Reverse Discrimination

I acknowledge that the idea for this entry came from my "numba too" son. I had never given the term much thought, other than to dismiss it as an inflammatory term used by race-baiters. A definition and discussion of the term is found in the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination I realize Wikipedia for what it is. There are few, if any, controls over the content. However, the article has interesting points and examples. Also interesting is the assertion that the very neutrality of the term is in dispute. Interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reverse_discrimination
Reverse discrimination: the practice of favouring a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of members of a historically advantaged group.
If we accept this definition, then members of the "historically advantaged group" are also victims of discrimination. In the case of racial discrimination, the advantaged ones are perceived as receivers of advantages based solely on their birth. If we allow this practice, we need to bring back the practice of "sin eating". http://www.logoi.com/notes/sin-eaters.html If not, then we are all guilty of the sins of our fathers. Nothing could be more ridiculous!
Discrimination, in and of itself, is not bad. We all do it on a daily basis. Do we eat a fresh or a day-old doughnut? Do we buy this or that head of lettuce. We observe and discern and make decisions based on distinctions.
How can something be reverse discrimination? Discrimination is discrimination. It matters not whether it is a member of the advantaged or disadvantaged group doing the discriminating.
If you are as the vast majority of people of whom I have asked this question, your answer will be "white". When you mentally picture a "racist", what is the race of the person you see in your mind? See. So very wrong. Racists know no ethnic, racial or national boundaries. All colors. All nationalities. All idiots.
The very fact that person A sees person B as a member of a "historically advantaged group" is discriminatory on the part of person A. They assign specific characteristics to someone because the resemble the members of a group. ALL members of the group do not share ONLY distinct characteristics. All members of the group are not advantaged based solely on their inclusion in the group. Some are; some are not.
A close Air Force buddy of mine laughed at some of my stories of Southern "discrimination". He was from Philadelphia, PA and, prior to enlisting in the Air Force, had never been in the south. On one occasion, we ate Sunday lunch with my grandparents. My grandparents were cordial and friendly. When we prepared to return from Jackson to Biloxi, my grandmother called me aside. She told me that she liked my friend and that he seemed like a nice man and a good friend. But she asked that I not bring him back to eat because he was black. I relayed the story as we drove back to Keesler. He laughed uncontrollably. His feelings were not hurt. He completely understood. He told me that he never would dare to bring me to his parents' house because his father was the biggest racist he had ever seen. The father hated all white people. My buddy had asked his father about the hatred, but the father would not discuss it. All white people were devils who needed to be destroyed. I would have given my life to protect him and he to protect me. Such was our friendship in the service.
Race-baiters can only exist if they keep the pot stirred. No national, state or local movement will result in improved race relations. That is a myth. Relations will only improve as people deal with each other in a one-on-one setting.
As Monfrondo Feirnrein Sapperstoot opined: "I assure you that I am NOT the source of the moisture trickling down your lower extremity; It really IS raining!"