Results so far:
| Yes | 50% | 6 votes | Total: 12 votes | |
| No | 50% | 6 votes |
Racism is the belief that race accounts for distinct differences in character, abilities, or capacities. That one's origin, culture, skin color, religious beliefs, nationality, occupation or social status can have an affect on the persons overall characteristics.
Cont rary to popular belief, this does not apply only to a Caucasian being prejudice against any minority. Racism is ANY attack or assumption, good or bad, hurtful or playful, purposeful or accidental, from one person to another based on a predetermined generalization of an entire group of people. It would be wrong for a Caucasian man to reject an African American from getting a job on skin color alone.
However, it is equally as wrong if the roles are reversed. Anyone who might think that a Caucasian man somehow deserves it for a crime his ancestors might have committed would also be wrong. If someone thinks on the basis of an "eye for an eye" scale, then we'd have to look a LOT deeper than just slavery in America.
Besides the fact that we are repeating the actions that so many men lost their lives to outlaw. Speaking hypothetically, let's say there is a small town with two stores built right next to one another. One store is run by a white man, and the other is run by a black man. You must run and get supplies, let's say paper, every week.
You are given the money from your boss, who specifically tells you, "it is the law that you buy from the white man, even if he gouges the prices, and is rude, or slow in delivery. It is the LAW that you buy from him at all costs, unless you simply can't, if that's the case, then you may do business with the black man."
Does that sound fair? No, mainly because it's racist. Being forced to buy something from someone based on their color alone is disgusting. Stating that the white man deserves the business on the lone fact the he is white, not on merit or choice, but because he is white is terribly wrong.
In the same manner, when a company spends an extra 12 million dollars a year to purchase supplies for HUBs, or historically underutilized businesses, I was shocked by the news. Am I to believe that we are forced to buy from a company, on the basis of it being run by a black person?
And the simple answer is, yes. Yes we are forced to buy from a HUB, just because it's a hub, no matter what the cost. Forget free market economy when it comes to skin color, folks.
That doesn't seem right at all. Should someone automatically be granted something more simply because of the color of their skin? I was taught that was racism in school, but maybe they taught me wrong. I think they wanted to teach me that it was a one way street, and there was no way the wrong could be done the opposite direction.
I'm sick of the double standard being used as a pity card for lazy people, or a vote of sympathy from the masses. Racism is racism, and the only place it exists anymore is as an ace in the hole for a minority to get something that wasn't earned.
Learn more about this author, Jack Wolf.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
The idea that the very act of supporting historically underutilized businesses (HUBs) is racist is flawed based on the definition of racism itself: the belief by one racial group in their superiority over other racial groups. The better question would have been if such support smacked of racial inequality or bias. But let's not split hairs. Instead, let's start by looking at the definition of a HUB.
Traditionally, a HUB is a for-profit business that is owned and operated by a female and/or a person of color who are economically disadvantaged and who have been historically underutilized because of their identification as members of these groups.
Suggesting that supporting HUBs is somehow inherently racist automatically assumes that the intent behind the support is racist. However, the same can be said about non-support of a HUB which might be considered equally racist if the non-supporting reason is based on discriminatory rationale. What this ultimately culminates in is the old "damned if you do, damned if you don't" quagmire.
The central issue is not the act of support or non-support, but the intent or purpose behind that support. We cannot assume that an individual, a group or a governmental agency is automatically acting in a racist fashion merely because of their actions toward a HUB. Likewise, we cannot assume that in offering support to HUBs that non-HUBs are not being offered similar support.
It's like handicap in golf or bowling. When you have a group of players (businesses) with differing skill levels (opportunities), the intent is to try and level the playing field thereby giving all participants an equal chance to win. The assumption that opportunities are being awarded when they weren't earned is absurd. HUBs still have to provide quality products and services at a competitive price or they risk losing any opportunities they have gained.
Because racism has such a negative connotation whereas providing support to a HUB echoes of humanism, it's difficult to understand how anyone can interpret this widening the door of opportunity to include a broader audience as racist. However, dissenters run in fear believing any time one group receives assistance another group loses ground.
Truth is: there are a lot of different people in this country running a lot of different businesses and to not invite them all to the negotiation table is to overlook opportunity. Support does not equate with an absolute guarantee. It merely means inclusionism, not exclusionism, which would be the real act of racism.
Learn more about this author, Deborah S. Hildebrand.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

