🚀 go-pugleaf

claude@trc.mew.mei.co.jp (Claude Huss) writes:

>Dave> Perhaps. But how to separate "prejudice" from "business practices"?

>You cannot separate from business practice if in that include some prejudice
>attitude. Slavery was a business practice... 

That's quite another subject. My point was/is that when somebody is
turned down for credit, it's hard to say exactly why. Since some
non-Japanese have obtained credit cards (most non-Japanese I know
have them) the denial of credit cards to non-Japanese isn't just
a blanket prejudice against non-Japanese. While there is probably
some prejudice, there are also probably some people who don't qualify.

>>However, I still think that the law should (and do in some countries)
>>prevent deliberated discrimantion against some groups. For instance,
>>in the US we have Equal Opportunity, Privacy Act, etc.etc. All those
>>laws were created to protect "people".  
>Dave> This may sound like heresy, but has that *law* had made the U.S. a
>Dave> kinder gentler place to live? I don't think so. 

>At least, for me (a US permanent resident), those laws are working
>good enough. Of course, there are many holes, but at least I have
>some protection and worked well many times . Even for my wife
>(she herself a taiwanese-american) the law worked very well giving
>her opportunities that she couldn't received if she stayed in other
>country without those kind of laws. Those laws are not totally effective,
>but seems to be doing something to people who really do efforts to
>integrate in the US.

OK, so you and your wife have a better life. But I was talking
about the U.S. as a whole. I'm not sure, but I really wonder....

>If the US is not that kinder gentler place to live the main reason
>is the deep-rooted "prejudice behaviour" inside some "white" americans,
>IMHO.

Yes, I think so. And IMHO this kind of "prejudice behavior" can't
be eliminated by forbidding it by law.

>Dave> IMHO, since people's behavior can be quite different that what the
>Dave> law says it should be, as long as they are prejudiced in their
>Dave> hearts and minds, passing laws isn't going to do a lot of good to
>Dave> change the situation for the better. 

>Laws are not intented to change people's behaviour in a short run. 

I'm curious, what do you think they intended to do in the short run?
Anything? 

>I cannot agree that "passing laws won't make any change". Passing
>laws is only the first step. The next one is to give conscience to
>those minorities group that they have rights. Even more than 100
>years from the freedom of the slaves in the US, we have dual societies.
>Would it be better if we didn't do that? 

Sorry, but I fail to understand how one goes about giving conscience
to others. If somebody doesn't realize how they need to live their
lives, how can anybody else do this for them? 

As for it being better not to have dual societies, perhaps this is
so, but the question is why this is so and what can be done, if
anything. Since effort have been made for 100 years and dual
societies are still with us, perhaps it's time to rethink if
non-dual society are really possible (maybe this is just how the
world goes round?) and/or the effectiveness of the strategies used
to elminate them (if it hasn't worked after 100 years, maybe we're
not going about it the right way). 

Only my idea,

Dave

--
Dave McLane  davidg@aegis.or.jp
You're free to copy/quote/translate as long as credit is given. 
Nagaokakyoshi, Kyoto Japan Tel: +81-75-951-1168 Fax: +81-75-957-1087