Can "Racism" be clearly defined?....or is it subjective?


PDA






Rembrandt
April 4, 2006, 01:01 AM
This Cynthia McKinney story has me fumeing.....I'm certainly not for more laws regulating the public....but maybe it's time to nip some of these wild claims in the bud.....perhaps a law making false claims of racism a felony. Or opening the people crying "racism" up to civil lawsuits.

My question is, can racism be clearly defined and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.....or would it be subject to interpretation depending on who's point of view is taken?

If you enjoyed reading about "Can "Racism" be clearly defined?....or is it subjective?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DevLcL
April 4, 2006, 01:08 AM
I'd say its up to the individual. At the same time, most normal folks (B or W) can see the line pretty clearly.

-Dev

Kim
April 4, 2006, 01:47 AM
Well according to Lefty ethic study departments it is now institutional.. We can't actually see it but we know it is there. It has to be cause we say so. Otherwise we can not be oppressed anymore and if that is the case we would have to consider ourselves free and not a special class that needs special government help by which I really mean is we want to stick it to those white european imperalistic capitalist patriarchial racist evil devils. That is the left post modern definition of racism. Haven't any of you guys been on a college campus lately espically one of the elite oneszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz? :D

American By Blood
April 4, 2006, 02:13 AM
From my perspective, "racism" (and "racist") are less adjectives and more epithets. The definitions are far too diverse and subjective for the term(s) to actually have meaning.

For example, calling a member of a non-white minority by some sort of recognized slur is generally considered racist. Makes enough sense. It's aggressive, intentionally offensive, and surely pertaining to the subject of race. But what about when the tables are turned and it's the Euro-descended person having aspersions cast upon his ancestry? How about we further complicate the situation and make it two whites of different nations having an ethnically charged confrontation?

Many people would say that anti-white ethnic/racial slurs are, in fact, not racist. The sort of fuzzy logic behind that thinking likely wouldn't go over well on THR, but the "post-modern" cultural lefties who largely dominate Western racial discourse are all for it.

But what if we move from the realm of outright insult to the (hopefully) more civil territory of politics? There are those who argue that opposing affirmative action is inherently racist because it potentially denies opportunites that level the playing field in a society that some see as naturally favorable to whites. Of course, on the other side there are those who maintain that supporting affirmative action is undeniably racist because wanting to put in place those sorts of rules must mean that you either believe that certain minorities are unable to compete in a fair contests or that you're conspiring to keep them dependent on (and therefore faithfully voting for) you.

And what about the (at least theoretically) ultimately neutral realm of study, both amateur and academic? There are those in the academy who fanatically campaign for any mention of race (aside from critiquing the very concept) to be removed from textbooks and curricula. This lot is also generally the first to cry "RACISM" whenever a MD, biologist, etc makes public his or her beliefs that different groups of human beings have physical differences. Sadly, folks often seek to get good scholars' tenures revoked, reputations sullied, publications taken out of print, and a employ a whole host of other speech-supressing tactics. Conversely, the above alluded to MDs and biologists may not have a malicious bone in their bodies when it comes to race and just want to study human differences because they and their colleagues keep finding that different medications and therapies effect identifiable human groups in divergent ways and they simply want to be able to better treat patients. Which group is right? Is the basic recognition of human phyiscal diversity inherently racist because race is merely a social construct or is it fundamental to understanding our species as a whole?

Like I said earlier, I see the term(s) as definitely undefined and likely undefinable so I generally avoid using it/them altogether. Slippery words like that are signs of speech based on emotional reactions instead of thought and reason.

Furthermore (and in keeping with THR's general interest in civil liberties) I see the social taboos surrounding the mere discussion of race, gender, sexuality, etc that have come into being out of fear of offending anyone as being severely damaging to freedom. In polite company a person will be frowned at and cause a room-wide silence if he or she says something that differs from the orthodoxy on those topics. Not the worst thing that can happen to someone, but it's a bad omen for our intellectual climate when potentially erroneous opinions are met with disapproval instead of counter-arguments. It means that the foudations for a creeping authoritarianism are being laid. Look at it this way: when was the last time you saw the freedom-loving THR users argue against gun control with social coercion? People who value liberty respect the right to disagree and base their debates in fact instead of convention. The importance of this distinction is impossible to to over-estimate.

Unfortunately, even more extreme methods for enforcing conformity are on the way. Take a look at university campuses today. Skepticism about any of the sacred cows can get a person written up, thrown into mandatory sensitivity classes, and even expelled or denied graduation. The people on the receiving end of these policies aren't arm-band wearing goose-steppers, either. They're regular folks like you or me. (links for those who like to get their blood-pressure elevated: here (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5654.html) and here (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/6280.html)). Our future leaders are being taught to accept and even participate in this sort of blatant dragooning. This does not bode well for freedom in our nation.

"Racism" is an intellectual truncheon used to beat dissenters into line. Avoid its use and do what you can to rob it of its power.

--------------

Sorry for the long first post. I'm new here and you'll be seeing more of me. On the gun-related threads, too! :p

I'll likely be talking about ComBloc military weapons or asking questions about guns that I'm in the market for. Hope to see all of you around!

horge
April 4, 2006, 03:06 AM
:)

Like it or not, there ARE physical attributes that can apply themselves towards
classifying human populations according to 'race'... if one is so inclined to classify.

If such classification (which is necessarily arbitrary, as all classification is)
is intended towards a productive sort of data organization, say, to simplify
personal registration data collection/storage/processing, then it's no different
from classifying people according to location/nationality, gender, age, etc.

Now... whether the use of race terminology (the fruit of classification) is offensive,
is a determination for those who hear/read/see the term(s), particularly the
recipient or person alluded to.

Today's technical term is often tomorrow's racial slur, and today's racial slur
is often reissued as acceptable --or chic, or even affectionate-- slang, so
the 'problem' evades a permanent definition.


JM2Pesos
horge

CAnnoneer
April 4, 2006, 03:08 AM
Leftist definition:
Racism is a belief system that is despicable in a white person and laudable in a non-white person.

AK-74me
April 4, 2006, 08:48 AM
Why is racist to confront a person who is not following procedure and looks like this.....http://www.nbc4.com/news/8440218/detail.html . Just a question!

El Tejon
April 4, 2006, 08:51 AM
I use this standard: if people do not give me money, then they are racist.:D

(disclaimer: the above is satire to illustrate a political point)

Camp David
April 4, 2006, 09:03 AM
This Cynthia McKinney story has me fumeing...

Understand that this woman has a long history of being a left wing loon and she will blame everything in the world for her lot in lot in life, never once taking responsibility... Over this past weekend Mr. Bill Cosby put things in perspective when he spoke in New Orleans: Blacks refuse to take responsibility for things in life and instead blame everything for their shortcomings and personal weaknesses, thus making themselves a permanent underderclass. Ms. McKinney didn't follow security protocol and struck a Capitol Police member; she should be arrested and jailed like anyone else that committed such a crime.

My question is, can racism be clearly defined and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt... Absolutely it can be measured. But Ms. McKinney has never known racism and instead she makes of herself the martyr with "perceived" claims of racism against everyone whom she meets. This is her method of compensating for her lack of responsibility. Such is popular within her race in my opinion. Others who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, worked hard, and achieved greatness; i.e., General Colin Powell, Dr. Connie Rice, Mr. Bill Cosby, et al. deserve our respect and honor. Ms. McKinney, in my opinion, desreves only our contempt and scorn for being a race baiter who does a disservice to society.

1 old 0311
April 4, 2006, 09:06 AM
'Racism' is a excuse for anytime something doesn't go your way.

Kevin

Molon Labe
April 4, 2006, 09:34 AM
"Racism" is an overused term. If a person is a racist, it means they believe one ethnicity is inherently superior to other ethnicities in terms of intelligence.

Most of the time, when a person is labeled a "racist," we do not mean the person is literally a racist. (See definition above.) The word "bigot" is usually more appropriate.

geekWithA.45
April 4, 2006, 10:04 AM
I learned a reasonable functional definition of racism from my first grade teacher, who was trying to get across a lesson in tolerance.

The quote is approximate, based on a 30+ year old memory, filtered through 30+ years of experience and refinement:

"At the heart of racism is prejudice. Prejudice means to PRE judge. That means, to judge before you know the full story. Judgements form the basis for subsequent decisions regarding a person. Judgements made before you know the whole story can often based on factors that are irrelevant to the situation at hand, such as the color of a person's skin, or what country they come from. It is best to try to form judgements not on what people look like, but on what they actually do and say. Try to form judgements based on the content of people's character, not on the color of their skin."

At the time, I did not recognize the teacher quoting MLK.

The definition is interesting and workable, because it points to three important factors:

* The making of snap judgements on incomplete information.
* The impact of irrelevant factors on such judgements
* The implementation of decisions regarding a person based on those flawed judgements.

It leaves room for discernment. Race, creed, national origin and so forth _might_ be relevant under some circumstances, depending on the question at hand, but usually they are not. Accordingly, the key to avoiding racism was to have an open, fair mind.

Just_a_dude_with_a_gun
April 4, 2006, 10:48 AM
The real, literal meaning of "Racism", is to believe that race accounts for differences between two people, or that race warrants how one is treated.
I believe affirmative action, and the constant need to be separate, be identified separately, to start tv networks separately, to form community activist groups separately, for a separate group of people helped kill any inkling of real equality years ago.

Literally, many blacks (sadly, many with power and public personality) are more racist, more overtly, more now, than ever...

Bill Cosby is onto something. Sadly, people don't want to hear it.

crazed_ss
April 4, 2006, 11:19 AM
The reason we (black people) were have things like BET, NAACP, Negro College Fund, etc is because historically we've been treated like second class citizens. None of that stuff would have been required if blacks hadn't been forceably segrated and excluded from American culture in the first place.

You may argue that things are different now and you'd be right, but it's highly doubtful that people are just going to forget what happened and "move on".. My dad is from Lousiana and he can tell me all kinds of stories of growing up as a kid in LA.. being subjected to Jim Crow Laws, terrorized by the KKK, etc. All that stuff happened in his lifetime.. it's NOT ancient history like some people try to make it out to be. History does have some bearing on the present and the deep racial wounds in this country arent gonna heal in a few decades.

I'm not trying to make an excuse for anything.. though instutional racism still exists in this country, it's not at the level that my dad had to deal with. Blacks have just about the same oppurtunities as everyone else. I fully support what Cosby says. Back in the Civil Rights days, blacks stood up in the face of crushing racism and discrimination and demanded our rights. It seems that many have become complacent as of late. If blacks had the drive these days like we had back then, we'd be doing a lot better for ourselves.


ok.. that was a rant.. dont know if it even made since..

longeyes
April 4, 2006, 12:15 PM
Racism: The inability to see, really see, an individual standing there in front of you. Just one more form of stereotyping and prejudging.

RevDisk
April 4, 2006, 12:19 PM
This Cynthia McKinney story has me fumeing.....I'm certainly not for more laws regulating the public....but maybe it's time to nip some of these wild claims in the bud.....perhaps a law making false claims of racism a felony. Or opening the people crying "racism" up to civil lawsuits.

There are already libel and slander laws on the book for intentionally making false statements. An interesting question is, what is your motivation for these suggestions you quote?

From what I understand, McKinney walked through a checkpoint that she's likely passed through many times. Her crime was not wearing a lapel pin, which is about the dumbest security measure I've ever heard of. I personally have seen Congresscritters passing the security checkpoints without such pins, also. (I don't care what the Capital Police say, I've seen it.) I cannot understand why they don't just issue manditory ID badges to be worn at the capital at all times. It's the law that anyone on the street must provide identification to LEO's, why not apply it to Congress? Anyways. Only this time, she's grabbed by a guy, and she decks the guy who grabbed her. Perhaps not the polite thing to do when it's a cop.

However, that cop's lucky he didn't try to do that with some of my lady friends. The cop got back all of his fingers and his arm in one piece, if you're going to go down for hitting an officer, might as well make it count.


Congresscritters are privileged from arrest and detaining on their way to and from session. One could argue that the stop itself was a violation of the Constitution, but it's sufficiently muddled. All and all, this is all pretty much making a mountain out of a mole hill. Congress needs better security procedures, the cop could have used better tact, and McKinney shouldn't have hit the officer. Both parties involved should issue something akin to an apology and move on. But it seems like they're both going to be stubborn.

I fail to see why more than a few people are very upset over this incident. It's not very important in the long run, and definitely not related to RKBA.

Lessons learned? Capital Police and Congress need to update their security procedures. A pin is incredibly stupid. CP could work on their questioning techniques. Congresscritters are generally annoying and stupid.

AJ Dual
April 4, 2006, 12:46 PM
Every time the thread comes up over "what is racisim"? I have a canned answer:

The biggest problem in "the debate" is that what is often decried as "racisim" is really "culturalisim".

There's a big difference, and it is being ignored.

Racisim is utterly indefensible on religious, scientific, logical, or moral grounds.

However, culturalisim is another matter, and depending on application, it is defensible.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban was "a culture". Monotheistic, mysoginistic, intolerant, and brutal. We went to war to destroy that culture, and disagree or not, unlike Iraq we did so with a fair amount of the world's blessing. We did much the same to destroy the Nazi culture during WWII. Extreme examples to be sure, but ones that illustrate that there are ways of life that a majority can agree that they find are reprehensible.

Therefore, unlike racisim where it's indefensible, you can postulate "Some cultures are better than others." This is something most people can agree on.

Which cultures are bad, and which are good is obviously open for a great deal debate, and I'm sure that we all have our ideas. :)

It's a product of the colectivist left mindset that no one can judge anyone on anything anywhere at any time that works to keep "culturalisim" wrapped under the blanket term "racisim" to keep it off the table of acceptable debate.

I believe that this is where the American "silent majority" that finds the inner-city 70% illegitimacy rate, the Nation of Islam, the Klu Klux Klan, and Neo-Nazi's all equaly repugnant finds itself trapped.

It's unfortunate, and segments of the population that might be encouraged to change thier ways, suffer for it.

Marshall
April 4, 2006, 01:01 PM
McKinney, 51, scuffled with a police officer on March 29 when she entered a House office building without her identifying lapel pin and did not stop when asked. Several police sources said the officer, who was not identified, asked her three times to stop. When she kept going, he placed a hand somewhere on her and she hit him, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Do you honestly think James Inhoff, Rick Santorum or even Nancy Pelosi, as examples, would have responded in this way? I think not.

The woman is a loon and an embarrassment. If you're asked to stop, you stop, period. The cop was doing his job, hell he asked her three times. It makes no mention of "grabbing her", the article says he placed a hand on her, likely her shoulder. I doubt he took a handful of breast. :rolleyes: This by no means gives her the right to hit the cop. She is a black woman with an attitude that everyone owes her something therefore putting her above the law and empowering her to act as an idiot without reprisal. People are sick of this attitude coming from minorities. They're sick of being labeled as racist at the whim of a minority. They're sick of walking on eggshells because of it. They're sick of putting up with a racist attitude from the people that are doing the accusing. I hope they throw he in jail for a few days. like that would ever happen. :rolleyes:

armoredman
April 4, 2006, 01:07 PM
Racism defined ina governmeat organization. Hispanic and black officers in my Dept can call me a cracker with impunity, but woe betide any non minority staff who use any term offensive to them be it wetback, the notorious "n" word, (when I grew up, it was not identified as a "letter" word, just a term you didn't use), or anything else they deem instantly "wrong".
I think I am going to start demanding my equal rights as a Norweigan-American, the placing of lutefisk and lefsa on the meal rotation, recognition of "uffda" as a trademarked phrase, the right to fly the Norweigan flag anywhere I want, Oleg and Sven jokes to be banned, and tellers thereof subject to charges, etc.
If I make this ridiculous enough, I wonder how far I can take it???:cool:

Camp David
April 4, 2006, 01:08 PM
Therefore, unlike racisim where it's indefensible, you can postulate "Some cultures are better than others." This is something most people can agree on.

Which cultures are bad, and which are good is obviously open for a great deal debate, and I'm sure that we all have our ideas.

AJ Dual=> You raise some interesting points, but your characterization of above of "some cultures being bad" I take exception to. Which cultures are you saying are bad? Can you specify?

A few related thoughts:

White children in American public schools, in my opinion, are being daily reminded that minorities are preferable; we have Asian Awareness Month, Black History Month, and Latin-American Month, we emphasize and honor one minority with a special day; i.e., MLK, and we continually regurgitate civil rights wrongs and paint these wrongs upon the white children of society. Is it any wonder they feel affronted? Is the white culture the one to which you refer as "bad"? What "culturalisim" are we offering to the youth of tomorrow in our public schools? That of minorityism?

I am tired of the schism of American society, where ethnic divisions are maintained via hypenated designations; i.e., Latin-Americans, Black-Americans, and Asian-Americans. This is my opinion is fundamentally wrong and perpetuates unnecessary stereo-types, racism, and division. We are all Americans! If you are born here you are American. Period. No more claims to cultural heritage. Your culture is American. And please no more emphasis of minorityism which leads others to feel affronted which leads to racism.

We are all Americans. No more racism and distinction of culturalism. If you were born in this land your culture is American. That's it. No hyphenated ethnic division.

cz75bdneos22
April 4, 2006, 01:18 PM
racist is just another label used to ascribe meaning to a selective group of human beings with certain negative (voiced) thoughts or who perpetrate negative, sometime criminal behaviors (actions). the word racist itself is neither good nor bad..its the act of voicing negative thoughts towards fellow human beings to denigrate, humiliate and abuse psychologically, emotionally and spiritually other human beings. More importantly, negative physical, often criminal behavior (actions) is the crux of the problem...afterall, if a person/s kept their racist POV inside their hearts and minds. Managed somehow to keep their mouth shut and in addition, never took action to hurt even a fly,..well, then truly thehighroad would open up to two-way traffic since it's been closed temporarily due to repairs to the tarmac....

JesseJames
April 4, 2006, 01:23 PM
Just watch the movie "Blazing Saddles".:neener:

Zundfolge
April 4, 2006, 01:26 PM
You may argue that things are different now and you'd be right, but it's highly doubtful that people are just going to forget what happened and "move on"...

The Irish have.

Frankly, until blacks do just "move on" (that is if you define "move on" as; stop blaming currently alive white people for the current problems in the black community) we'll never see harmony between the races (which of course is the point of groups like the NAACP ... if you keep people divided they are easy to control).



At any rate, the actual dictionary definition of racism is not the issue ... the issue is that "progressives" have realized that calling white people racist is a good easy way to dodge debate on the real issues between various political groups.


"Racism" is about political tactics, not race.

geekWithA.45
April 4, 2006, 01:47 PM
You may argue that things are different now and you'd be right, but it's highly doubtful that people are just going to forget what happened and "move on"...

I think there's something to that. It seems that in some cases, some minorities cling to their vicitimized status more tightly than those who cling to the practice of victimizing them.

Sometimes, people cling to their psychic pain, (as in heartbreak or anger for legitimate offenses) way beyond that pain's usefullness, and they sabotage themselves in the process.

Initially, clinging to pain has a point and purpose. It tells the person they've taken some damage, and that they need to take some steps to correct it. Beyond that, there is a legitimate reason to hold on for a time, until the mourning process is complete. After that, clinging to the pain is self destructive.

People do this because it gets them something that they value.

Providing societal and legal support for claims of racism beyond its actual merits is dangerous. It does no real justice to the aggrieved, retards the healing process, and unbalances society.


That we are having this discussion is, I think, a good thing. A society that is ready to discuss where racism ends and its subtleties is over the hump, and has done much to solve the issues of where racism starts and its gross forms.

CAnnoneer
April 4, 2006, 03:33 PM
Which cultures are you saying are bad?

Hmmm, a few come to mind:

1) Taliban (as AJD pointed out)
2) Nazi - that "untermenschen" / "herrenvolk" thing, "scorched earth"
3) a few primitive ones indulging in human sacrifice and cannibalism
4) Bolsheviks / commies - lots of killing of the "counterrevolutionary elements" and "bourgeoisie parasytes", GULag concentration camps, collectivization, corruption, torture

No, not all cultures are created equal. Thankfully, America proves that culture is not genetic.

lostone1413
April 4, 2006, 03:38 PM
Racism is easy to define. If your White and stand up for your race your a Racist If your Non White and stand up for your race our an Activist.

AJ Dual
April 4, 2006, 04:20 PM
AJ Dual=> You raise some interesting points, but your characterization of above of "some cultures being bad" I take exception to. Which cultures are you saying are bad? Can you specify?...
(snip)
Is the white culture the one to which you refer as "bad"? What "culturalisim" are we offering to the youth of tomorrow in our public schools? That of minorityism?


I already identified a couple of cultures I think are "bad". The Taliban, Nazisim, inner-city "thug culture" (black, white, asian, & hispanic) that's defined by things like a 90%+ illegitimacy rate and "stop snitching" t-shirts, toothless whites screaming and slapping each other on "The Jerry Springer Show", the Klu Klux Klan, small African nations that practice forced female circumcision, asian nations that practice sex-selective abortion with high rates of female infanticide, etc. etc. etc.

All are examples of bad culture, and sadly, I could go on nearly forever with more were I to do nothing but pore over the news and the history books. :(

I feel "inferior" cultures are just about any that are predominantly defined by lack of respect, either for one's self or others, and/or the community at large.

There is no "perfect culture" anywhere on earth, but there are certainly examples of "better". They are usualy denoted by stressing the importance of family, education, work ethic, the proper balance of rights and responsibility between the individual and the community, and keeping reproduction within stable two-parent relationships whenever possible.

I agree that what passes for "multiculturalisim" in modern public education is realy "every-culture-but-Euro/American-Western-Civilization-isim", and that's a problem. Because it's the freedom endemic to modern Western Civilization that created the concepts of "tolerance" and "multiculturalisim" in the first place. Without the foundation of Western Civilization it depends on, multiculturalisim dosen't exist.

I sincerely doubt that they teach "multiculturalisim" in China, Somalia, Afghanistan, or anywhere else outside Europe, Canada, and the U.S. :rolleyes:

engineer151515
April 4, 2006, 05:11 PM
perhaps a law making false claims of racism a felony

the opposite of a "hate crime" - the anti-hate crime.

sigh

Legally, racism is a lot like sexual harrasment as it's charge is based on what the victim percieves and what a jury will decide.

I bet there is some way I can offer you a cheeseburger and, in somebody's mind and on somebody's jury, it could be pronounced "racist".

As the Earth's population continues to explode, the people of the world will need to decide if we really can live together and get past cultural, religious and melanin differences.

DRZinn
April 4, 2006, 07:56 PM
You may argue that things are different now and you'd be right, but it's highly doubtful that people are just going to forget what happened and "move on".. My dad is from Lousiana and he can tell me all kinds of stories of growing up as a kid in LA.. being subjected to Jim Crow Laws, terrorized by the KKK, etc. All that stuff happened in his lifetime..But we'll never be able to move past it until we act as though we've forgotten it. People like Cynthia McKinney make sure that it can never be forgotten.

You raise some interesting points, but your characterization of above of "some cultures being bad" I take exception to. Which cultures are you saying are bad? Can you specify?That's another part of the problem, right there. The unwillingness to judge, whether it be individuals, groups, or cultures. Some people are better than others.

we emphasize and honor one minority with a special day; i.e., MLK, Um, that day honors an individual who fought and died for the right of everyone to be judged "by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin." If you insist on affiliating it with a particular group, you're going to have to include me, and I'm as white as they come.

I am tired of the schism of American society, where ethnic divisions are maintained via hypenated designations; i.e., Latin-Americans, Black-Americans, and Asian-Americans. This is my opinion is fundamentally wrong and perpetuates unnecessary stereo-types, racism, and division. We are all Americans! If you are born here you are American. Period. No more claims to cultural heritage. Your culture is American. And please no more emphasis of minorityism which leads others to feel affronted which leads to racism.

We are all Americans. No more racism and distinction of culturalism. If you were born in this land your culture is American. That's it. No hyphenated ethnic division.And there I have nothing but agreement.

We will only be able to move forward when we can ignore skin color.

Look, words mean things. If you were born in Africa and are now an American, then you are an African-American. If, however, you were born and raised in America, you are an American (and should be proud enough of it, at least, to avoid tacking another origin onto it). If you have dark skin, the common term is "black." Yes, I know, they're really a light to dark brown, but then I'm not really "white" in the absolute sense of the term either.

Just as JShirley said, I don't go around making people call me "European-American." If it's relevant at all, I'm white. I'd be perfectly happy dropping the issue altogether, but the race-baiters would never have that.

edited for spelling

Cuda
April 4, 2006, 08:10 PM
The women is a putz, she is just using race as a way to avoid getting in trouble.. If she hit the cop (innocent until proven guilty) then she should pay the piper regardless of her race, religion or hairdoo.

A little off subject.

Racisim sucks, however in this day and age no one, white, black, yellow etc. should be treated above another just because of their skin color.


C

ElTacoGrande
April 4, 2006, 08:14 PM
We all have a deep instinctual distrust / dislike of people who are not part of our tribe. It's genetic. Some of us figure this out, figure out "hey tribes aren't that import anymore, all I want to do is make lots of money and race doesn't matter." Others don't figure this out, or think that tribes still are important (which is true in some cases). I don't have a problem with people discriminating on race, except that taxpayer-supported activities at every level should be thoroughly color-blind.

Rembrandt
April 4, 2006, 08:59 PM
There are already libel and slander laws on the book for intentionally making false statements. An interesting question is, what is your motivation for these suggestions you quote?

Perhaps my question can be clarified and better explained....seems more people are using "racism" as their number one defense. If it's against the law to falsely cry "FIRE" in a crowded theater....then shouldn't these false claims of racism be treated the same?

The second part of my original post.....Let's say making a false claim of racism was against the law....could it be clearly defined in court of law just as crying "FIRE" in a theater? But if Racism is truly subjective....then having a law against it would be pointless.

P.S....thanks for the replies, some very good thoughts on this topic.

Camp David
April 4, 2006, 09:48 PM
Some people are better than others.

Isn't that for God to judge? And further, when we put one person ahead of another, one ethnic group above another, one race over another, aren't we being abusive of God?

Strings
April 4, 2006, 09:57 PM
>Isn't that for God to judge? And further, when we put one person ahead of another, one ethnic group above another, one race over another, aren't we being abusive of God?<

Would that matter to an Atheist?

And which God should we question about their views on racism? I'm pretty sure Loki thinks it's a great idea, don't think Zeus has much of an opinion, and (not sure here) Innana finds the practice slightly repulsive. Allah (according to certain followers) thinkis it's wonderful...

Bringing "God" into any such discussion immediately brings religion. Since there are quite a few different religions represented (both on the board, and in the country), maybe we should just leave "God's Opinion" out of it?

RevDisk
April 4, 2006, 11:46 PM
Perhaps my question can be clarified and better explained....seems more people are using "racism" as their number one defense. If it's against the law to falsely cry "FIRE" in a crowded theater....then shouldn't these false claims of racism be treated the same?

The second part of my original post.....Let's say making a false claim of racism was against the law....could it be clearly defined in court of law just as crying "FIRE" in a theater? But if Racism is truly subjective....then having a law against it would be pointless.

Falsely crying fire in a crowded theater is easily proven, either there is a fire or not. Falsely crying racism is very hard to prove in court. You can't glance at a person and (usually) say that person is a racist. Unless they have pro-Nazi or "Kill All White People" tattoos, there's usually not a sure fire way to prove it one way or another. You might believe someone is falsely crying racism. Prove it in a court of law, with real evidence.

So, no, the two should not be treated the same because they are completely different. Actually, they're apart as far apart as one can get. One is a simple true/false scenerio. The other is nearly impossible to prove.

And yes, racism is usually subjective. Again, unless the person has Nazi or "Kill All White People" tattoos, you do not know if they are racist or not. You can believe someone is racist or not, but proving it is much larger.


Again, libel and slander laws are already on the book. If someone calls you a racist, you can take them to court, try to prove that you are not one, and maybe win some cash.

DRZinn
April 5, 2006, 01:21 AM
Isn't that for God to judge? And further, when we put one person ahead of another, one ethnic group above another, one race over another, aren't we being abusive of God?You judge people every day. Or, at least most of us do.

You might decide, if you're hiring help, that one person is better qualified than another. You might also decide that although a person is slightly less technically qualified, he'll be a lot easier to get along with and thus a much greater asset to the company.

Or, you might decide to call a friend and invite him over for a beer. You judged him, on this particular night, to be a better person to have over for a beer than any of your other friends or acquaintances.

There are many other examples, but my point is that judging other people is part of our lives, and there's nothing wrong with it.The problem comes when you use criteria inappropriate to the decision. If I am choosing my frineds and want to exclude people from a particular region or of a particular skin tone, There's not really anything morally wrong with that (pretty stupid, but after all, if I don't like them we wouldn't get on too well as friends). If, on the other hand, I excluded them from the job I'm hiring for, I'd be missing qualified candidates.

However, if I have some experience with that group of people I may have objectively decided that the chances of someone in that group being qualified are not enough for me to spend my time on them when I have so many other qualified candidates. What then? Well, no-one has a right to a particular job, so tough. Since you, as an outside observer, have no way of knowing whether I'm excluding that group from consideration based on my experience with them or because I'm an idiot.

I'm not sure if I'm being clear here.

Double Naught Spy
April 5, 2006, 05:16 AM
perhaps a law making false claims of racism a felony

A felony? Under what circumstances?

Can racism be clearly defined? Sure, but the interpretation of the definition and what consitutes racism is problematic.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/racism

"culturalism," to describe an inability or unwillingness to tolerate cultural differences [between your culture and another]

Let me get this straight. McKinney was identified by a Capitol Police officer as being an intruder, possible threat, when McKinney entered the House Office building without the proper credentials and then refused to stop when ordered to do so by the officer? It sounds like she is lucky the officer did not tackle, club, tazer, or shoot McKinney instead of just touching her to get her to stop. Let's see, no idea and won't stop when ordered, and in a government building in the Capitol. Would that make her a possible threat such as being something like a terrorist attempting to once again damage our goverment.

CAnnoneer said,
Leftist definition:
Racism is a belief system that is despicable in a white person and laudable in a non-white person.

Um, no. What you are describing is reverse racism.

Every time the thread comes up over "what is racisim"? I have a canned answer:

The biggest problem in "the debate" is that what is often decried as "racisim" is really "culturalisim".

There's a big difference, and it is being ignored.

Racisim is utterly indefensible on religious, scientific, logical, or moral grounds.

However, culturalisim is another matter, and depending on application, it is defensible.

Here is where you are showing your bias on the topic. You say that racism isn't defendsible, but culturalism is. The bias shown here is that racism is a bad thing and culturalism isn't and/or that culturalism has some good uses.

From your insight, I would tend to believe that your explanation and differentiation between the terms is because you are not a racist. You don't like racism and so as to show why racism is bad, you imbue it with the traits of not being defensible on many levels. While you may not think it defensible, racists sure do.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban was "a culture". Monotheistic, mysoginistic, intolerant, and brutal. We went to war to destroy that culture, and disagree or not, unlike Iraq we did so with a fair amount of the world's blessing. We did much the same to destroy the Nazi culture during WWII. Extreme examples to be sure, but ones that illustrate that there are ways of life that a majority can agree that they find are reprehensible.

Some may think one culture is better than another, but in doing so, such people are being ethnocentric. This is the case with AJ Dual, especially by his attribution of only negative traits about the Taliban and other cultures. No doubt many of the "bad" cultures named feel the the US is a "bad" culture as well.

I am doubtful of your claim that invading Afghanistan to hunt the Taliban was centered on the goal of destroying the Taliban culture. We did not go to war in WWII to destroy the Nazi culture. Our hostilities will stop with the Taliban once they succumb and stop their aggressions and after bin Laden is caught or proved dead. Had Hitler surrendered before Germany was invaded, the aggresion to Germany would have been stopped. In both cases, the culture would continue, potentially, but under new managment. In the case of WWII, the goals were to stop Germany's government and military, not to kill off the Nazi culture. Note, the government is not the culture, just the ruling group/person for the culture.

Just curious, do you also think the North went to war with the South so that it could destroy southern culture?

No doubt many of the "bad" cultures named feel the the US is a "bad" culture as well.

Just because you don't like all the traits of other cultures, who are you to judge those cultures as being bad? What makes the standards you like justified for evaluating other cultures?

These statements are amazing...

I already identified a couple of cultures I think are "bad". The Taliban, Nazisim, inner-city "thug culture" (black, white, asian, & hispanic) that's defined by things like a 90%+ illegitimacy rate and "stop snitching" t-shirts, toothless whites screaming and slapping each other on "The Jerry Springer Show", the Klu Klux Klan, small African nations that practice forced female circumcision, asian nations that practice sex-selective abortion with high rates of female infanticide, etc. etc. etc.

The traits you denote for the good/bad culture evaluation are simply amazing. They read a lot like Buffon's 1850s classification of cultural groups around the world as other species (not just race, but species) based upon traits such as dress, individual behaviors, customs of the culture and some anatomical traits such as height, distance between the eyes, musculature, etc.

Sorry dude, but you can't classify a culture as a culture based on such trivial matters as reading, t-shirts, being on Jerry Springer.

TexasRifleman
April 5, 2006, 08:41 AM
The reason we (black people) were have things like BET, NAACP, Negro College Fund, etc is because historically we've been treated like second class citizens. None of that stuff would have been required if blacks hadn't been forceably segrated and excluded from American culture in the first place.

Christians were once thrown to the lions in Rome, should I get mad every time I see an Italian?

How long you gonna continue to carry that grudge? What purpose does it serve to continue to bring up the past?

It happened, it was bad, we had a Civil War over it (among other things), a Civil Rights movement. It's gone. A good portion of the problems facing Black youth today are self inflicted and caused, in part, by an "entitlement" feeling that the groups you mention continue to push.

Why does NAACP call for the head of Bill Cosby when he makes his arguments that make more sense than anything else out there?

The groups you mentioned clearly do not benefit by "equality of the races" so that can't possibly be their primary goal.

DRZinn
April 5, 2006, 01:20 PM
Some may think one culture is better than another, but in doing so, such people are being ethnocentric.You're damn right I am. We make judgements all the time, for good reason. Frankly, I'm tired of having the sanctimonious accusation "ethnocentric" thrown at me every time I point out the failings of a society or state. Mention any way in which a culture which celebrates individual liberty might be better than another which does not and it's "Ethnocentric! Ethnocentric! Ethnocentric!" I'm sick of it.

Just because you don't like all the traits of other cultures, who are you to judge those cultures as being bad?A thinking, reasoning person, who sees individual rights as sacrosanct, including things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and as such I gauge cultures which respect those things as "better" than those which do not.

The traits you denote for the good/bad culture evaluation are simply amazing. They read a lot like Buffon's 1850s classification of cultural groups around the world as other species (not just race, but species) based upon traits such as dress, individual behaviors, customs of the culture and some anatomical traits such as height, distance between the eyes, musculature, etc.There it is, in fancy dress: the Race Card.

It couldn't possibly be that he thinks it's terrible for children to grow up without both parents, and that therefore a culture with skyrocketing illegitimacy rates just might have a problem.

It couldn't possibly be that he thinks airing your dirty laundry and acting like a fool on national television is bad, and that therefore a culture which celebrates such behavior might have a problem.

It couldn't possibly be that he thinks forcing a woman to submit to having her clitoris cut off is bad, and thus any culture which includes a widespread incidence of this practice might have a problem.

It can only be that he's a bigot.

Never mind that he included the Nazis and the KKK as "bad" cultures.

Harry Tuttle
April 5, 2006, 01:38 PM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/docZox//racist.jpg

crazed_ss
April 5, 2006, 02:09 PM
Christians were once thrown to the lions in Rome, should I get mad every time I see an Italian?

How long you gonna continue to carry that grudge? What purpose does it serve to continue to bring up the past?

It happened, it was bad, we had a Civil War over it (among other things), a Civil Rights movement. It's gone. A good portion of the problems facing Black youth today are self inflicted and caused, in part, by an "entitlement" feeling that the groups you mention continue to push.

Why does NAACP call for the head of Bill Cosby when he makes his arguments that make more sense than anything else out there?

The groups you mentioned clearly do not benefit by "equality of the races" so that can't possibly be their primary goal.

Christians.. Romans... Ancient History.

Refer back to the story about my dad. He really isnt that old of guy. Do you really all the young klansmen and racists that used to harrass him and deny him rights have all just changed their ways? It goes both ways. Everyone always talks about blacks who cant let go of history.. what about all the whites who cant let go?

People are still flying Confederate flags to this day.. The Civil War was 150 years ago. why dont they just "move on" and put away that flag and fly a US Flag? Like I said.. old wounds heal slow. Jim Crow Laws, the civil rights movement, etc, etc are still FRESH in the minds of millions of Americans.

I hate visiting my family in the South because as soon as I get there, I just get an uneasy feeling of not being welcome in some places. I visited Baton Rouge awhile back.. I was hungry so I went to a Waffle House to eat. There's a black guy in there with a white woman. I didnt think anything of it.. in CA, stuff like that is cool. Apparently that isnt the case in LA.. Some guys start calling the girl all kinds of names.. her bf says stuff back to defend her.. sheriff is called out. All that because a guy has a white girlfriend.
Dont tell me racism is gone, but I can tell you from first hand experience that is alive and well.

That being said, I'm never gonna use racism as an excuse if something doesnt go my way or someone treats me badly. That's completely irresponsible. Congresswoman McKinney did everyone a disservice by immediately screaming racism when it seems she was clearly in in the wrong.

TexasRifleman
April 5, 2006, 02:24 PM
It goes both ways. Everyone always talks about blacks who cant let go of history.. what about all the whites who cant let go?

Yes, there are some that have not let go, but you use the "they do it so I still can" justification.

So the Civil war not as long a time ago as Romans killing Christians. Ancient History? Plenty of people still hunting Christians. Just last week a government that WE set up wanted to execute one..... some things are not going to disappear totally. There will always be racism and there will always be religions bigotry. That is not justification to "give it back".

2 rights don't make a wrong and doing the "well it's still recent history so it counts" thing doesn't solve anything either.

I go to Oak Cliff to this little place for soul food and I'm the only white guy there. Do I get funny looks? Should I not go there because I am white? So as a white guy in an all black area I experience the same as you did in Louisiana. Plenty on both sides doing wrong, but it's never an excuse to not do things right.

We can both complain about it, or ignore it. I ignore it, cause the food is good enough to ignore the dirty looks.

crazed_ss
April 5, 2006, 02:40 PM
Good points.. and I actually believe things are getting much better in this country, especially considering where we were just 40 years. I'm 26 and all the racism I've experienced has always been from random individuals.. I've never experienced any noticable institutional type racism in buying a house, getting a job, etc. I dont think we should immediately write off people who claims they're being treated unfairly though. A lot of comments in this thread lead me to think that many people believe a person who claims they were treated unfairly due to race are just making it up. That may be the case sometimes, but racism still exists and it would be foolish believe otherwise.

When McKinney pulls stunts like this, it only serves to hurt people who might be true victims of racism because when they speak up everyone will just say.. "Oh, they're pulling the race card.. those people always do that". This incident will only divide people further :(

TexasRifleman
April 5, 2006, 02:54 PM
but racism still exists and it would be foolish believe otherwise.

Agree 100% with ya there..... and no I don't think we should immediately write off anyone that thinks they are being treated unfairly, but neither should we immediately hold them up as "victims".

As you say, INSTITUTIONAL racism doesn't really seem to happen often regardless of what some claim. If it does, there should be severe penalties, but let's make danged sure it really happened first.

In this particular case, the Congresswoman pulled a pretty boneheaded stunt to say the least :D

Harry Tuttle
April 5, 2006, 04:59 PM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/docZox//disguise.jpg

no wonder the officer did not recognize her
she's a master of disguise

you would think her lawyer might advise her to keep a consistent look for the next couple of weeks

Phetro
April 5, 2006, 05:01 PM
I'm certainly not for more laws regulating the public....but maybe it's time to nip some of these wild claims in the bud.....perhaps a law making false claims of racism a felony. Or opening the people crying "racism" up to civil lawsuits.

Now here's a great point: I'm certainly not for more laws regulating the public, but let's make more laws.

More laws are not the answer. Eliminating laws and lawsuits is the answer.

Cortez
April 5, 2006, 05:11 PM
Racism is anything that a white caucasian does or says that doesn't meet with the approval of anybody else.

Only white caucasians can be racist.

lostone1413
April 5, 2006, 05:25 PM
Cortez how true it is. Only Whites are racist non white are activist.

One of Many
April 5, 2006, 05:31 PM
Negros were, in the earliest days of this country (and in other parts of the world), treated as inferior to Caucasians, by the majority that happened to be Caucasian; that was racism. The result of racism was slavery or poorly paid servitude of Negros by Caucasians, and a societal segregation based on race, but not ethnicity. Caucasians of different ethnicities were integrated into the society at large, while Negros were kept apart.

Social and legal injustices were perpetrated against Negros by Caucasians of many ethnicities. As a result, Negros have sought to be treated equally, and recently laws have been passed to eliminate the inequities that were hindering the achievement of equal social, financial and education status by Negros in a predominately Caucasian society. Most people would accept equality by Negros without any reservation, provided that they were not degraded in the process (increase the status of the Negros - do not decrease the status of the Caucasians).

The problem we have currently, is that equality was never given an opportunity to develop; the current political and religious leadership of the Negros, have demanded reprisal, and superiority to current Caucasians, as compensation for actions performed by long-dead ancestors of today’s Caucasians. Reverse racial discrimination is just as bad as the original racial discrimination.

Instead of seeking integration as equals into a society of mixed race, ethnicity and culture, the militaristic Negro leadership today, is self-segregating their people, for the purpose of performing the very same actions of exploitation against Caucasians, that were practiced against the Negros in the past. This is easily observed by the terms African-American, Black-American, Congressional Black Caucus, Black History Month, etc. The NAACP and Rainbow Coalition do not seek equality, they seek reprisals against the Caucasian great-great-great-grandchildren of the people that oppressed their ancestors.

The sense of entitlement that has resulted from this attitude of the Negro leadership, results in young Negros refusing to take responsibility for developing skills necessary to compete in an open society. That lack of skill results in a degraded existence that the Negro leadership blames on discrimination by the Caucasian majority in society. Other minority ethnicities (Asian and Hispanic) have been able to achieve equality in society, because they do not claim to be entitled, and deserving of reprisals; they work to educate themselves, and work within society to advance themselves.

Some young Negros today grow up in single parent homes, with brothers and sisters of different fathers, whom they have never even seen. They roam the streets unsupervised, and start associating with the criminal element at a young age; many become criminals themselves before adulthood. The majority of violent crime today is Negro against Negro. These are not caused by Caucasian discrimination against Negros.

The Negro leadership (Jesse Jackson, et al) continues to blame the Caucasian majority of society for the failure of Negro persons to be responsible for their own actions; they foster a sense of dependency on the entitlement (the reprisal against past wrongs by Caucasians), and when society is incapable of meeting their demands, they demand even more outrageous entitlements. They continue to further segregate themselves, for the purpose of stirring up unrest among their supporters, in an effort to enhance their power and glory, gaining political strength and financial wealth; they are similar to the Caucasian religious cults in this regard.

Racism is the predominate claim that is used by these Negro leaders to enflame their followers; the resultant unrest among the Negro population causes more money to flow to these leaders, and an increase in numbers of people blindly supporting their leadership. Riots based on the rhetoric of race sometimes result, usually causing more damage among the Negro population that any other ethnic group.

That is why I believe that the most racist (bigoted) people in the country today, are the Negro leaders. They have the most to gain by playing the race card; political power - fame and glory - and financial wealth. The Caucasian leadership recognizes that social unrest and violent upheaval are not conducive to their political power, fame or wealth; they try to avoid situations where any racial discrimination can occur. The Caucasian leadership has nothing to gain by being racists (bigots).

Sometimes individual cases of bigotry occur among the less well educated Caucasian element of society; that seems to get much more news coverage than the similar bigotry among the less well educated Negro population. It isn't news if a Negro discriminates against a Caucasian. This reverse discrimination is damaging to society. Affirmative action in hiring and school admissions has caused damage to Caucasians (by exclusion), and frequently resulted in damage to the Negros that received preferential treatment on the basis of race, because they were incompetent to perform at the required level of the position they received.

As a Caucasian, growing up in a racially mixed neighborhood, I performed yard work and house repairs for a Negro widow that lived next door to me. When I bought my first house, it was in a mixed neighborhood with a predominately Hispanic population (both next door neighbors). I do not consider myself to be racist or bigoted. I do get quite incensed when I see Negro leaders on the news claiming that certain acts by Caucasians were racially motivated, even though the facts indicate otherwise. I deplore reverse discrimination, whether in the form of affirmative action or otherwise. You can not cure one evil by creating an opposing evil. Preferential discrimination is just as bad as injurious discrimination.

You can not change hundreds or thousands of years of cultural identity and social mores, by passing laws; certainly not by giving one culture preferential treatment over another. Integration can be encouraged, but can not be enforced; assimilation will take many life-times. This country is supposed to be a melting-pot. Segregation on the basis of race does not fit that pattern, and was never the goal of the founders of this country, who realized that slavery would eventually be eliminated, but could not occur quickly.

Slavery was not racially motivated; it was economically motivated. The original slave trade occurred among the various tribes in Africa; when one tribe lost a war, the winning tribe enslaved the losing side. When Caucasian traders stopped in Africa, the winners sold their captives to the Caucasian traders, who then took them to Europe, and later to the British Colonies, including the colonies that became the United States. The new United States inherited slavery, and could not suffer the consequences of the economic destruction that would have occurred by abolishing slavery when the country was formed.

Slavery was racist because the Caucasians considered the Negros to be inferior as a race, because their culture was savage; they were uncivilized by European standards (clothing - or lack thereof, religious and medical practices, food types and preparation, methods of warfare, etc.) Compare the cultures of Negros in today’s African countries to the culture of Negros in the United States today; their is a vast difference in the cultures, because the passage of time and separation of distance has allowed some assimilation to occur in the United States.

When today’s Negro leader claims certain actions are based on racial discrimination, it has no relevance to the racial discrimination that allowed slavery to exist. When they claim reparation is due, because Caucasians are still discriminating on the basis of race, it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors; a method of disguising the real motive and action they are trying to achieve.

Racism as alleged by the Negro leadership today is phony.

One of Many
April 5, 2006, 05:33 PM
Double Tap.

DRZinn
April 5, 2006, 08:12 PM
The problem we have currently, is that equality was never given an opportunity to develop;There is evidence that it was beginning to develop, before the Great Society.

lostone1413
April 5, 2006, 08:28 PM
I get so sick and tired how the White People get blamed for everything. Every race that is Non White has had their lifestyle improve by the White Race. I bet no one can name one 3rd world country that is run by the Whites.

crazed_ss
April 5, 2006, 08:39 PM
I get so sick and tired how the White People get blamed for everything. Every race that is Non White has had their lifestyle improve by the White Race. I bet no one can name one 3rd world country that is run by the Whites.

You're superiority is noted. Thank you for saving us savages.
:rolleyes:

DRZinn
April 5, 2006, 08:49 PM
Every race that is Non White has had their lifestyle improve by the White Race.Trying your damnedest to undermine my argument, aren't you?:banghead:

I'd say the "black race" in the US since the 50's has had their lifestyle significantly worsened by well-intentioned members of the "white race" through welfare programs that kill the initiative and industriousness they were showing until then.

mordechaianiliewicz
April 5, 2006, 09:14 PM
Racism is the belief that one race (typically yours) is better than other races. Its that simple. Now, if you are prejudiced, while that may be wrong, bad, a handicap in judgement, etc. It is not racism.

lostone1413
April 5, 2006, 09:29 PM
I stand by what I said. Just listen to a Jesse Jackson a Louis Farikan. Tell me they aren't every bit as racist as a David Duke is. You hear allot of Whites speak out against a David Duke. Give me a list of Black leaders who have publicly come out against a Jackson or a Farikan. The trouble the Whites have been so brainwashed I think we are the only race were so many are ashamed of being White

gc70
April 5, 2006, 10:43 PM
by crazed_ss
There's a black guy in there with a white woman. I didnt think anything of it.. in CA, stuff like that is cool. Apparently that isnt the case in LA.. Some guys start calling the girl all kinds of names.. her bf says stuff back to defend her.. sheriff is called out. All that because a guy has a white girlfriend.This appears to be a classic description of racism - a person being treated differently (and harshly or repressively) for no other reason than their race.

Congresswoman McKinney's claim that her treatment by the Capitol Police officer was motivated by racism fails the test. No unidentified person, regardless of sex, race, or appearance, would have been allowed to waltz past the security checkpoint, so McKinney was treated just like anyone else would have been in that situation.

American By Blood
April 5, 2006, 11:59 PM
I get so sick and tired how the White People get blamed for everything. Every race that is Non White has had their lifestyle improve by the White Race. I bet no one can name one 3rd world country that is run by the Whites.

Albania, dude. Albania.

Silver Bullet
April 6, 2006, 12:04 AM
"Racist": any straight, white, male who is not intimidated by minorities.

crazed_ss
April 6, 2006, 12:09 AM
"Racist": any straight, white, male who is not intimidated by minorities

That is not the case.. please stop with the victimzed white male crap. It's complete BS.
Once again.. everyone in this thread has a problem with people playing the "race card" and then you guys turn around and DO THE SAME EXACT THING.. Unbelievable.

cz75bdneos22
April 6, 2006, 12:10 AM
mordecai,

i thought that meant "supremacist" wheter be white, black, brown etc..i could be wrong though...:o

American By Blood
April 6, 2006, 12:36 AM
One of the things this thread has illustrated very clearly is that the definition of racism really is subjective. Numerous ideas about the meaning of the term have been floated--many of them contradictory or divergent yet all reflecting commonly held ideas about race and racism.

Some that most intrigued me were along the lines of (apologies in advance for my loose quoting) "racism is the belief that one race is superior to another," "racism is the belief that one race is more intelligent than others," and "racism is morally and scientifically unsupportable."

The first is interesting because it is by far the most commonly held. The problem is that it's a statement without meaning. What is superiority? I don't mean to wax overly philosophical, but the reality of a generalized superiority is unobservable and unmeasurable. Superiority is not an attribute like height, weight, or eye color. One can say that some races have denser bones (fact) or have longer gestation periods (again, fact), but do observations like those lend themselves to a sum judgement of worth? The kind of thinking that relies on such easily dismissed notions is, in a word, shoddy. Bigots who believe things like that are (at best) intellectually lazy and the same goes for people on the other side who claim that making observations about human differences equates to such beliefs.

The second caught my eye because it indicts just about every single research psychologist in the world as a racist. There are measurable IQ differences between human groups. Few psychologists deny this. Where the scientific debate rages (and yes, it is still ongoing--see the June 2005 issue of the APA's "Psychology, Public Policy, and Law" for an example of very recent research into the topic) is whether these differences have a hereditary component or if they're purely environmental. Laymen and professionals alike have to tread very carefully in this territory. People outside of the scientific fold have to resist the urge to jump to conclusions about the character of reputable specialists who do this sort of work, while the scholars have to constantly remind the uninitiated that they're not making sweeping generalizations but are instead discussing average numbers and that members of every group are represented at both ends of the scale.

The third is fascinating because it isn't a definition at all. It's criticism based on an assumed meaning.

What every definition had in common, though, was that the term was given a negative meaning. This brings me back to the point of my initial post. "Racism" is an epithet and not an adjective. It's used to smear people, policies, and ideas that the wielder dislikes. By calling someone or something "racist," discussion is quashed because the thing has already been declared taboo. Nasty, nasty stuff.

gc70
April 6, 2006, 01:08 AM
Below are two definitions of racism found in a quick Google search:

(1) discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
(2) discrimination or prejudice based on race

Both recognize racism as a type of behavior, while one extends the definition to be a type of attitude.

CAnnoneer
April 6, 2006, 01:16 AM
please stop with the victimzed white male crap. It's complete BS.

I'd agree the day we end affirmative action, racial quotas, and reverse discrimination.

Just last week I talked to a friend who applied for a very nice position in a prestigious local school. He is an excellent candidate but did not even get interviewed. The position was given to a black lady that does not have a 10th of my friend's track record. This is not an isolated incident.

crazed_ss
April 6, 2006, 01:28 AM
You got any stats on this widespread discrimination against whites?

I wish I could find some more recent stats, but an article about this issue..
http://www.indiana.edu/~speaweb/perspectives/vol3/critics.html
On reverse discrimination, I will note that a 1995 study commissioned by the Department of Labor found that affirmative action programs do not lead to widespread reverse discrimination claims by Whites. Indeed, a high proportion of such claims filed were found to lack merit. The analysis found that only 100 out of 3,000 discrimination cases filed up to 1994 involved reverse discrimination, and in only six of the cases were such claims substantiated.

You're friend claiming he didnt get the job simply because his race is just as outrageous as McKinney claiming the police officer stopped her simply becase she was a black woman.

crazed_ss
April 6, 2006, 01:32 AM
Racial quotas are illegal.

There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination regardless of who is doing it.

How do you know this woman's track record? Did you conduct the interview? Did you put her resume together?

You're the one playing the race card here by assuming this woman got a job simply on the basis of race. You ever think she might have been better qualified for the position?

You said your buddy didnt even get an interview. So how can you be sure he was passed over due to his race? Does your friend put his race on his resume?

Art Eatman
April 6, 2006, 01:33 AM
Ah, but CAnnoneer: Of what race were those who set up such a system?

Which is part of the whole "racism" and "reverse-racism" problem: The terminology means different things to different people.

Given what I've seen since Lyndon started his Great Society, I snuck in when nobody was looking and voted several times for "subjective". In today's world, dictionaries and political usage of words just don't go together.

Which is why discussions of race and religion generally don't ever get resolved into any rational consensus--just squabbling and flame wars.

Art

gc70
April 6, 2006, 01:42 AM
by crazed_ss
Racial quotas are illegal.
Racial quotas are indeed illegal and affirmative action is perfectly legal. If affirmative action does not achieve 'desired results' as measured through 'effects tests,' it is also perfectly legal for courts to order 'remedial action.'

:confused:

So flatly stating a numeric goal is illegal, but stating an ideal is legal. If the ideal does not achieve the desired result (the unstated numeric goal), then it is legal to force the outcome to achieve the goal.

That's about as much doubletalk as my brain can handle.

CAnnoneer
April 6, 2006, 01:56 AM
How do you know this woman's track record? Did you conduct the interview? Did you put her resume together?

Excellent questions. Let me explain.

Scientists measure achievement by the number and importance of published papers. That's how you keep score. Generally, the more important the paper, the better journal it goes into. The quickest and easiest way to gauge two candidates is compare the number and quality of their publications.

My friend has more publications and in singificantly better journals (This is undeniable public record). For a professorial position that is of virtually decisive importance.

But, enter fedgov. If the institution wants federal funding, they have to have a certain percentage of minorities and women among their faculty. That's a quota. So, schools get smart and hire black women, because each counts as two for the fedgov percentages. Again, this is not an isolated incident.

Do you see now? The fact that he did not even get an interview speaks volumes.

crazed_ss
April 6, 2006, 02:13 AM
But do you know for absolute fact that you're friend was passed over because he wasnt black or are you just assuming? Maybe there were other factors involved.

When I was hired on for my job as a Network Technician, I didnt know much at all about Cisco routing and switching. The 4 white guys I went up against all had college degrees, experience and Cisco certifications.. None of them got the job. Why? Because I had a security clearance from the military and our company figured it be cheaper to train me than it would to get security clearances for the guys with all the qualifications.

Now those 4 white guys who didnt get hired could look at me and assume they hired me simply because I was black, but they'd all be wrong. It's stupid to pull out the race card simply because something doesnt go the way you think it should.

*cough*
Congresswoman McKinney

CAnnoneer
April 6, 2006, 02:59 AM
I cannot keep a straight face and assert that I know for a fact that that is what happened in this very case. But, based on the information I have and knowing how the system works, IMO the conclusion is the overwhelmingly likely one. Everyday we make judgments on limited information. Why should this one be any less reasonable? I have presented the information that I do know for a fact. Everyone is then free to make their own conclusions.

Now those 4 white guys who didnt get hired could look at me and assume they hired me simply because I was black, but they'd all be wrong.

That's precisely my point. If there were no affirmative action and quotas, there would be no reason for the 4 white guys, my friend, or myself to even suspect foulplay.

NineseveN
June 2, 2006, 11:48 PM
But do you know for absolute fact that you're friend was passed over because he wasnt black or are you just assuming? Maybe there were other factors involved.

When I was hired on for my job as a Network Technician, I didnt know much at all about Cisco routing and switching. The 4 white guys I went up against all had college degrees, experience and Cisco certifications.. None of them got the job. Why? Because I had a security clearance from the military and our company figured it be cheaper to train me than it would to get security clearances for the guys with all the qualifications.

Now those 4 white guys who didnt get hired could look at me and assume they hired me simply because I was black, but they'd all be wrong. It's stupid to pull out the race card simply because something doesnt go the way you think it should.

*cough*
Congresswoman McKinney
__________________


That would be fine, except it costs less to fund a security clearance than it does real Cisco training (security clearances should normally be factored into the hiring process and looked at as a bonus if no funding was needed).

Anyone, regardless of knowledge, can pass a security check with the right background, Cisco routing and switching cannot be learned by just anyone, neither can the other myriad of networking areas (most so-called "Cisco guys" I have met know very little past basic IOS commands, how to telnet and make minor config changes and have to call a Sr. Tech or someone from Cisco to explain to them what the blinking lights on the back of the modules mean when troubleshooting).


So either the person that hired you was really bad with numbers and not too bright on the ratio of investment VS reward, or that's just the story you were given and are comfortable with...or maybe there's more to the story? Your background might have been in another networking technology area that was of particular use? You had more on-the-job experience? Were you given extra special treatment because of your service record? Did you have a college degree from a better school?

ReadyontheRight
June 3, 2006, 12:04 AM
If you can show evidence that a person is treated POORLY because of the color of their skin, I say that the offending party be hung by their thumbs. That is racism and it is wrong.

Some Americans are making a lot of shakedown money shouting "racism" when anyone suggests that we might consider that a person should not be treated PREFERENTIALLY because of the color of their skin.

"...We cannot walk alone. ...

...I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character..."

Individual racism cannot be eradicated any better than individual stupidity, but I think MLK's dream has been achieved in today's USA better than in any human civilization. If you disagree, please point out an example and I will fight vehemently against racist policies.

Dr. King's ENTIRE speech is worth a read. Not many have actually read (or heard) it.

The Text of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s
"I Have a Dream" Speech
Aug. 28, 1963



I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon of hope to millions of Negro slaves, who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity. But one hundred years later, the Negro is still not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacle of segregation and the chains of discrimination.

One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our Nation's Capital to cash a check. When the architects of our great republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed to the inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check that has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is not time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.

Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy.

Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice.

Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.

Now is the time to make justice a reality to all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of it's colored citizens. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual.

There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds.

Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must ever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.

We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities.

We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one.

We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "for white only."

We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.

No, no we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of your trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by storms of persecutions and staggered by the winds of police brutality.

You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our modern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, that even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow. I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; that one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and every mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plains and the crooked places will be made straight and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I will go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope.

With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.

With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to climb up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning "My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring!"

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that, let freedom, ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi and every mountainside.

And when this happens, when we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every tenement and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old spiritual, "Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last."

crazed_ss
June 3, 2006, 12:22 AM
Anyone, regardless of knowledge, can pass a security check with the right background, Cisco routing and switching cannot be learned by just anyone, neither can the other myriad of networking areas (most so-called "Cisco guys" I have met know very little past basic IOS commands, how to telnet and make minor config changes and have to call a Sr. Tech or someone from Cisco to explain to them what the blinking lights on the back of the modules mean when troubleshooting).

So either the person that hired you was really bad with numbers and not too bright on the ratio of investment VS reward, or that's just the story you were given and are comfortable with...or maybe there's more to the story? Your background might have been in another networking technology area that was of particular use? You had more on-the-job experience? Were you given extra special treatment because of your service record? Did you have a college degree from a better school?[/quote]

My MOS in the Marines was 2847 (Computer/Telephone Repairer).. The key was the fact I was in the Marines and already had a security clearance. It cost the company much less to hire me and let me learn on the job rather than hire any of the 4 other guys with experience and then pay to get them cleared.

DoD background checks for Secret and Top Secret clearances are not cheap. I've been dealing with computers and s stuff since I was a kid. It's not as easy as you think to get a clearance these days.. especially post 9/11. We've hired a few people in the past and ended up having to transfer them to others places because they were unable to get a security clearance for one reason or another.

I had zero college and zero experience with Cisco networking equipment. Cisco stuff was easy for me to pick up. I got on the job training and complete the certs by studying on my own. Almost done with the CCNP now.. Also like you said, being in the Marines, they interviewer already a favorable view of me. He was in the Navy and the big boss was a Lt Col in the Marines.

So I guess the point of my rant is if you see a black person get hired with seemingly less qualifications or experience, dont always assume it's based on race.

NineseveN
June 3, 2006, 01:38 AM
My MOS in the Marines was 2847 (Computer/Telephone Repairer).. The key was the fact I was in the Marines and already had a security clearance. It cost the company much less to hire me and let me learn on the job rather than hire any of the 4 other guys with experience and then pay to get them cleared.

DoD background checks for Secret and Top Secret clearances are not cheap. I've been dealing with computers and s stuff since I was a kid. It's not as easy as you think to get a clearance these days.. especially post 9/11. We've hired a few people in the past and ended up having to transfer them to others places because they were unable to get a security clearance for one reason or another.

The cost for that level is normally $10,000 to $15,000 (my source told me it can go much higher depending some false positives or anomalies that can crop up and age of the candidate)...although, the poly cost wasn't factored into these figures but the cost of a poly in the private sector can be as low as $150.00.

I know this because I asked when mine was being done last year (and I get to look forward to this process all over again in 4 more years, yay!). That's less than the tuition to cover a university or the Cisco networking Academy up to the CCIE level. I'm not saying this to discredit or disprove your statement, it simply illustrates the inefficient thinking of the government when it comes to spending. Things that I personally know the DoD to fail to account for is the cost of learning on the fly and the losses in productivity associated with not employing industry experts...problems take longer to isolate, solutions take longer to generate and employ, results simply cost more when you fail to employ the right level of knowledge and experience in order to save some money in the short run. Of course, worse case scenario, all 4 of the other white guys fail the clearance and it costs $15,000.00 a pop for each failure and that's the cost of a tuition to a decent university...of course, this does not factor in the time span that money is lost through the loss of efficiency while the candidate is learning on the job...which was part of my point. The DoD is terrible with this.

Even for a simple clearance for a Position of Public Trust (SF-85p), things such as a bad credit history can disqualify a candidate, so it is not unfathomable that it is difficult to find someone to pass the top secret clearance levels (I can only imagine what the Yankee White background check costs or what the ongoing cost of the SCI is)...


I had zero college and zero experience with Cisco networking equipment. Cisco stuff was easy for me to pick up. I got on the job training and complete the certs by studying on my own. Almost done with the CCNP now.. Also like you said, being in the Marines, they interviewer already a favorable view of me. He was in the Navy and the big boss was a Lt Col in the Marines.

So I guess the point of my rant is if you see a black person get hired with seemingly less qualifications or experience, dont always assume it's based on race.

I didn't, that wasn't the aspect I was discussing at all. How long ago were you cleared and hired? The cost of your time learning as you go is the hidden X-factor that again, in my experience, the DoD usually fails to account for. I don't think it was your clearance alone, because the simple fact that it needs to be reinvestigated in order to keep it really doesn't save much money.

If you had your clearance since 2001, and you're due to be reinvestigated in 2011 (in 5 years) over that 5 years the cost of the initial clearance investigation for another candidate would have been countered by the length of time that would lapse before the next investigation would need to be paid for, and also, the benefit of real life experience and an education is much higher than that savings when your factor in the cost of someone learning as they go on mission critical applications.

I think you being a Marine (the brotherhood effect and also the assumed trust and respect are huge factors in these kinds of decisions) had more to do with your hiring than the clearance cost or your skin color, if it did not, the people that hired you weren't thinking about the big picture.

If you enjoyed reading about "Can "Racism" be clearly defined?....or is it subjective?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!