This thread is for y'all to discuss anything at all regarding racism and discrimination...as the title says

Basically, that means your experiences of it, how you feel about it, how it relates to anything that may be going on elsewhere in the world, whatever.

Discrimination covers a lot of wide topics, from race, religion, colour, gender, sexual preference, age, disability etc and I'm sure that this thread will get around to all of them eventually, but to try and keep some order in here, it would be best if, after someone has started it off, we just deal with the issues raised before shooting off in a gazillion directions and we're left with pages and pages of opinions with no real conversations going on

We've been watching and studying a lot of things that happened during the Civil Right Movement in my social studies class, and sometimes, I feel really ashamed to be part of the white race. It's really quite a shame that people could really do those things to other people. Sometimes, I just want to rip my skin off and say I belong to no race.

We went through all that, and there is still discrimintaion? Why are people so stuck in the past? If you are different, you are automatically wrong. And I hate that. I know there are some people in America now who see people who look like they are from the Middle East and automatically think they are just some weirdo from outer space. I don't see why the actions of one group of people from that race cause the whole race to suffer from the people who are too blind to open their eyes and see the beauty of difference.

And about homosexuality. If there is one thing that makes me more ticked off than ever, it would be the people who don't accept this. I have two gays uncles (one on my mom's side and one on my dad's, and no they are NOT together) and I support them for who they are. Oh, but they chose to be gay, right? No. They didn't just get up one morning and say "Hey...I think I'll be part of a minority that is discriminated against worldwide. Yeah, that's what I want." Why would someone ever choose that?

You have to see things from the perspective of the other person. If you don't take time to open your eyes and your mind, then you will never truly see.

Yes, it is sad, and unfortunatley it happens all the time. Whether its the color of skin, what one wears, how one looks...its all built off of stereotypes. And most of it is rooted in the belief that whiteness is superior. The book 'A Different Mirror' by Ronald Takaki outlines all of this racial superiority in America from the very beginning to the present (or whenever the book was published).

In the book, which is all true...none of it is made up...you can read about the atrocities against Native Americans, African-Americans, people of the Jewish faith, Asians, Irish, Mexicans...its all in there, and theres so much that I can't give it all without going into many pages in this thread.

Its hard to distinguish where this myth of racial superiority came from.

I'll go into a lot of that later...but I'll leave with one thing. The Human Genome project proved that we are all one race, the human race. Race such as the white race, or black race are based on social values and identities.

Yes there is still a lot of discrimination in a lot of places around the world. In the US, groups like the KKK are still in existance today, just not as radical as they were 30 or 40 years ago. They now turn their attacks to Jews and view Hitler as an idol to live by. Those types of people are the ones that are obsessed with themselves and their race. In response to that in the 1960's and 70's, the African-Americans formed the Black Panthers in response to the KKK and other white radical groups. This is what erupted in the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's-70's.

As for gender discrimmination, I think there is still some in some places. For instance, girls might get better treatment at a public place or a club or some place like that. Girls do get in and get drinks cheaper than guys do at clubs. Its nothing too serious but it will always be in people nature to treat others better than the rest.

Now homosexuality, I think, shouldn't be an issue. It is those person's personal life and choices that people should not be involved in. Put yourself in their shoes, if you were gay, would you want people saying that you couldn't be with the person you loved, even if they were the same gender? Most people would say no. Now people who are against homosexuality say thats its in the bible that a man should be with a woman and that gays are against the bible. That shouldn't matter. There are so many religions in this world that go by different bibles and histories so religion shouldn't be used as an excuse to dislike gay people. I have gay friends and I feel fine around them and I don't question any of their decisions and support them in everything they chose to do.

Oh yeah I knew it started way back with the passing of the 14th and 15th amendments that gave African-Americans citizenship and the right to vote. I was just merely pointing out when it was most current and public like, as you said, Martain Luther King Jr. and Malcom X. It just people don't really see it start until the 60s and 70s when there was radios and televisions everywhere around the country.

Yea, I hear you. People started to get informed more...I'm sure they knew about a lot of start...maybe they were the ones doing it or supporting it.

I'll start going into the Native American side of this.

Long ago, the very first people to arrive in America, or at least that we know of, were the Vikings. They, to our knowledge, didn't do anything horrible to the Native Americans in what is now Newfoundland...I was just saying that they were the first to arrive.

The next was Columbus and his crew (I meant that as a joke but it fits too). They show up and are amazed at how the Native Americans (in the Carribean) are honoring them...thinking them as gods because of thier shiney armor and light colored skin, etc. Needless to say, Columbus kidnapped many of them and forced them back to Spain to show the royal family, as if they were animals.

So now the world, or at least Europe, knew of a new world to discover and had these "strange" people on it. After a point, these Native Americans became a problem...I mean...they were on land that was claimed right? WRONG...it was thier land to begin with. After the American Revolution is when things went into full swing. Thomas Jefferson, while president, said publically (sp?) that he wanted to save the Indians...but in private (notes and letters) he dispised them and wanted to force them to what he called "the stoney mountains".

Later, Andrew Jackson became president (famous for fighting Indians). He spread the belief that they needed to be exterminated. When it became apparent that they couldn't be, the notion of "kill the Indian, save the man" formed. Once moved to reservations, later of course, laws and acts were used against them. Such things were passed as the Dawes Act which limited the amount of land. After the husbad died (the husband was chosen because it represented the nuclear family of white society), the lands were to be sold at auction. Guess who bought them? By the early 1900's 70% of the lands set aside for Native American's were gone...and others were gradually become farmers (whites were stressing that farmers were civilized people).

I'll go more into detail about it later if anyone wants me to...I'll leave with this....one of those laws said something like the Native American's getting their money back. In 1999 a tribal council was informed that they were owed 200 billion dollars (all from the past to the present)...however, all they asked for out of all of that was 20 billion...and they were denied...it was too much...I didn't give enough history, like I said...theres a substantial amount

I'm sorry to bring the debate back to the original posts now that we've moved onto a different aspect of discrimination, but I have to politely disagree with x phoenix lament x on a couple of her points concerning homosexuality. Personally, I feel that behaving in an overtly sexual manner in public places can be unbecoming, but my opinion certainly is not limited to gays. Everyone has the right to self-expression, and the right to choose how much privacy you would like to maintain in your relationships goes along with it, regardless of your sexuality.

As for the scenario in which you and your little brother are walking down the street and you see two people of the same gender kissing... well first of all, if your brother really is as young as you've set him up, he probably hasn't realized his sexuality at this point, so I can't really see how he could be questioning it just yet. Now assuming that he is heterosexual, what difference would seeing homosexuals make? I guess I don't understand how you can just change who you're attracted to on a dime like that. I thought it's something that's supposed to come from within, no?

Finally, to your point about the adopted child who has two parents of the same gender... take the girl who has two male parents, for the sake of argument... how is her situation any different from the situation faced by a girl who's mother passed away when she was very young (too young to remember, for simplicity's sake... a couple of months old, say)? You can argue that she doesn't have the "stabilizing female force," too, but as long as her family is loving, I would tend to think that her childhood experience would be just as happy and nurturing as her life would be with a mother. So all in all, I'm with Aubrey on that front.

I believe it was secretkeeper who mentioned sexism earlier on in this thread -- yes, I think it exists in the modern world, and not just in the instance of treatment of women vs. men in clubs and the like. Gender discrimination exists in the workplace, in schools, and goodness knows in sports (look at cheerleading... girls dancing on the sidelines while boys play the football?! How anachronistic is that?!), but I'm going to save that whole argument for later because I've already veered off the main topic and people seem to be taking this discussion in a different direction.

To Chris and secretkeeper's points about racial discrimination, I honestly have to refrain from comment because I'm not particularly well-informed in the areas that you're discussing and I'm not even going to attempt to offer opinion at the moment because I'd just come off sounding like an idiot. Nonetheless, I'm finding your ideas very interesting to read, so please continue with it and I'm sure I'll find a spot to jump in eventually!

I'm a lazy person, so I'll just copy part of the mail I wrote to the Inquisitoral Squad when joining The Great Hall, to express my feelings about homosexuality.

'I am convinced that your sexual orientation is absolutely your personal matter. Homosexuality is by no means an illness, as some people think it is, it is an orientation in one of the most secret parts of your life, and it is totally up to you which sex you feel attracted to. Besides, although I am Catholic, I cannot agree with the Church. I would not say that homosexuality is an unnatural state, so homosexual marriages should not be allowed. I think everyone has his right to be married to the man/woman she/he loves, no matter whether they have the same sex or not. However, I also disagree on protestating one's sexual orientation and taking the matter to the streets. In my opinion, it is a private issue, thus it should be kept private.'

Besides, I'm a romantic type, so I support everyone who is in love, no matter who they have a crush on.

About racism... yesterday I saw a documentary on TV about the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, and was deeply moved by it. It was for me more shocking than everything else I have heard in connection with racism, probably because of the pics shown, or I don't know... Anyway, if you do not know what I'm talking about, you can read the story here. The Time cover speaks for itself, I guess.

It is more than hard for me to understand people who support racism, who stick to ideas like their 'race' is the no.1, and others should be disregarded, or even worse, killed.

Racism has never really been a big issue where I live (Iowa,USA). So I can't say that I really passionate about the subject. My mom and White (100% German) and my dad is black (100% Nigerian) and I know many people who are also the children of parents of different races so people being of different races was never a big deal to me or the other people in my city. It's sort of just assumed that everyone is the same. Of course, we know the stereotypes of the different races and from time to time we will laugh when someone actually fullfils one of these stereotypes but we realize it is just coincidence that they have and none of us really think that the stereotypes apply to one people more than another. I think you really know you are comfortable with your races and respect those around you when you and your friends (who are of various races) can joke with one another about the stereotypes and take no offence.

As far as homosexuality is concerned, I am a Christian and my views our obviously from a Christian point of view but before I get to them I think I should give a little back info.

Homosexuality, as we know it today, is never mentioned in the Bible. You will never find the word "homosexuality" in the original texts of the bible because it did not exist. Certainly there were homosexuals back then but the concept of homosexuality as we know it today wasn't around at the time the Bible was written- it wasn't recognized as a condition but more as something someone would just do (for whatever reason) from time to time and for that reason it wasn't given a name. Sodomy was around, and is the word used in original translations of the Bible, but sodomy wasn't something you were, it was something you DID. Later, when the attraction to someone of the same sex was recognized as a condition (and I don't mean that in a bad way but merely as a way of distinguishing one group, heterosexuals, from another, homosexuals) it was given a name: Homosexuality. It became associated with committing sodomy and thus all the references to comiting sodomy became references to being homosexual. However, this isn't really fair because being homosexual isn't defined as committing sodomy, it's defined as being a attracted to members of your same sex, and that is never refered to as sin in the Bible. Having an attraction to someone of the same sex, and acting on that attraction are two totaly different things; sodomy is the result of acting on the attraction.

So being homosexual is not a sin. I have no problem with people who are homosexual, I have friends who are, and they are just like anyone else. Them being gay wasn't a choice so why would I fault them for it? Now, choosing to act on that attraction (sodomy) is a sin, but guess what, so is lieing, and mouthing off to your parents, and stealing, and a lot of other things but I'm still friends with people who have done all those things, so why would I single out the one sin of sodomy and not be friends with people who committ that sin? Especially when the Bible tells me not to judge or discriminate against anyone who sins- "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" -John 8:7

Like most discriminations, people who descriminate against homosexuals do so out of ignorance...

Ah homosexuality seems to be the topic which i'm most wanting to talk about now. I have something to say about Racism, but on a different angle, but i'll talk about that later .

Yay! My first comment in this section...

Okay, back to the main topic: Racism and Discrimination

I've read above how we all have difeerent views on such things like Homosexuality. I feel we all are entitled to love who ever we love. It's our rights. In the 1st Amendment it states that we have to freedom of Assembly, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech also includes freedom of expression.

According to the Amendment we have those rights, unless it threatens to be destructive. But is homosexuality destructive? Of course not! Basically that means we can love who we want to, right? Wrong. Becuase in the eyes of many people they see it as immoral and against their religion. People can't help who they love. I also see that gay and lesbian relationships tend to be a lot stronger than those of straight peope (but that's my personal opinion).

If I walk down the street and see two gay people kissing, I have no problem with that. But to some people they do get that way. The only solution if you can't stand it is to look away. Straight people display public affection why shouldn't gays and lesbians? That's discrimination right there!

But onto another topic:

I feel that everyone grows up around racism. We could not mean it, but we all are racist in some way. We all might not want to agree with this, but it's a fact. Children's views are based on their parents' which are based on their parents'. That is the reason why racism still exists, even till today. Does anyone have a particular view on this?

Well i'm going to have to stop now, since I have to do an essay on Youth Violence.

I realize bisexuals are in a minority as well, and I can accept what ever they choose. In fact, I have a lot of bisexual friends. Of course a lot of them are teenagers and sometimes I think some of them may just say they are bisexual because they don't want to admit to being gay. That is what I was mostly thinking when I said it was "silly." In no way do I think bisexuality is silly. I do not think being bisexual is harder than being gay. Neither of them are really "hard." You can make it hard for yourself and not accept who you are, but it won't be until you accept yourself until others accept you.

This post has been edited for the better of the thread. I was just trying to correct my earlier comment.
~Droob

I.S. Note

Felix & Droobles. Let’s stop where we are at and call a time out. I do not want to see another thread get out of control. This thread is to discuss racism and discrimination, not to hurl insults at each other. If you have a problem, discuss it through PM or take it to an I.S. member. Do not post it in the Great Hall.

Please PM me if you need to discuss it further.

Ok, my thoughts on racism and discrimination:

1) Homosexuality - this is a difficult one for me. It seems to me like I have two gut feelings, if that's possible. However, I think most people do, especially if you come from a conservative-ish background. When I say that, I mean 'protected' if you will. I live in a community where the gay kids only recently started coming out, so it's not something I've been used to for my whole life.

So to my 'protected'-life instinct it seems wrong. I'll come back to why this is later.

As a rational and emotional being though, I can't find fault. If I compare my thoughts based on the "ideal" relationship - loving, caring, commited and "till death do you part", I can't find it within me to condemn gay relationships and condone hetero ones. Mutual love and respect are exactly that because they don't come with conditions.

So what's the other gut feeling about?! I think it's plain fear. Fear for the unknown, even though I have many good friends who are gay. If people don't understand something, they fear it, and we all know that fear is the greatest cause of hatred.

Which brings me to my next point...

2) Racism - now, as a white South African, and Afrikaans too, I know what that means! Apartheid is one word most people will understand. This is exactly the same story as in America, not in facts, but in heart.

I can only say one thing - fear causes hatred. Hatred breeds hatred, and before long you have Apartheid. The Apartheid regime was not instituted solely because whites hated blacks. Whites in South Africa feared a country run by a black majority. After 300 years of colonial opression, the blacks had built up the maximum rightful anger. Being wiped into the sea wasn't a great option for whites - and believe me, that was what many blacks - almost rightfully - wanted to do.

So because of fear for the unknown, Apartheid was instituted as a safety measure . I know, it sounds hilarious, but that was how racial hatred had developed up to that point.

Please understand that I am not defending Apartheid or any form of racism. I find it despicable. I'm just trying to sketch the situation of how 300 years worth of hatred and misunderstanding had resulted into a most disgraceful regime. And it was caused by only one thing - fear. Whites didn't understand the black ways, and vice versa.

However, nowadays, the moment people start talking about themselves to others, connections are made and bonds of friendship are formed. I've seen this many times. S'far as i'm concerned, the only thing that can overcome racism - is communication.

Long post, sorry, but this is all rather close to my heart...

This post was edited too.

Capricorn
I think you put it very well how you see things. I think you are right, or maybe I'm just adding on to what you said, but I think a lot of how people think and see things are how they are raised. I was raised very liberal, so I really haven't had any problems with discrimination. I think everyone has to be taught what they know. So most of what a kid believes will come from what their parents tell them. So you can't really blame how a person is raised.

I also agree with you on the fact that people fear the unknown. If people don't know anything about some culture or something, they may not ever want to and then hate could be brought in, like you said. I do think discrimination is a big problem, but it may never be resolved. Parents have their beliefs and they pass it down to kids who pass it down and so on. There are some, no doubt, who form their own opinions, but you can't deny that a lot of basic beliefs are from what parents tell us. Perhaps if we all just learned more about other people, they wouldn't seem that different from us at all.

All this is true felix (if I can call you that). We can't forget about the media as well...always gotta pick on the media.

Recently in one of my classes, we watched a movie about a Native American woman who went to the University of Illinois to protest against the mascot (not sure if it still is the same today, but then it was a mascot named Chief Illiniwek). At games it would come out fully dressed in what looked like real Indian clothing, and then it would dance for all the spectators. When she started protesting this, people spat in her face and got really mad...why? Why get mad over something like that? It was the face of the town, this logo/mascot was on everything...just like the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, etc. So is it an economic issue as well when it comes down to racism?

I mentioned before that African American images were placed on comfort food (syrup, rice, etc.). Its also subliminal messages like that.

TV, movies...it all contributes to racism and discrimination (which is a form of racism). So I think education, as always, is key...non-prejudice, unbiased, whatever word education. Did any of that make sense?

I can go into detail about all this if you guys want me to, or I'll frequently post more info when the opportunity arises...because theres a lot more to it.

You guys have made some good points here.

I know exactly what you are talking about, Snapelover. Our family is very liberal in comparison with most in our community. Most people I know do not regard Blacks or Indians as 'humans just like us'. Far from it...

What I would regard as 'education' in this sense, is not knowledge of the history or even in-depth research of other cultures, because like you said, many learned people are racists. It's emotional understanding. The best book on Black culture will never be able to make anyone understand Zulu people in South Africa, for instance. But the moment you visit a Zulu village and see their dancing, eating, loud talking, elderly men smoking pipes while the women gossip gaily... then you start to understand.

The thing is, if you are raised in a 'protected' environment, you might never get to see this. If I did't make a point of asking questions, the only picture I would have of black people would be sleazy politicians who blame everything, from AIDS to power cuts, on the 'previous government' without taking responsibility for anything. Or the criminals who live in the townships and who will attack you in broad daylight while you stand in the driveway.

But none of these people behave like this because they are black. You get just as many sleazy white politicians, but there just aren't as many prominent white politicians here. Crime is not a personality trait of Black people. It's cicumstances that force people into positions they would not necessarily have chosen. If white people had to live in townships and scrape a living, you would have had just as many brutal white criminals.

One has to try to see someone for the human he/she is - that should be enough criteria to treat them with respect. But traditions in tight communities usually blind one from seeing people in the light of their background. I have friends who simply don't even know that they regard whites as superior.

The 'old ways' that have to be kept are just walls to keep out the unknown. So I'm back at where I started: uncertainty breeds fear, fear breeds hatred. If mankind were to stop this, it would be by listening to people talk, and them listening in return. And one last thing - that people need to know where they agree to disagree. Points of conflict arise most of the time from minor disagreements that aren't seen for what they are - minor disagreements with loads of baggage heaped onto it.

(I keep referring to Blacks and Whites - that's just my background, I know this a very universal problem. )

First, Welcome to the Forbidden Forest Snapelover!

Education has many definitions, in my opinion. But what I meant in my last post about education was not going to school and reading about it, which does help...but more like talking about it, seeing it first hand (as in going to areas like what Snapelover or Capricorn said). Right now I'm in a class, and we've been taught things that I had no idea were going on...things that made me think twice about presidents, other political leaders, and everyday life in general. I would really recommend the book A Different Mirror by Ronald Takaki, since it details almost everything dealing with racism in the United States.

I grew up in a rich white area...though I wasn't rich...think of it as all the rich people's houses were on a hill and we were at the bottom...going pay check to pay check. I wasn't really exposed to different minority or ethnic groups, but my mom never said anything racist at all. We moved into another area which was very Mexican-American dominant. I still didn't think anything horrible about different minority groups, in fact my best friend is a Mexican-American. However, though those racist qualities were never instilled in me, they were in my friends. I remember them saying how Mexicans didn't know anything and stuff, and pretty soon I was thinking it too...but I never said it. Eventually whenever I saw someone I would immediatley think of their stereotype. In 2003, I moved to Louisiana from California...and this turned out to be a whole different experience. One day I was at my sister's friends mother-in-law's house and she openly said stuff that was so racist towards African-Americans I couldn't help but wonder if she was joking or not. So I also believe it has to do with the area and the certain history it may have, and it has to do with parents...but is it forced upon them by society as well? Frederick Douglass, who was a slave and owned by his own white father, came to his father on his death bed and proclaimed that he loved him even though he was beaten and whipped by him. He said that they were never son and father, but master and slave, and they were both victims of what society has told them how it is supposed to be.

At the time, slavery in the United States was still in effect. So perhaps it is laws that change how people think, forcefully at first and then they come to accept them...or maybe their children or grandchildren will.

But some people combat racism with racism, does that work? Its being contradictory isn't it?

As for dehumanization...its happened throughout history, but I've only been taught about it happening in the US. Such groups as the Native Americans, Mexicans, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Hawaii'ans, Irish, African-Americans, Jews, and more have had this image placed on them. Therefore, in the United States...at least 50 years ago and before, whiteness was ideal...I'm not saying this as a personal belief; I'm saying it as a governmental ideal, based on economics, fear of change and difference, and the very color of one's skin...and I'll go into it more later since this post is getting kind of long...

Some of that might seem confusing since I didn't really explain myself

Affirmative action is very real where I live. South African labour laws have quotas that have to be met. There has to be a certain percentage of previously disadvantaged employees in a company, otherwise you get nailed. That basically means there has to be so many blacks, so many indians, coloureds, women (preferably black) etc and the ideal is for each institution to eventually represent the demographics of the country.

That sounds praiseworthy and good, but it's not that simple. Unfortunately, because of the discrimination in the past, there are more highly qualified white people in the country and than Blacks. It can't be denied. So to still keep to the quotas, the general trend is for companies to say that if a previously disadvantaged person is at all employable, regardless of how qualified other applicants are, that person will be given the job. And this is not my observation - it's the official modus operandi.

So obviously, for a young white person it's near impossible to enter the job market. You have to be so good, that companies will bend the laws to employ you. The result is that qualified young South Africans leave the country to do manual labour in other countries because they can earn money that way. Many of these people eventually make it overseas, because they just have to, but we are losing expertise and talent because of racial discrimination - it can't be called anything else.

Meanwhile, underqualified people fill posts that they can't cope with - so it's not doing them a favour either. This healing process can't be rushed. Apartheid has been reversed in that sense. Of course not in brutality or cruelty, but the essence of racism remains in the government.

This is very sad, because most South Africans (myself included) are very hopeful about the future. In most people's minds racism has begun to vanish - I am just as proud of Tsotsi, the SA film that won the oscar for foreign film (it was in done in a few African languages) as I am of Charlize Theron, who is Afrikaans like me.

Racism will never cancel out racism. Reconciliation and communication is the only way...

I, like most people, didn't think affirmative action type policies were ok. That is until I took a course in college about the history of blacks in the US.

You see, after the civil war and abolishment of slavery blacks, in the United States, were pretty much left to fend for themselves. Many whites didn't think it was right for blacks to be enslaved, but they certainly weren't willing to deal with the repercaussions of freeing them. The governemnent, run by whites, did near nothing to help blacks. Laws were passed that were never enforced, promisses were made that were never kept, and whites committed crimes [against blacks] that were never punished. In the end, blacks were left jobless, homeless, and hardly in any position to improve their condition. All this took place in the ladder half of the 19th century, so at the turn of the century when the US enjoyed its economic growth and vastly improved Standard of living blacks were left quite literally out in the cold.

Now, we can say it is the fault of whites, but that's not really true. It isn't one race's job to look out for another race. However, it is the goverment's job to look out for it's citezens, and the US failed, miserably, at that.

When you think about it, it's been not even 150 years since slaves were set free, and for another 50 years after that they had almost no access to legitamate work or education. So it's been barely 100 years since blacks were actually able to make money and get an education for the themselves. 100 years, thats only 1-2 generations. If your grandparents were denied any real work and concordantly literally dirt poor, chances are your parents didn't have a means to get to college and in many cases not even proper secondary education, if your parents didn't go to college chances are they aren't making more than 40k a year, if they aren't making much money chances are they don't have a lot to send you to college. The reason you wouldn't be able to go to college is the result of a series of cause and effect situations ushered in by the government, so it is the governments job to right the situation. Thus, scholarships, lowered standards, and incentives are given to blacks so that they may recieve opportunities that they may have otherwise easily had if it wasn't for the wrongs committed by the government. The same can be said for Native Americans and in some cases members of other races.

Are there a lot of whites who are just as poor if not poorer than blacks in the US? Definitely, but chances are their poverty is not a direct result of the government denying their ancestors a means of improving their condition.

Hey Nimbus, great point. To be honest, I have never thought of it in quite that way. However, it begs the counter point of; When is enough, enough?

As you stated, it has been ~150 years since the change in tides so to speak. Another ~2 generations since blacks were able to integrate into the job market.

I understand, within reason, the need for a "leg up" so people of a certain ancestral background can become a part of society. But aren't they now? I mean, there are some seriously powerful people in the US at this moment who are black. Did they get there with help? Probably. Do they deserve the positions they hold now? Oh yes. Rice and Powell are two people who come to mind who are powerful people. both man and woman. And two people I admire greatly.

But when do we say, ok, the generations have caught up with one another? There are people of equal talent and authority in the government and other positions of power. People of different races now hold positions in colleges and positions of power. They are able to assert themselves in their own right. I would find it sort of offensive for people to consider me someone who needs a "Helping hand". I mean to say, as a woman, I would be offended if I was given a job just because I was a girl. I don't want anything handed to me. I don't want to be seen as a quota.

At what point can the people of this country say, alright, everyone here has had the same opportunities? Now, if you seize those said opportunities is another bag all together. But we all have the power o go to any college our grades/money allows. Scholarships are another thing though. I can see scholoarships being given on race. Certain groups within the country want to help each other. That's wonderful. being an Italian myself, I was ffered scholarships in college. Native Americans. Verterans etc, all have scholoarships available.

I just think the need for affirmative action laws has run out. The tides have changed agian and if we continue to dwell on the suffering and unfairness brought on one particular group, there is no way the said group of people will ever be able to be considered equal. Do you see what I mean?

Yes, Nimbus, I agree. I can go to university for the simple reason that my parents can afford it, where black kids, who never knew true Apartheid, or at least started school after it was abolished, still can't study at tertiary institutions because their parents didn't have the opportunity to earn enough money.

So I think that is a problem that can be solved by a degree of affirmative action - but in terms of education opportunities. A program that could focus on allowing all previously disadvantaged children to attend pre-school, primary school and high school free and get extra help if they struggle with coping, will solve the problem in about a decade.

I don't believe in affirmative action that is based on the idea of two wrongs making a right. The skills and education gap between white and black adults today will not be closed easily. But the playing field for the youth can be levelled by providing equal and free opportunities to all kids, and helping those from previously disadvantaged backgrounds to catch up on their peers.

Most black children grow up without ever seeing a book before they reach school, because their parents either cannot read themselves, or can't afford books. If the problem is addressed at an early age (pre-school) the gap can be breached and such drastic affirmative action as I described earlier wouldn't be necessary.

However, like you said, Nimbus, the government has to commit to this. Affirmative action in the corporate world is a soft option, because it doesn't solve any problems. It can only create more difficulties that will take years to be straightened out again.

I agree Snaplover, there definitely needs to be a point when the government ends the affirmative action policies, but I honestly don't think we are anywhere near that point. Yes, blacks have had a substancial amount of help from the government and it has definitely improved their overall standard of living in the US, however, there are far more blacks below the poverty level than there are whites and I can't help but think this is because of the government's short-comings in the past. I think we will continue to see advantages and incentives for blacks until the levels of poverty don't favor one race over another.

I definitely agree with what you are saying, Capricorn. I think affirmative action and other advantages should only really be applied in education. Educate everyone equally and then let employers decide who they will and won't hire. Whoever is the best applicant (whether he or she is black or white) is going to be the one who most likely gets the job. Jipping whites out of jobs they are more then qualified for is not the answer, and it will only continue the circle of goverment issued poverty.

Ah, I see. Thanks very much, Gaburdette. Capricorn, just to make sure, I meant that completely out of curiousity, not attacking in any way. I know that everyone's life experiences are different. That's what makes this board so great; it's not often you get to talk to people who don't have pretty much the same experiences and lifestyles as yourself.

Ahhh, sorry QQS and thanks, Gaburdette. I should have phrased that sentence a bit better, because it does look suspicious that way. But all cool, I didn;t take offence

Yes, I agree that America could be past that point now, at least as far as the law goes. I guess in many parts general prejudice will only fade away after the government leaves this issue behind - but I won't assume a definite stance on this, since I'm an outsider to this specific issue.

On another note - since we are on a Harry Potter site - I want to say that JK Rowling herself was in a very similar position. Before all this happened she was a single parent and poor enough to qualify for a government subsidy. However, the moment she'd try to earn a little extra money, she would forfeit the subsidy because she wouldn't qualify anymore. So she was stuck in a very embarrassing situation. Luckily for her she was a world class writer who was about to hit it big, and she had family that helped her out. Not everyone can say the same...

So the poor, of whatever race, are in many instances subject to discriminating laws that help keep them neatly where they are. These laws mean well, but are usually implemented in such a way that they only address the immediate problem - to put it simply - hungry people. Laws should rather tackle the real problem: teaching people to use a fishing rod instead of giving them a fish.

No worries QQS. It was clear that you were lacking knowledge of Capricorn's point of reference. I didn't think you meant anything by it. I just thought I would step in to make sure things got cleared up quick.

Capricorn, you have struck onto a very good point. While these laws like affirmative action are meant to help, they can become a trap. If a race of people are just handed their opportunites with no effort, what have they learned or how have they progressed?

I really hate to change the subject during your heated debating, everyone...but you can just ignore this post if you would like and continue talking about affirmative action and racism...

Did you ever notice the difference between discrimination in "real life" compared to the "Harry Potter Wizarding World" (HPWW for short)?

In the HPWW, racism is really not an issue. There are tons of examples of interracial dating, including Harry and Ron with the Patil twins, Harry and Cedric with Cho Chang, Fred Weasley and Angelina Johnson, Ron and Lavender (? Lavender's race is never revealed, although it is speculated she might be Indian or black), etc., etc., etc.

Sexism: there seems to be very little trace of sexism's existance in the HPWW. There have been plenty Hogwarts Headmistresses and teachers. There are high female officials in the MoM, and there are quite a few skilled female personelle in the OotP. Bellatrix Lestrange, Voldemort's second-in-command, is an incredibly strong female, as is Hermione.

Rather than the typical discrimination we face in the "real world," the HPWW faces different kinds:

Discrimination between magical beings: House elves...prime examples. Hermione will just talk your ear off about S.P.E.W.... ....Werewolves are obviously discriminated against, seeing as Lupin actually had to quit his job when people found out his "disability."

Ancestry: "Mudblood." What a terrible word...depending on whenther you are Muggleborn, Half-Blood, Pure-Blood, or a Squib depends on how you are treated. Voldemort actually leads an entire genocide movement to try to rid the world of impure people...


Of course there are tons of more examples, please feel free to add some or comment about the ones I have given. Once again, I appoligize for butting in to your conversation ...Later...



_daviD

I don't know about the rest, David, but I don't mind. Very good points. These issues are addressed more thouroughly in HP than many people realise.

The wizarding world, in literary terms, would be a metaphor for the real world. I realise just more and more that Harry Potter is all about choosing your destiny. The HPWW has incredibly rigid 'traditions' and 'old ways', echoing phrases used earlier in this discussion. Everyone is stuck in stereotypes - Hagrid, Dobby, Firenze, Lupin etc. - the list is endless. Racism here just has a different mask to keep the books from becoming a sermon about racism and equality and whatnot. So Jo uses metaphors - parentage, species, dissabilities etc.

Dumbledore is the one person who doesn't just challenge these traditions, but ignores them flat. He trusts people because he doesn't look at them through the coloured lenses the rest of HPWW uses - he sees people (or creatures) for who they are and what they can become. This is his great secret - he trusts people because he believes in them, and the moment Albus Dumbledore believes in you, you can't help but sub-consciously start believing in yourself too. Then you start making the right choices about who you are and who you want to be. It's exactly for the fact that he trusts you, that you become trustworthy.

So anyway, Dumbledore believes in choosing your destiny. That is why he tries to make Harry understand that the prophecy is only true if he makes it true. He has a choice. In the same way, everyone has a choice in what they want to be. Dobby is a very good example of this. He chose to break the ancient laws of his kind to help Harry Potter and got his freedom for it. House elves are at the very bottom of HPWW's food chain. And yet, Dobby has played a big role in helping Harry (the second task, the Room of Requirement, following Malfoy etc).

So back to racism in the real world. It boils down to the same thing. More Dumbledores are needed to believe in people and give them the opportunity to choose their destiny and more Dobbies are needed to seize even half a chance to change their life for the better.

Laurette/Capricorn - whatever

In my sociology class, we began talking about World War II being a race war, essentially...

I'm not just talking about German myth of aryan supremism against primarily people of the Jewish faith, I would also like to mention it in other terms as well. It was mentioned in my class that while Native Americans were being wiped out, or being forced onto reservations agianst thier will, and while African Americans were being segragated, as well as the Irish, and many other groups, the powers at be (the government) thought it should combat not only the Germans but also the Japanese who were imperialising Asia.

We know, however, that World War II for the United States started with the attack on Pearl Harbor, so the United States felt compelled and rightfully so to retaliate because of this. Later, the Germans declared war on the US; which I think meant Italy as part of the axis (among other nations). But I'm not talking about during World War II, at least for the United States.

Japan had been leading military campaigns into China since the '30's, and the US was opposed to this (correct me if I'm wrong). Now, why would the US be opposed to this? From what we were told in class, the issue of Manifest Destiny and the shadow of imperialism in the US was being echoed in Japan, and the Japanese didn't understand how the US could be opposed to this if it was doing the exact same thing (with the taking of Indian lands, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, etc.).

Basically the issue of the next couple of weeks in that class is that World War II was a race war and forced the United States to rethink its policies towards 'Othering' people with a different colored skin, language, customs, and culture. What do you guys think?

Very true. My father is a professor in history, and we have had quite a few discussions about this. What basically happened was that the general philosophy prior to WW I was liberal and relatively accommodating to different races. Human rights had just become a concept and was being explored. It was still in a very naïve stage imo.

Then WW I broke out (due to quite different reasons than human rights etc) and disaster struck. Never in modern history (at least since the decline of the Roman Empire) were so many people killed at once. The world was in shock. This led many to believe that the ways of the pre-WWI world must have been wrong. A total rebound happened. The old values of patriotism, chivalry, bravery etc were put forward as the right way. This gave rise to the totalitarian governments that took over Germany, Italy and Japan. All three these states propagated patriotism and loyalty to one leader whose position was not unlike that of a despotic monarch. With this extreme patriotism came racism - the notion that 'we are the best', while others were lesser humans. They were not of 'us'. This is where Hitler's obsession with the protection of the Aryan race came from.

The fact that these three states were in essence pursuing the same ideals of course gave rise to the Rome Berlin Tokyo Axis. It paved the way for Hitler simply annexing lebensraum and the gap for him to propose that Jews and Communists were lesses humans and deserved to die. The lebensraum question was what sparked WW II, when he invaded Poland.

So yes, in essence, WW II was a war about racism. When this had even more catastrophic consequences than WW I, the world finally realised that racism and discrimination was inexcusable. Period.

Sorry to change the subject again (but its been over a week ), but what do you guys think of stereotypes and how do they effect your thinking?

The reason I ask is because my professor of cutural diversity/ethnic studies was talking about the labor class. And she said that a cleaning lady in the building she was lecturing us probably had a degree from Mexico. That struck me as odd that she would say that, even after she says not to do what she just did. Has the janitorial position become gender-based now? Only women do it? Also, its a female from Mexico. I dunno, maybe I'm going crazy but in my opinion my professor was being hypocratic...at least at that time.

I.S. Note

This topic has been quiet for a while now. I read this editorial today and thought it would be good for the Duelling Club to read and discuss.

Is Racism Worse Now Than in the '80s?

You can read the story yourselves but it basically compares racism in the 80's to present day. In the 80's we were one generation past the elimination of Jim Crow laws. Racism was better in the 80's than now, two generations after those laws were ended.

The author basic premise is that in the past generation, the US has written racial preferences into laws in the name of making everyone equal and that has caused racism to get worse since the 80's and not better. The one item I found interesting was that the Seattle schools district defines racism as white on a minority race and never in the opposite direction.

I think the author has really hit on our current racial problems. To define racism as only possible from a certain race of people is in itself racism. The laws of any nation must take a racially blind position. The US laws are no longer color blind and I believe that is slowly building towards a backlash against the minority races.

Ok Duelling Club, agree or disagree with the author? In what areas is she right and where has she gone wrong.

Wow, yes, I absolutely agree with the author. Hmmm, and yes, I'm gonna relate this to what I experience from day to day.

I find it interesting that we face the same problem here, only, it's such a touchy subject that no-one would be able to say it aloud without being called racists themselves. It's 12 years after Apartheid was abolished, and South Africa has only made minor steps toward a non-racist society. True, atrocities are not commited by the government anymore, but they are now commited by a wave of criminals with very little feeling for interracial relations, while the government is doing the minimum to stop it.

The biggest difference is that the minority are 'in the wrong' here, and in America the minority are the ones being protected by laws, so whites in this country have no leg to stand on. Whites (and in particular we Afrikaners) are blamed for everything that has gone wrong in the past. To an extent it is true, but I am part of a new generation of people who never knew Apartheid - I have no memory of it's laws and it was officially abolished the year I went to school. By that time, almost all the discriminating laws had been retracted. The structural abolishment of Apartheid had started in the 80's already, so it could be argued that it has been two decades since change has happened. And yet, for me to get a job in a year or two, I'll have to be the best there is. Companies will have to be willing to bend affirmative action laws in order to employ me... I'm not competing with other skilled professionals, but with a law that has little sympathy.

Affirmative action has cost South Africa many thousands of qualified whites, who have simply left to find jobs elsewhere. We desperately need their skills to rebuild this country, but the laws that should deal with racism are only firing it up.

At the moment there is a movement among some historians here to prevent the erroneous recording of history, like it happened in the past. History is written by the winner - and in the last century, the idea of Western Civilisation being the epitome of human achievement was propagated. Two wrongs don't make a right though, so historians are keen to prevent the recording of history swinging to the other extreme, i.e. that only Africans have been right and the West has been wholly bad. Colonialism, while having served its purpose and definitely belonging to the past, had one or two positive effects too.

Ignoring that would be a sure way of keeping racism alive and well! The only way to let racism die a well-deserved death is to forget about it. Sounds funny, but what I mean is that apologies should be offered, accepted, and then people should move on as best they can. It serves no purpose to harp on about things in the past even though it might still hurt. It will only cause tempers to flare.

And laws should definitely be colour-blind. I think it is very irresponsibe to weave generalised conceptions into the laws - it has no place in democracy.

Okay, I'm kind of changing the subject, but I have some strong feelings about it.



How is this impending pressure on other? So gay people are aren't allowed to hold hands in public, but straight people are? Personally, when i go to public places and see people kissing, it disgusts me, wheather (sp?) it's a girl and a guy, two guys, two girls, whatever. Either everybody should be able to or nobody should.

People have to accept that other people aren't going to change just becuase they want them to. I read about this organzation called Love In Action (LIA) that teens can go to and it tries to make them not be gay anymore. You can't make somebody love someone esle, you can't force someone to be someone they aren't. People are so closed minded and intolerent, it make me want to scream.

Where's the proof that children who grow up with two fathers or two mother are any different than the rest of us? I know plenty of people who have to parents of the same sex, and one of them is one of the nicest people I know. Sure, there's probbaly some kind of difference, but whos to say that's it's bad.



So it's okay for people to be turned down for a job beucase they are gay, it's okay for kids to kicked out of the house when they tell there parents their lesibans, it's just fine when people are told they can't come to church anyomore becuase of their sexual orentation, it's okay when people commit sucide befroe the even graduate from high school because they were treated so badly? There is every need in the world for gay rights.

EDIT: If you scroll down to james pickles post here, you'll see what I'm talking about. He asked me to put a link in here, and maybe it will help people see what homosexuals have to go thorugh.

I do realize that I am changing the topic, but as it has been a month since the last post, I assume that it is safe.

I was wondering what people are thinking about the recent UK news regarding Muslim women wearing the Niqab? (Full face veil) . From what I understand, there have been a few court cases going on about women wearing it at work( like as teachers, etc) And there were recent comments made my Jack Straw(House of Commons leader) saying that it would be in the best interest of the british society for Muslim women to choose to stop wearing the Niqab. He pretty much said that it widened the cultural gap between british Muslims and the rest of the country's citizens. Tony Blair made comments agreeing with Straw, and also recommended that the Niqab be shed.

I see that in some instances(like in the work environment, for example) it probably should not be worn. It all depends on where one is employed, and that employer's standards. For example, Though this has nothing to do with religion, we are not allowed to have any piercings or tatoos showing when at work, and must wear the appropriate uninform, etc.

However, what about on the street? I personally dont see why Muslim women choosing to wear the full face veil, or any other person wearing symbols of their religion should be asked to stop wearing their clothing. The statements I have heard about it being a distraction, and about it widening culteral gaps do not make sense to me seeing as how someone who is really gothic with blue hair and black lipstick could be seen as a disraction as well. THe only difference is that one is religion based, while the other is not....

So, do you think the recent views and comments made(like those of Jack Straw and Tony Blair) about the niqab are a form of racism and descrimination towards Muslims?

I disagree with Tony Blair and Jack Straw about being able to wear a Niqab in every day life. I feel if you are on your own time, and doing your own thing, you should be able to wear whatever you want (but I'm not advocating nudity here guys! brrrr!).

However, the case that you mentioned where a woman is being let go for wearing a Niqab to school has one very important detail. The woman interviewed for the job without her full face veil, and when she started work she began to wear the full face veil. Now, I think that she should be able to wear it, but maybe she should have thought about that when she did her interview. It's what we call "Bait and Switch" and that's a type of fraud where you offer one thing to someone and then you end up selling them something completely different. There are laws against that kind of fraud in the US.

Now, I'm not saying that she was being fraudulent, but what she did is sort of like lying on your resume. If she had told the head of the school that she would be comfortable in a mixed classroom setting NOT wearing her Niqab, and then started wearing it when she finally started her job, that is definitely a reason to fire someone.

That being said, I feel that there needs to be more dialogue between those who do and those who don't wear head scarves etc, so that each person involved understands what is expected and what will be delivered. Communication is the key to this issue.

First, I want to say that racism can be found in every single human opinion. We can be racist towards poorer people, or less educated people; towards people who are not dressed in the same codes as ours and so on.



I was thinking the same thing yesterday, reading a book I gave to my husband. Did you know there's an X-woman called Sand which is wearing the black veil? I mean, the X-men are famous for being the most tolerant group ever, being persecuted mutants and all, and they were the first to have a Native american, a Maori, and several other ethnic minoriities' representatives among them.

I don't want to say that the comics are the mirror of reality, but in pop culture sometimes it's so; it's a sign that a specific event or attitude has been recorded in the collective imaginary.

We have to face the fact that, as western women like to go to the beach topless, other women feel at ease in a black veil. As long as that is their decision, and they're not compelled to do it, it's ok. Each one of us has a story, too long to be told in two words, that make us the persons we are. As long as we don't hurt other people, we are free to do as we want.
The Wiccan Rede says, among other things, An it harm none do what ye will



You're right, but I hear that in the US there are very strict laws against discrimination, especially on religion, sexual orientation, gender etc. In Italy, for example, public employment has strict rules about not being legal to ask you previously which ideas you have, nor to be discriminated for them. It's prohibited to ask a potential employee if she wants to have children, or what her religious beliefs are. This, in the public employment; but not in the private one. My friend had been fired right after her wedding, because her boss said "We can't cope with a mother in this office". She sued him and won.

I have a similar problem with my being a Pagan witch and living in a Catholic country, which is terrified by Satanists and anything related to that. Explaining people that i don't even have a "Satan" in my religious belief wouldn't be enough to stop them from whispering evil things behind my back, and I could even lose my job if parents would know it, because my being a witch would be seen as a potential harm to their children (explaining that I defend Life and respect all creatures wouldn't be believed maybe...).
So I prefer to keep my faith for myself. I can't even participate publicly to my Sisters' gatherings. Although laws protect me, public opinion doesn't.

Sorry if I went OT.

Very interesting posts.

The veil issue is a very intricate one, and something I'm watching with great interest. It's easy to say that if people want to wear a veil because that's what they believe it's fine, but it's definitely not that simple. I can completely understand that in a western country like Britain there are certain practical and social problems connected to wearing the veil. There was a guy who managed to flee the country by wearing a veil and using his sister's passport. Where do you draw the line for what's ok and what isn't? All veil-wearers aren't criminals, of course.

Being a South African, and dare I say it, persona non grata with many people in South Africa and the world, I deal with these problems daily - like you, Clara. I didn't lock up Nelson Mandela, but as long as I do not denounce my people, to most I'm just as guilty of being heartless and a racist. (I should just say that Nelson Mandela is one of my greatest heroes, so no disrespect meant.)

Anyways, Clara made a very good point in saying that laws do not guarantee a non-discriminating society. And if I dare be as politically incorrect as it is possible - a multi-cultural society is uncomfortable. It is. Everyone wants a country of their own, that they can share with people like them, and where they can govern themselves. Many people have that luxury. In fact, many people on here have that luxury. I can tell you that it is something I crave with my whole being. Just a spot of land, it doesn't have to be big, where I can live with people who share something of my work ethic, folk songs, heroes and history and where I know that I am welcome. Where laws protect me because I pay taxes (hypothetically speaking, at this point ), and where I am free to feel at home despite the language I speak and the colour of my skin.

I guess it sounds like South Africa isn't that place? That's the dilemma - it is. I belong here. But it's true for others as well, and it's a reality I have to face. There are ongoing arguments about who came here first, and who the land really belongs to. I find that ridiculous. Go back to Europe, whites, because the Zulus came to South Africa one century before you did! Evacuate America, whites, because the Native Americans were there first! Same goes for Australia - the Aboriginals have been there for thousands of years. Everyone with a Norman ancestor should please move out of Britain - the Anglo-Saxons were there first. Or if you don't feel like moving out, please relinquish some of your rights to own land and feel welcome, because you weren't here first, thank you! And while we're at it, dig up all the roads across Europe - they were never meant to be built, because the Romans expanded their empire in a very unfair sort of way! Let's all go back and claim central Africa - the cradle of humankind.

Heh.

So, if I'm rejecting the 'it's our country because we were here first' argument, where does it leave my dream for a country I can share with my people? Frankly, I don't know. It scares me. On what grounds can you force people to assimilate when you're really asking them to give up their religious practices? Whose human rights should be protected above the others' - those who are offended and who feel their security is at risk, or those who believe that their salvation depends on it? Both sides feel equally strongly about it, so whose side should be chosen?

If you answer either way, does it mean one group of people don't belong there? That the country isn't theirs? When does a country become the property of a certain group, and when does that change?

But then - who can say that where they live doesn't matter, and that they care not which other cultural groups of whatever number live there too as long as they don't rape, pillage and plunder? That these people are free to live out their culture like it was their home too? At this stage, wearing a veil is legal - on what grounds is that to change? At what cost to the feelings of a group of people who have made their home in the West can it be criminalised?

It seems that our inherent desire to govern ourselves exclusively (and our instinctive way of determining who 'us' is) is at odds with basic human rights. Uncomfortable thought. And no-one is wholly exempt of it, I'm convinced of that. The problems just haven't sprung up everywhere yet.

Wow. Clara and Laurette, thanks for reviving this topic!

I have to admit, I have a problem with some Muslim practices. I wish I didn't. I even took a class at uni about Arabic culture and I came out of it liking them even less than before, because the teacher was such a total prat! He actually reaffirmed some of my more negative thoughts!

The veil thing is not really a religious symbol as much as a cultural one. And I do think that when people immigrate to a new country, they should try to assimilate to a degree. In Germany they're having a terrible time in the educational sector because so many kids don't speak German when they get to school. Their parents came from Turkey, they don't speak German at home, they have their own TV stations on cable where no one speaks German, and the kids don't know enough German when they start school and have to go remedial! Right from the beginning they are at a disadvantage. Either that, or the entire class spends the year learning German when some of the kids already speak it quite well.

Lest anyone think that's a racist statement, it came from a woman I know who grew up Turkish in Germany, married an American, and is now working on her doctorate. She saw the inability to assimilate to German language and culture to be a real drawback to 'her people.'

We see the same problem with the arguments in America of "English vs. Spanish." People who want English declared the official language are viewed as intolerant, but Germany is a good example of what happens in a language clash. It's messy and it's expensive.

I've read that many Muslim women who didn't used to wear the veil are now wearing it--as a political symbol. It's like they are daring other people to have a problem with their veil! It then goes beyond a religious or cultural symbol at that point and becomes one of willful provocation. Used this way, it is no different than the goth people--dressing to provoke and make people uncomfortable--to challenge.

You're right, Laurette, no one has the 'perfect' country, where everyone thinks like them and acts like them and does like them. But we have to get along to a degree, and I do think that part of that is in keeping some connections 'in the family,' but assimilating ourselves to the outer culture of our countries. Clara does this in Italy, I do it in South Dakota, USA (I don't speak much at all of Buddhism here!). I think that Muslim women shouldn't wear the veil at their work, especially a full-face veil, because we depend on body language so much in communications in Western countries, and the full-face veil is seen as secretive. It's bad for business!

If they want to wear it, then wear it--in your private life, when out with family and friends...but not at work. If you want to wear it full-time, move to countries where that is acceptable. There is a limit to tolerance--at some point the 'oppressed' must make adjustments to fit in. They can't just 'demand' that everyone accept them when they make no effort themselves.