therein lies the problem. Unless you bring the proverbial mud on your boots to this discussion, all you seem to bring to the table are some ideas, thoughts.... without the real human implications. I think that when can begin to discuss real human implications on this subject area, people's opinions as to why they support and do not support certain measures provide the intangibles that are really necessary when handling a topic such as this.
Keith has shared a real life experience, David Orange has talked openly about his father's role in segregation and how that has effected his perceptions. Ron has shared some of his life experiences. I am more than willing to share my own as well. These intangibles, that you want to somehow avoid, take this topic into the real of real human understanding an not simply some idle intellectual pursuit.
Marc, there's a very good reason why issues should be debated/discussed on the merits and personality being left out of it. The topic was "discrimination", not "my personal feelings and anecdotal experiences with discrimination" (feel free to start your own thread).
Think of it like this: A number of posts about internal strength were attempted to be started a few years back. A number of Aikidoists attempted to block or trivialize those discussions by shifting the subject to me personally or other people personally, trivializing, denigrating, and so on. I've actually seen about 3 people, in recent times, apologize for some of those unnecessary shifts of internal strength mechanics into personal diatribe.
The problem was that the discussion of an issue was converted into a discussion about people and then some peoples' opinions about people, and so forth. It's a boringly well-known tactic (and considered low-class) to try to shift an issue discussion into a discussion of individuals, etc. I'm assuming you've never been trained in debate tactics or you'd know this very common fact. It's almost offensive to me to be engaged in a discussion and have someone try to wreck the discussion by deliberately shifting from the issue "to the man". "To the man" shifting of an argument is called "ad hominem". For some reason you insist to me that I should go along with your desire to do it.
Marc, I enjoy discussions of issues and the broad range of facts that can then be pointed to. Personal anecdotes are almost meaningless in any worthwhile discussion. Next thing you'll be asking me to stand up and "witness for Jesus" and tell you what he's meant to me, etc.... that's about the same way I look at your asking me to "witness for discrimination", etc., personally. Let's stick to the issues, please.