for no reason other than you don't like them....and see what happens.
Try naming one group (other than WASP males) that hasn't been discriminated against in the history of the United States and I'll prove they have been.
Stating facts does NOT propagate hatred but hiding the facts related to discrimination and WASP male advantage gained from never being discriminated against does promote discrimination though. Yes, for some WASP males they will hate the facts being exposed but it's about time they become informed as opposed to living in denial of the facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 3, 2013 16:48:56 GMT
Well, for starters it's against the law to discriminate based on sex and race.....which is exactly what this "training" is doing. It's teaching people to hate.
In actuality, the reverse of that statement you posted is true. The white male is THE ONLY unprotected group around. As a white male.....YOU can get fired at will without cause and for no other reason than they don't like you. Try firing a female or a black for no reason other than you don't like them....and see what happens.
Statistically in the history of the United States the only group that has never been discriminated against are "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant" (WASP) males. There is absolutely no reason on Earth to protect someone from discrimination that has never been discriminated against. "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant" males are the only group that has enjoyed an advantage because they've never been discriminated against in the entire history of the United States. Even white Catholic males have been discriminated against and we won't even go into the current discrimination against white Muslims in the United States today.
Try naming one group (other than WASP males) that hasn't been discriminated against in the history of the United States and I'll prove they have been.
Stating facts does NOT propagate hatred but hiding the facts related to discrimination and WASP male advantage gained from never being discriminated against does promote discrimination though. Yes, for some WASP males they will hate the facts being exposed but it's about time they become informed as opposed to living in denial of the facts.
 And an even better question: how do you think this kind of "it's okay to attack the white guy" thing going to cause anything but MORE dissention?
Some of the Democrats and race baiters would do well to keep repeating to themselves the words of Martin Luther King about judging people by the "content of their character and not the color of their skin." Because many of you obviously aren't there yet!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 3, 2013 17:20:56 GMT
So, you are admitting this is discrimination....but it's okay because it's just "payback?" All the others have been fixed with anti-discrimination laws. As I stated white males are the only group left that is NOT a protected group. So, now you think it's right to pile on and make 'em pay for what their forefathers did decades and 100's of years before.
There is a delusional belief that discrimination ended with the anti-discrimination laws of the civil rights era that is absurd. We have laws that prohibit overt discrimination that can only be prosecuted if there is documentation and/or overwhelming evidence that the discrimination occurred. Fewer than one case of discrimination our of 10,000 can even be prosecuted. For example:
An small business owner/employer (over 70% of all employees in the private sector are employed by a small business) can be an absolute racist and refuse to hire any African-Americans, Hispanics, or Women and unless they actually write down their reason for denying employment the anti-discrimination laws cannot be enforced.
An employing manager with racial prejudice will have that prejudice distort their evaluation of the qualifications of an applicant which results in unintentional discrimination that cannot be prosecuted under the anti-discrimination laws. Studies have shown that 56% of Americans have explicit anti-black racial prejudice and the results in unintentional discrimination against African-Americans that cannot be addressed under the anti-discrimination laws because it is not overt discrimination where evidence would exist.
A private enterprise engaged in federal contracts with more than 50 employees (about 1% of all private enterprises) is subjected to "Affirmative Action" that does not require them to employ anyone. All that "Affirmative Action" requires is that the enterprise has policies and procedures that attempt to reduce discrimination but that do not prevent racial or gender prejudice influencing the hiring manager's decisions that do result in discrimination.
Over 99% of discrimination based upon race, ethnic background, or against women is not being addressed in private enterprise today and while it's technically against the law the criteria to enforce the law (i.e. enough evidence to establish guilt with a jury) is virtually non-existent because employers are smart enough to not write down anything that could be used as evidence that would indicate discrimination even if they're aware of it happening.
There is NOTHING in addressing racial, ethnic, gender, or religious discrimination that could be called "Payback" against WASP males, period. Anti-discrimination has absolutely nothing to do with imposing discrimination against WASP males but instead exclusively relates to ending discrimination where this discrimination is well documented and exists TODAY!!!
Why to "social-conservatives" believe that not discriminating against a woman or an African-American would cause discrimination against WASP males? That's like saying if I put 50 different car colors into a hat and pull one out that isn't "white" that I'm somehow discriminating against "white" cars. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 3, 2013 19:41:15 GMT
Sorry....but I consider a training program inside the U.S. Military.....that is targeting white males to be discriminatory. Shame on whoever came up with this idea. I will be contacting my representatives to inform them that this needs to cease!! And so that I won't be the only one....I will contact friends and family and have them write their representatives as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 4, 2013 12:22:42 GMT
Sorry....but I consider a training program inside the U.S. Military.....that is targeting white males to be discriminatory. Shame on whoever came up with this idea. I will be contacting my representatives to inform them that this needs to cease!! And so that I won't be the only one....I will contact friends and family and have them write their representatives as well.
Why are "conservatives" completely opposed to the truth when it comes to discrimination in America?
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 4, 2013 23:27:27 GMT
Sorry....but I consider a training program inside the U.S. Military.....that is targeting white males to be discriminatory. Shame on whoever came up with this idea. I will be contacting my representatives to inform them that this needs to cease!! And so that I won't be the only one....I will contact friends and family and have them write their representatives as well.
Why are "conservatives" completely opposed to the truth when it comes to discrimination in America?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 5, 2013 10:18:20 GMT
You don't correct discrimination by instilling more discrimination. You don't build others up...by knocking down someone else. And if you think TEACHING inside our military how evil white males are isn't discriminating and doesn't make all the other races sitting in those classes HATE white males....then you aren't as astute as I thought.
Providing historical fact does not "knock anyone down" unless they've been living in Fantasy Land by ignoring or denying the facts. I'm WASP male and I've always know of the "white Christian male advantage" in the US. Someone pointing it out doesn't offend me in the least. I don't believe it's right but certainly know that as a WASP male I have an economic advantage over women and minorities. I'd rather that "white male advantage" didn't exist because I'm willing to compete head-to-head with anyone but I don't live in denial of it existing.
Why is it that many "conservatives" apparently seem to believe that they can't compete head-to-head with others that are currently being discriminated against? If they're for "head-to-head" competition in our society they should also be aware of, and opposed to, the historic "white Christian male advantage" that every study of the history of the United States documents?
It's only those WASP males that have been living in denial of this historic fact that could possibly "be offended" and it's really time for them to "be offended" by the facts because their bigoted prejudice that ignores historic fact is a huge part of the problem of invidious prejudice leading to discrimination.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 7, 2013 1:46:11 GMT
Maybe you are unaware, Shiva....but as a white male, YOU can be fired for any reason. YOU are NOT a protected class. Wouldn't it be nice if we were ALL treated the same now? I know someone who managed a warehouse....and a black employee pulled a knife on another co-worker who happened to be white. While the white guy would have been fired in a NY minute for doing that; anyone else would have too....the black employee was NOT fired as the company feared a discrimination lawsuit. Now, I don't know about you.....but that's not right; I don't care what the race is. PLUS, it creates resentments for unequal treatment.
Also---I believe I've mentioned before that in my genealogy research, I have discovered that quite a few of my ancestors (white) came over here as indentured servants (slaves). In fact, I would venture to say that MOST of the first people to come here came as indentured servants. They had to work on plantations, etc....for a period of usually 5 to 7 years before they were considered "free" to leave. And YES.....it was so much worse for the black slaves because they never got their freedom. That's a huge difference. But point is, my ancestors and others were also discriminated against too......because they were poor, didn't have anything, and had to work in the cotton fields right alongside the black slaves. BTW, George Washington owned white indentured servants (slaves)....and is on record of placing an ad in the paper once with a reward for the return of one of them who had run away.
And rarer, but occasionally the case.....there were blacks that actually came here as free men to start with. They did not all come as slaves. Many of them actually owned black slaves themselves.
We've corrected these sins throughout the years. Some of my ancestors owned plantations...and slaves. But that was them; not me. IF they were standing in front of me today, I would ask them...."what made you think you could actually OWN another human being?"
But to be held responsible for the sins of the past forever........is not right. Punishing the white men of today....even still.....is not right. IF we are EVER to actually achieve what MLK said....."judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin," then we actually have to STOP the practice. And shifting to demonize white males of today is NOT the way to achieve that goal. It only perpetuates the hard feelings and stops us from really moving forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 7, 2013 11:38:29 GMT
In "free labor states" a person can be terminated from employment "without cause" but if they're terminated because of race, including being a "white" person, then it is termination "with cause" and the person's civil rights are violated.
"Indentured servitude" was a voluntary labor contract entered into by the person to pay a debt with future labor. It is completely unrelated to slavery where the individual was treated as chattel (property), was involuntarily imprisoned, often tortured, and for women occasionally raped by the slave owner. How any intelligent person can compare indentured servitude and slavery escapes reason.
Back to the points.
1) Pointing out the historical fact that there has been a white Christian male advantages is in no way disparaging and has no negative connotations whatsoever. It is not a condemnation of white Christian males in any manner and no white Christian male should even be offended.
2) Taking effective measures to reduce or eliminate discrimination against those that are discriminated against in no way endorses or causes any discrimination against those that haven't been discriminated against. Ending discrimination against women and/or minorities does not create any discrimination against white males.
|
|
And an even better question: how do you think this kind of "it's okay to attack the white guy" thing going to cause anything but MORE dissention?