Reagan's racist comments
drummerboy said:
drummerboy said:dude, you may think you "applied DB's definition of racism to the problem of anti-semitism. " but you most assuredly did not.
proeasdf said:
sprout said:In my posting I merely applied DB's definition of racism to the problem of anti-semitism. I do NOT support DB's analysis. Instead, I applied DB's principles and its ridiculous result whereby anti-semitism is an impossibility under DB's principles. DB's analysis adopts a view that group identity (and the dominance of that group in the culture) is paramount in determining whether a member of a particular group can have racism inflicted upon them. In light of being those of the Jewish faith, or ethnicity, being the number one income group in the nation, it is not hard to see them as a predominant group. Once again I do NOT support the principles of DB's analysis. I believe that racism, including anti-semitism, can occur to anyone regardless of their group-identity and its predominance, or lack of dominance, in the culture.
proeasdf said:I'm not sure how the Jewish 1.5% (no, that's not even a 15, it's a 1-and-a-half percent) of the US population could possibly be considered a "predominant" group. (And only 0.2% of the world).
Using your analysis of racism, it is NOT possible for anyone to be be anti-Semitic, because those of the Jewish faith or ethnicity are the predominant group in the US (as demonstrated by having the highest average income in the US). See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
After about 1/3 of the world's Jews were murdered, some bizarro person comes up with a way to say, hey look-- you're the predominant group! (Possibly because poorer Jews didn't make it out).
You may find this an interesting poll:
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/11/europe/antisemitism-poll-2018-intl/
Conclusion: defining racism in a manner whereby racism is dependent on a person's group identity creates a definition of racism that does not help to restrain racism.
I merely applied your principles to demonstrate that your definition of racism created ridiculous results Obviously you disagree. Let me know where I went wrong in applying your definition. Simply, I believe that anyone can be a victim of racism.
proeasdf said:
proeasdf said:I merely applied your principles to demonstrate that your definition of racism created ridiculous results Obviously you disagree. Let me know where I went wrong in applying your definition. Simply, I believe that anyone can be a victim of racism.
drummerboy said:
drummerboy said:dude, you may think you "applied DB's definition of racism to the problem of anti-semitism. " but you most assuredly did not.
proeasdf said:
sprout said:In my posting I merely applied DB's definition of racism to the problem of anti-semitism. I do NOT support DB's analysis. Instead, I applied DB's principles and its ridiculous result whereby anti-semitism is an impossibility under DB's principles. DB's analysis adopts a view that group identity (and the dominance of that group in the culture) is paramount in determining whether a member of a particular group can have racism inflicted upon them. In light of being those of the Jewish faith, or ethnicity, being the number one income group in the nation, it is not hard to see them as a predominant group. Once again I do NOT support the principles of DB's analysis. I believe that racism, including anti-semitism, can occur to anyone regardless of their group-identity and its predominance, or lack of dominance, in the culture.
proeasdf said:I'm not sure how the Jewish 1.5% (no, that's not even a 15, it's a 1-and-a-half percent) of the US population could possibly be considered a "predominant" group. (And only 0.2% of the world).
Using your analysis of racism, it is NOT possible for anyone to be be anti-Semitic, because those of the Jewish faith or ethnicity are the predominant group in the US (as demonstrated by having the highest average income in the US). See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
After about 1/3 of the world's Jews were murdered, some bizarro person comes up with a way to say, hey look-- you're the predominant group! (Possibly because poorer Jews didn't make it out).
You may find this an interesting poll:
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/11/europe/antisemitism-poll-2018-intl/
Conclusion: defining racism in a manner whereby racism is dependent on a person's group identity creates a definition of racism that does not help to restrain racism.
That's because your definition of racism is wrong. Start from there, and you can reach any damn fool conclusion. Which you did.
proeasdf said:
I merely applied your principles to demonstrate that your definition of racism created ridiculous results Obviously you disagree. Let me know where I went wrong in applying your definition. Simply, I believe that anyone can be a victim of racism.
You've take your conclusion "I believe anyone can be a victim or racism", and re-written and re-interpreted everyone else's actual posts so that they will support it.
DB said "You can't really be racist unless you're working from a position of institutional power. Do not confuse racism with bigotry."
Then you decided that meant that average income is a tells us if about what the "predominant groups in society" are. However you made that leap, it was yours, not DBs.
Other posts gave some other definitions of racism than the one you are using (which, as DB pointed out, seems to be "bigotry" rather than "racism"). Nohero suggested reading about white fragility. Flimbro laid out some definitions for you. If you choose to ignore all that it's your right, but you should acknowledge that you are applying you own principles, not DBs or anyone else's.
proeasdf said:In my posting I merely applied DB's definition of racism to the problem of anti-semitism. I do NOT support DB's analysis. Instead, I applied DB's principles and its ridiculous result whereby anti-semitism is an impossibility under DB's principles.
sprout said:
proeasdf said:I'm not sure how the Jewish 1.5% (no, that's not even a 15, it's a 1-and-a-half percent) of the US population could possibly be considered a "predominant" group. (And only 0.2% of the world).
Using your analysis of racism, it is NOT possible for anyone to be be anti-Semitic, because those of the Jewish faith or ethnicity are the predominant group in the US (as demonstrated by having the highest average income in the US). See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
After about 1/3 of the world's Jews were murdered, some bizarro person comes up with a way to say, hey look-- you're the predominant group! (Possibly because poorer Jews didn't make it out).
You may find this an interesting poll:
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/11/europe/antisemitism-poll-2018-intl/
Let's review. DB stated:
drummerboy said:
You can't really be racist unless you're working from a position of institutional power.
Question: What made you @proeasdf even pick the strange definition of "religion with highest percentage $100k+ income within that subgroup" as your metric to operationalize DB's term "institutional power"?
Wouldn't it have made more sense to pick something like these to define "institutional power":
- highest percentage of politicians as the metric for "institutional power"?
- Or pick police force demographics, since that is another powerful institution?
As a NYC area suburbanite, you are surrounded by families who have a household income over $100k in our neighborhoods. I suppose if you ever have a household income over $100k, you believe you will feel like you are a significant part of the "institutional power" system?
Re proeasdf
He's not confused at all. He picked that "strange definition" because like many Americans he's afraid to have a serious fact-based conversation about racism. It's a defensive maneuver. He prefers to imagine a society where we're all potential racists. If you can convince yourself that we're all racists, meaning we're all responsible, then no one group can be held responsible. And if no one group can be held responsible then any discussion/debate about what can be done to dismantle racism or adopt an antiracist lifestyle is muddied and he hopes- moot.
His perspective is immediately ahistorical and anti intellectual in that it makes no room for the most important aspect of American racism which is discussion about the benefits of the system, who benefits and how all Americans play a role in supporting and maintaining a racist society.
He'd prefer not to ever have those discussions so he creates nonsensical diversions.
flimbro said:
He's not confused at all. He picked that "strange definition" because like many Americans he's afraid to have a serious fact-based conversation about racism. It's a defensive maneuver. He prefers to imagine a society where we're all potential racists. If you can convince yourself that we're all racists, meaning we're all responsible, then no one group can be held responsible. And if no one group can be held responsible then any discussion/debate about what can be done to dismantle racism or adopt an antiracist lifestyle is muddied and he hopes- moot.
His perspective is immediately ahistorical and anti intellectual in that it makes no room for the most important aspect of American racism which is discussion about the benefits of the system, who benefits and how all Americans play a role in supporting and maintaining a racist society.
He'd prefer not to ever have those discussions so he creates nonsensical diversions.
He's assured us he is a seeker of truth. He uses bold face type. I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding and he'll clear it all up in his next post.
Re proeasdf
He's not alone. Deferring and diverting. It's a national pastime. We do it on a daily basis. Look how long it took for news media to discover that Trump was in fact racist and before that, to even use the word racist to describe proponents of racist ideas. A couple days ago we 'discovered' that Ronald Reagan was a racist. Most of Black and brown America said- oh c'mon now GTFOH.
If given the opportunity America would prefer to 'examine' racist events and issues in an effort to determine whether or not racism exists- perpetually. If you spend all your time discussing and discovering and examining and eventually validating (or not) - you never have to deal with the reality. We're doing it right now. A white nationalist drove across Texas to kill Mexicans at a mall in El Paso on the border of Mexico and wrote about it on white nationalist web pages - and this weekend authorities are deciding whether or not it's a hate crime or domestic (white supremacist) terrorism.
C'mon now GTFOH
I don't see any requirement that something has to be system to qualify as racism:
rac·ism
noun
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
yahooyahoo said:
I don't see any requirement that something has to be system to qualify as racism:
rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
I guess it's time to bring this back:
Why Using the Dictionary Definition of Racism Just Doesn’t Work
ml1 said:
yahooyahoo said:I guess it's time to bring this back:
I don't see any requirement that something has to be system to qualify as racism:
rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Why Using the Dictionary Definition of Racism Just Doesn’t Work
So what word matches the definition above?
yahooyahoo said:
I don't see any requirement that something has to be system to qualify as racism:
rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Maybe you should expand your boundaries and entertain slightly more complex ideas and perspectives. Googling a word that you’ve never heard of makes sense if you only want a rudimentary understanding. But then isn’t the next step to see how it’s used in a sentence, study the synonyms or to seek out other usages to get a better idea of what the word means in the real world?
ya·hoo1
/yäˈho͞o/
nounINFORMAL
- a rude, noisy, or violent person.
synonyms: barbarian, philistine, vulgarian, savage, brute, beast, boor, oaf, ruffian, , >span class="SDZsVb" data-term-for-update="lout" role="link" tabindex="0" jsaction="dob.uwt" data-ved="2ahUKEwiW8OaA6uvjAhVSh-AKHWC2DBkQ_SowAHoECAEQFA">lout, hoodlum, hooligan, vandal, rowdy, bully boy, brawler; More
See what I mean? Working with this definition I’d be led to believe that you considered yourself to be a lost cause- someone incapable of or adverse to examining context or nuance. I don’t happen to believe that and I’m confident that you’ll be able to understand the current modern concept of what racism actually is based on your knowledge of basic American history, the dynamics of power in any society and current events.
Best of luck.
sprout said:
Question: What made you @proeasdf even pick the strange definition of "religion with highest percentage $100k+ income within that subgroup" as your metric to operationalize DB's term "institutional power"?
Wouldn't it have made more sense to pick something like these to define "institutional power":
As a NYC area suburbanite, you are surrounded by families who have a household income over $100k in our neighborhoods. I suppose if you ever have a household income over $100k, you believe you will feel like you are a significant part of the "institutional power" system?
- highest percentage of politicians as the metric for "institutional power"?
- Or pick police force demographics, since that is another powerful institution?
Many thanks for suggestions on other methods for determining institutional power. First thing that came to mind in determining institutional power was average income (nothing more, nothing less) by religion (Quora mentions churches as being one of the parties with institutional power and there was a study that came up slicing and dicing by religion).
When I googled institutional power again today what I got as a response is set forth pics attached below.
Based on the google search there did not seem to be an accepted definition for "institutional power." My analysis was an attempt to probe at who has institutional power. If I offended anyone by utilizing average income by religion, I do apologize.
But, I am seriously trying to get my arms around what is the definition of "institutional power" is in the context of racism. For example, if I had instead chosen to focus on the number two and three average income groups by religion (ii.) Hindu faith, and iii.) Episcopalians) would that have been better?
My comments regarding your suggestions on institutional power:
- highest percentage of politicians as the metric for "institutional power"?
- Or pick police force demographics, since that is another powerful institution?
Your first suggestions seems to suggest that politicians analyzed by race, religion, socio-economic, et cetera will determine their biases from their affiliation with their particular group(s). Please confirm I am understanding this correctly. As I do not think this is a good assumption.
Police take orders from civilian politicians. Hence, I am not so sure that this is institutional power (at least in my understanding of this issue).
Let me know your thoughts.
proeasdf said:
If I offended anyone by utilizing average income by religion, I do apologize.
I assure you again: Nobody is offended by nonsense.
Less time wondering if others are being sensitive. More time reading the recommended materials.
DaveSchmidt said:
proeasdf said:I assure you again: Nobody is offended by nonsense.
If I offended anyone by utilizing average income by religion, I do apologize.
Less time wondering if others are being sensitive. More time reading the recommended materials.
Thanks for your input.
proeasdf said:
Many thanks for suggestions on other methods for determining institutional power. First thing that came to mind in determining institutional power was average income (nothing more, nothing less) by religion (Quora mentions churches as being one of the parties with institutional power and there was a study that came up slicing and dicing by religion).
"Average income" is not a good measure to choose.
yahooyahoo said:
So what word matches the definition above?
the point of the article isn't to redefine racism to fit another definition. The point is that dictionary definitions are inadequate representation of complex issues like racism. Looking to Webster's to understand racism is woefully inadequate.
@proeasdf
First of all congratulations. You are doing a great job at "not getting it". You've stuck to your guns and feigned confusion admirably and for that you deserve a slow clap.
Unfortunately, you may have slipped up and exposed your flank with your last post. The second screenshot you posted has an entry for a word document called "Power & Privilege Definitions". Click it and read it.
You'll find pretty simple descriptions for most of what has been discussed here.
This is the first entry:
INSTITUTIONAL POWER: The ability or official authority to decide what is best for others. The ability to decide who will have access to resources. The capacity to exercise control over others.
This is the fourth:
OPPRESSION: The combination of prejudice and institutional power which creates a system that discriminates against some groups (often called “target groups”) and benefits other groups (often called “dominant groups”). Examples of these systems are racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, classism, ageism, and anti-Semitism. These systems enable dominant groups to exert control over target groups by limiting their rights, freedom, and access to basic resources such as health care, education, employment, and housing.
Four Levels of Oppression/”isms” and Change:
- Personal: Values, Beliefs, Feelings
- Interpersonal: Actions, Behaviors, Language
- Institutional: Rules, Policies, Procedures
- Cultural: Beauty, Truth, Right
The list goes on to define all of the concepts you've been having trouble grasping. Turns out you had the answers right under your fingertips! Great work and Enjoy.
flimbro said:
yahooyahoo said:Maybe you should expand your boundaries and entertain slightly more complex ideas and perspectives. Googling a word that you’ve never heard of makes sense if you only want a rudimentary understanding. But then isn’t the next step to see how it’s used in a sentence, study the synonyms or to seek out other usages to get a better idea of what the word means in the real world?
I don't see any requirement that something has to be system to qualify as racism:
rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
ya·hoo1
/yäˈho͞o/
nounINFORMAL
- a rude, noisy, or violent person.
synonyms: barbarian, philistine, vulgarian, savage, brute, beast, boor, oaf, ruffian, , >span class="SDZsVb" data-term-for-update="lout" role="link" tabindex="0" jsaction="dob.uwt" data-ved="2ahUKEwiW8OaA6uvjAhVSh-AKHWC2DBkQ_SowAHoECAEQFA">lout, hoodlum, hooligan, vandal, rowdy, bully boy, brawler; More
See what I mean? Working with this definition I’d be led to believe that you considered yourself to be a lost cause- someone incapable of or adverse to examining context or nuance. I don’t happen to believe that and I’m confident that you’ll be able to understand the current modern concept of what racism actually is based on your knowledge of basic American history, the dynamics of power in any society and current events.
Best of luck.
My, aren't you pretentious. Yes, I know what pretentious means and I used it correctly.
flimbro said:
@proeasdf
First of all congratulations. You are doing a great job at "not getting it". You've stuck to your guns and feigned confusion admirably and for that you deserve a slow clap.
Unfortunately, you may have slipped up and exposed your flank with your last post. The second screenshot you posted has an entry for a word document called "Power & Privilege Definitions". Click it and read it.
You'll find pretty simple descriptions for most of what has been discussed here.
This is the first entry:
INSTITUTIONAL POWER: The ability or official authority to decide what is best for others. The ability to decide who will have access to resources. The capacity to exercise control over others.
This is the fourth:
OPPRESSION: The combination of prejudice and institutional power which creates a system that discriminates against some groups (often called “target groups”) and benefits other groups (often called “dominant groups”). Examples of these systems are racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, classism, ageism, and anti-Semitism. These systems enable dominant groups to exert control over target groups by limiting their rights, freedom, and access to basic resources such as health care, education, employment, and housing.
Four Levels of Oppression/”isms” and Change:
- Personal: Values, Beliefs, Feelings
- Interpersonal: Actions, Behaviors, Language
- Institutional: Rules, Policies, Procedures
- Cultural: Beauty, Truth, Right
The list goes on to define all of the concepts you've been having trouble grasping. Turns out you had the answers right under your fingertips! Great work and Enjoy.
Sincere questions for you as follows:
Q1. So how can I determine which groups are "target groups"?
Q2. Do you have a list of "target groups"?
Q3. For example, would Asians be considered a "target group"?
Q4. Would Hispanics be considered a "target group"?
Q5. Please explain to me who is on the "target group" list (if such a thing exists) and who makes such determinations.
Q6, For example, is BHO a member of a "target group"?
If so why (mom is white and dad, BHOSr, was African who came to the US in 1961 for several years)?
proeasdf said:
Sincere questions for you as follows:
Q1. So how can I determine which groups are "target groups"?
Q2. Do you have a list of "target groups"?
Q3. For example, would Asians be considered a "target group"?
Q4. Would Hispanics be considered a "target group"?
Q5. Please explain to me who is on the "target group" list (if such a thing exists) and who makes such determinations.
Q6, For example, is BHO a member of a "target group"?
If so why (mom is white and dad, BHOSr, was African who came to the US in 1961 for several years)?
are you really this clueless?
flimbro said:
Turns out you had the answers right under your fingertips! Great work and Enjoy.
Instead, proeasdf clicked on an academic paper by a Danish professor, so he or she may need some time to digest conclusions like this one first:
ml1 said:
ml1 said:are you really this clueless?
proeasdf said:
Sincere questions for you as follows:
Q1. So how can I determine which groups are "target groups"?
Q2. Do you have a list of "target groups"?
Q3. For example, would Asians be considered a "target group"?
Q4. Would Hispanics be considered a "target group"?
Q5. Please explain to me who is on the "target group" list (if such a thing exists) and who makes such determinations.
Q6, For example, is BHO a member of a "target group"?
If so why (mom is white and dad, BHOSr, was African who came to the US in 1961 for several years)?
Why won't you answer my straight-forward questions?
yahooyahoo said:
yahooyahoo said:My, aren't you pretentious. Yes, I know what pretentious means and I used it correctly.
flimbro said:
yahooyahoo said:Maybe you should expand your boundaries and entertain slightly more complex ideas and perspectives. Googling a word that you’ve never heard of makes sense if you only want a rudimentary understanding. But then isn’t the next step to see how it’s used in a sentence, study the synonyms or to seek out other usages to get a better idea of what the word means in the real world?
I don't see any requirement that something has to be system to qualify as racism:
rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
ya·hoo1
/yäˈho͞o/
nounINFORMAL
- a rude, noisy, or violent person.
synonyms: barbarian, philistine, vulgarian, savage, brute, beast, boor, oaf, ruffian, , >span class="SDZsVb" data-term-for-update="lout" role="link" tabindex="0" jsaction="dob.uwt" data-ved="2ahUKEwiW8OaA6uvjAhVSh-AKHWC2DBkQ_SowAHoECAEQFA">lout, hoodlum, hooligan, vandal, rowdy, bully boy, brawler; More
See what I mean? Working with this definition I’d be led to believe that you considered yourself to be a lost cause- someone incapable of or adverse to examining context or nuance. I don’t happen to believe that and I’m confident that you’ll be able to understand the current modern concept of what racism actually is based on your knowledge of basic American history, the dynamics of power in any society and current events.
Best of luck.
Yes, you did use it correctly and yes, I've heard that before. Typically from people who don't like whatever I'm saying. I've also been 'abrasive', 'uppity', 'brash' and a 'smart-***'. It's served me well so I don't intend to change.
I'm not as good as you are with the googling though, I used 'adverse' in that last post and I'm pretty sure that should actually be 'averse'. You're spending a lot of time with the dictionary, would you check that for me when you get a minute?
proeasdf said:
proeasdf said:Sincere questions for you as follows:
flimbro said:
@proeasdf
First of all congratulations. You are doing a great job at "not getting it". You've stuck to your guns and feigned confusion admirably and for that you deserve a slow clap.
Unfortunately, you may have slipped up and exposed your flank with your last post. The second screenshot you posted has an entry for a word document called "Power & Privilege Definitions". Click it and read it.
You'll find pretty simple descriptions for most of what has been discussed here.
This is the first entry:
INSTITUTIONAL POWER: The ability or official authority to decide what is best for others. The ability to decide who will have access to resources. The capacity to exercise control over others.
This is the fourth:
OPPRESSION: The combination of prejudice and institutional power which creates a system that discriminates against some groups (often called “target groups”) and benefits other groups (often called “dominant groups”). Examples of these systems are racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, classism, ageism, and anti-Semitism. These systems enable dominant groups to exert control over target groups by limiting their rights, freedom, and access to basic resources such as health care, education, employment, and housing.
Four Levels of Oppression/”isms” and Change:
- Personal: Values, Beliefs, Feelings
- Interpersonal: Actions, Behaviors, Language
- Institutional: Rules, Policies, Procedures
- Cultural: Beauty, Truth, Right
The list goes on to define all of the concepts you've been having trouble grasping. Turns out you had the answers right under your fingertips! Great work and Enjoy.
Hmm, I don't know... I'm starting to doubt your sincerity. I'll play along for one more post though. (You didn't even read that word doc did you?)
The answer is: Anyone who isn't a moneyed, straight, white man.
Q1. So how can I determine which groups are "target groups"?
Anyone who isn't a moneyed, straight, white man
Q2. Do you have a list of "target groups"? Yes, anyone who isn't a moneyed, straight, white man
Q3. For example, would Asians be considered a "target group"? Are Asians moneyed, straight, white men? (see Q1)
Q4. Would Hispanics be considered a "target group"? Are Hispanics moneyed, straight, white men? (see Q1)
Q5. Please explain to me who is on the "target group" list (if such a thing exists) and who makes such determinations. Moneyed, straight, white men decide who is on the list. Isn't this pretty clear by now?
Q6, For example, is BHO a member of a "target group"?
If so why (mom is white and dad, BHOSr, was African who came to the US in 1961 for several years)? Is BHO a moneyed, straight, white man?
flimbro said:
Hmm, I don't know... I'm starting to doubt your sincerity. I'll play along for one more post though. (You didn't even read that word doc did you?)
The answer is: Anyone who isn't a moneyed, straight, white man.
Q1. So how can I determine which groups are "target groups"?
Anyone who isn't a moneyed, straight, white man
Q2. Do you have a list of "target groups"? Yes, anyone who isn't a moneyed, straight, white man
Q3. For example, would Asians be considered a "target group"? Are Asians moneyed, straight, white men? (see Q1)
Q4. Would Hispanics be considered a "target group"? Are Hispanics moneyed, straight, white men? (see Q1)
Q5. Please explain to me who is on the "target group" list (if such a thing exists) and who makes such determinations. Moneyed, straight, white men decide who is on the list. Isn't this pretty clear by now?
Q6, For example, is BHO a member of a "target group"?
If so why (mom is white and dad, BHOSr, was African who came to the US in 1961 for several years)? Is BHO a moneyed, straight, white man?
Thanks for your candor.
proeasdf said:
Why won't you answer my straight-forward questions?
why won't you answer mine?
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
dude, you may think you "applied DB's definition of racism to the problem of anti-semitism. " but you most assuredly did not.
(Reading your posts though, it's kind of hard to figure out exactly what your actual point is, muddled as the 'logic' is, but I'll go with it.)
In fact, your naive use of income in your analysis of who is dominant would be considered an act of anti-semitism by many people, as you are equating income to societal power. A common anti-semitic trope.
jeez - I feel dirty even responding to your crap sometimes.