Mother Jones take on Heller; it's all about racist oppression and it always was.

[Stevie-Ray]

Ray Nagin has all of the leadership skills of the Mayor of Old Detroit in "Robocop II".

Or the mayor of Detroit today, as I'm sure the news around the country is reporting.

 

[JWarren]

another okie wrote:

It is useful to distinguish between racism and racial prejudice, as social scientists do.

Racial prejudice is believing that a particular person has certain characteristics because they are of a certain race.

Racism is applying that belief by using power to injure someone.

So someone may be prejudiced but not a racist, if they have no power over someone else of another race. A white man with a black foreman may be racially prejudiced, but has no power over the foreman, so is not racist. I think this is why many people think social scientists teach that only white people can be racists. They perceive that white people have all the power. But of course this not the case. There are plenty of black mayors, police officers, police chiefs, teachers, lawyers, judges, and so on.

If you distinguish between the two it allows to attack the most harmful part, which is racism.

Anotherokie,

Something about this post bothered me, and I didn’t have the time to carefully consider it for the last day or so. But while I was pressure-washing my house yesterday, I spent some time thinking about it.

I think I figured out what bothered me: I disagree with your overall premise and definition. Moreover, the proposed premise and definition not only flies in the face of society’s accepted position (which I am not certain I agree with) but it also fails to maintain intellectual honesty. Incidentally, I am not certain Society’s accepted position maintains its intellectual honesty, either.

I rarely accept what “Social Scientists” dictate. Too many Sociologists that I have met are agenda-driven parrots who are incapable of original thought.

This is OT, but I feel compelled to explain.

Racial prejudice is believing that a particular person has certain characteristics because they are of a certain race.

Racial prejudice is not dependant upon believing a particular person has any particular characteristics. The issue is FAR more complex than that. Some people have reactions to different groups due to social issues surrounding them, and others simply do not like those different than themselves. There is a wide distribution of motives for any particular bias.

Racism is applying that belief by using power to injure someone.

Here is where it falls apart.

I reject the qualifier that to be racism, it must be applying power to injure someone. This implies A.) that only a person in a position of power can be a racist, and B.) Racism only exists through action. I find those qualifiers ridiculous. I’ve met plenty of people who could be called racists who have NO power over another person, nor have they taken any action against another person. Yet, they are clearly racist.

I can show you examples in our culture where the term “Racist” has been applied and widely accepted where neither of the above conditions are present. Where society fails the test of intellectual honesty is in cases where that SAME measurement and condemnation is NOT applied to others.

We’re going to get ourselves into a whole pile of it if we ever applied things evenly across the board…especially if we were truly to apply the definitions we have been presented.

I’ll explain.


Most reasonable people would concede that neither the KKK nor any various “Neo-Nazi” organizations have any real power or influence in the USA. To varying degrees, they may have had some influence at one time, but that day is gone. So….

Without power to apply their views or the ability to act on them, one must conclude that neither the KKK nor any “Neo-Nazis” are actually racist organizations. I think we all know differently. I think both groups may actually get their feelings hurt if you told them that they WERE NOT racists.


Now…

Why would an Affirmative Action program where race was a deciding factor in a hiring or acceptance into an institution NOT be considered racist? After all, we see both the Power to preference one race other another and we also see the Action of doing that very thing.

I reject the potential premise that AA is proactively trying to help one and not to hurt another. That is double-speak. Life is a zero-sum game. There will be a “Plus” and a Negative” to each equation. If two persons were equally qualified for a position and Person “A” was chosen over Person “B” for whatever reason, Person “B” is in a worse situation than Person “A.” If person “A” was chosen over Person “B” due to racial difference, then the decision was indeed a Racist one. Period.

Yet the KKK is widely accepted as racists, and AA programs are not.


Let’s bring it closer to home. Applying the criteria of preference and action becoming racist: Many people will vote for Obama in the desire to have a minority President. I’ve seen people on this board state that they would “Love” to see a minority President.

If a person has that preference, and then votes in that manner, they have shown preference, are in a position of power (a vote) and takes action (votes.) Therefore a person who votes for Obama where his race is a considered component in their decision-making process IS a racist.



I think you see my point.

I’ll sum it up with this. I don’t mince words. I believe that our over-complicating issues and heavy use of confusing terminology hinders our ability to address racial issues in our society.

I think this is why many people think social scientists teach that only white people can be racists.

I submit that this is one of the most idiotic concepts that have ever come out of any school of thought. I detest definitions that have built in qualifiers where it may only be allied unidirectional. Given the bandwidth, I can show a plethora of examples of how racists are common in ALL demographics. I consider the above sentiment itself a racist view.



Let’s cut to it. Racists exist in every group. Moreover, racists do not have to be OF the race that is advocated for. I have a close family member who was a large city school superintendent during the Civil Rights Movement. While white, he will ALWAYS advocate the black position over a “white” one in any given scenario. I submit that he is a white person who is actually a “black” racist.

Gets kinda complicated, huh?


Now, I’ve been called a racist on this board. I think there was a thread not too long ago where some jack-leg named ‘fishhook” or something felt that he was qualified to take measure of me.

I frankly consider myself far less racist than what I routinely see in our society. Did I say that I wasn’t racist? No. I would not be so bold to make that assertion. I wouldn't make that assertion about any of you, either. Frankly, I wouldn’t make it because I believe EVERY PERSON in our society is a racist in some form or the other. I would not be so bold as to make such a pronouncement about myself because I would not make such a pronouncement about ANYONE irrespective of their race—ESPECIALLY those that are quick to call others racists.

So there it is. It is LONG past time that we stop playing games, Cowboy Up, put our emotions away, and have a REAL discussion of racial issues in our society. As I see it, two major components are missing from our character that prevents such a discussion.

The first is respect for one another irrespective of our race.

The second is the ability to have a truly Bi-Directional Symmetrical Communication.


At any rate, there it is. I realize that this is Off-Topic, and I apologize. Or is it Off-Topic? The mission of THR is to bring unity to the gun-owner community. Can unity exist without addressing issues that churn under the surface? Perhaps it is due to the elections, but I am seeing lately an increase of threads that specifically have race as a component on THR and other gun boards. Perhaps it is healthy to have a meaningful discussion where if nothing else, we can give respect to one another equally.

But no… this is OT for THR. I apologize to Oleg and our Moderator Staff. I’ll say a few dozen “Hail John Moses Browning’s” and promise that I’ll not continue on this thread in penitence.



-- John

 

[trinydex]

Yoy can't get further left in the mag field than Mother.
Everything they say can be taken with large grains of salt and Socialism.
Great reading in place of an enema.See their history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_(magazine)

i would be offended if such lack of reasoning is directly affiliated with socialism.

It seems to me that people who turn to government to control their lives have little interest in taking control of it themselves. Thus, we have well over half a century of government welfare, affirmative action and prefferantial treamtment of certain segments of the population with little, if any, growth seen from those communities as a whole. It's sickening.

you know i have to wonder about people that whine about affirmative action. you say it's done nothing, but then in california you have whiners that want to abolish it because it was TOO effective and the asians are just dominating and devouring the UC system. which is it? it worked or it didn't? you hate it either way...

and the fact is it's not even an informed opinion, it's all generalizations because there are poor and uneducated asians too. in fact in california, asians occupy both extremes... kinda like whites, whoa.

ROSS IN RANGE
Race, Values, the O.J. Verdict, and Right-To-Carry, or
A Statistician Explains a Conundrum
By John Ross

this entire article is a shame. i particularly despise the part that suggests white america would not have a raving celebration that someone got off the hook for murdering a "racial other." GET REAL, it'd BEEN HAPPENING. let's not cover up reality of much of the evil that REALLY exists in the world with overarching generlizations about political and social opinion which cannot be known for fact or justified as such.

the unique socioeconomic context of the oj trial was people SHOULDN'T have had a clear cut verdict they were "voting" for. rich dominant culture should have been rooting for a rich man to win. rich dominant culture should also have been rooting for the "other" to lose.

poor minority other should have voted for not guilty, but poor minority other should also have held the rich bastard accountable, to promote a moral equality in justice.

we can all see that nothing is "as it should have been"

Imagine that during The Howie Long Trial there is the revelation that one of the black cops involved with Howie�s arrest disliked whites and had used the terms "white devil" and "honky" in the past.

please imagine with me if it's even possible that while howie is being called honky and white devil he is actually socioeconomically and sociopolitically inferior. and then i'll show you someone who's really got some racial bias under his skin.

Re-interpreting the intent of the Founding Fathers based upon the social and political rhetoric of today. She is interpreting is as she WISHES it to be.

absolutely shameful, because it is by fundamental philosophy of government that i find the second amendment to justified. debasing it off some post facto or on the basis of add on reasonings that don't get to the origins of the political philosophy is like saying someone is wrong after you redefined the meaning of what you were discussing.

The NFA was a response to the Mafia, and the GCA was a response to the Civil Rights Movement. The Second was about kicking butt- whether it be tyranny or King George.

i want to throw more gas on the fire. WHAT IF it WAS made to keep blacks down by arming white slave owners? our country has obviously made the mistake about slavery... we corrected it. now that 2nd amendment is afforded to blacks and whites alike (let's take an ideal world without exceptions for example first). do we abolish the 2nd which is or at least CAN be used for freedom and liberty just because it was originated (in a ficticious sense) in racial or racist motivation? the FACT is it's not racist now right?

Yet, somehow it is assumed that only a White person can be a racist. Yet it is accepted that the South is the whipping boy for the country’s societal ills.

i'm of the opinion that anyone can be racist. but when it comes to racial violence, or violation of an individual's rights or livelihood can only be perpetrated by those who have power.

it's easy to dish out and accept any number of racial innuendoes, in fact it's even legal to some extent as part of free speech (as opposed to spitting or something else which is assault--another type of violence--and has NO place in anywhere). i am willing to accept this "problem" (as surely it is a "problem") for the sake of liberty, freedom and that free speech should not be infringed.

that aside, when we start violence at BEYOND words and thoughts, who are the perpetrators of what?

As far as race, my opinion is that it's only an issue because people make it an issue.
The world is full of ignorant morons.
They'll target you because you're Asian, or because you're blind, or because you're a woman.
Or they'll target you because you're the white protestant male who is the source of all their problems.
Either way, morons are morons.
In an ideal world they'd all be smart enough to google "moron", see their pictures associated with that term, and rehabilitate themselves.
But alas, this is not an ideal world.

this is certainly an oversimplification and that also suggests something about your ability or desire to solve the "issue" which in my opinion comes from understanding... a little more than just naming everyone else a moron...

My dad always told me that "People are just people, you have good and bad from every country, race, and religion." I have found that to be true. I grew up in a pretty much all white town, blacks were not wanted here, but it was not really an overt thing. I played sports and traveled around the state and ended up making a lot of black friends, I worked out and got into a little boxing/martial arts, and made some Asian, and Latino friends. In the process I found that my dad's words were very true. So while I grew up around some who were prejudice, I was both taught and learned to give people a chance. Now then I spent some time with some of my black friends from the Chattanooga area, went and played ball in a few places where I was the only white guy there, and I can honestly say that I was treated by some there in a very "impolite" fashion, all for being white, and NOT staying where I should. Had the same type of experience with both Asian's and Latino's as well.

i think there are many stories like this, in fact all stories must be like this. the fact is that humans form groups, social collectives that they think can benefit them. you see it in high school, church, work, government, countries, states, ethnicities, nations etc etc etc. in fact this is natural and logical. problems with these scenarios are that we are in a small world these days. no one is an island, although many wish to be. it's hard to find people who agree with you. it's hard to find a line of reasoning that doesn't cross paths negatively with others. there's too many individuals.

with all this in mind, is tolerance not necessary? and by making that statment, isn't that what this is all about? tolerance? and my punch line, does tolerance not come with greater understanding of everything?

<RANT>But that wall only works one way. Only whites are silenced. I for one am sooooo sick of the nonstop accusations of racism from black "activists", especially when just about every white person in America walks on eggshells when it comes to race and fears making the slightest error that could even remotely be construed as racist. Meanwhile even prominent blacks (Sharpton, Wright, Jackson, Berry) openly exhibit their racism like it was a Nobel Prize, and rank-and-file blacks feel perfectly justified and righteous in their race-based hatred and denigration of "whitey" and "crackers."</RANT>

are you not already displaying the same type of "verbal or mental" racism? and so what if they hate you so much? antigunners are prejudice in the same way. what is with the frustration? you want to be able to express your racism without feeling bad? what are we really talking about here? people that are insistant on expressing their racism without feeling bad will do so. if you feel bad for it then stop, if you don't then carry on. there are plenty of people on both sides, doing both expressing and keeping silent. what's wrong??? you want ALL the blacks that are being openly racist to get checked? not gonna happen, just like it won't happen that ALL the whites that are openly racist get stopped...

let's be real here.

Here is where it falls apart.

I reject the qualifier that to be racism, it must be applying power to injure someone. This implies A.) that only a person in a position of power can be a racist, and B.) Racism only exists through action. I find those qualifiers ridiculous. I’ve met plenty of people who could be called racists who have NO power over another person, nor have they taken any action against another person. Yet, they are clearly racist.

I can show you examples in our culture where the term “Racist” has been applied and widely accepted where neither of the above conditions are present. Where society fails the test of intellectual honesty is in cases where that SAME measurement and condemnation is NOT applied to others.

We’re going to get ourselves into a whole pile of it if we ever applied things evenly across the board…especially if we were truly to apply the definitions we have been presented.

I’ll explain.

this is why i don't use the racist/prejudice nomenclature. i use the racist/violence nomenclature. you are not allowed to condemn someone for speaking freely, but once they cross the--boundary and that threshold IS LOW--it should become unacceptable to intolerant.

Most reasonable people would concede that neither the KKK nor any various “Neo-Nazi” organizations have any real power or influence in the USA. To varying degrees, they may have had some influence at one time, but that day is gone. So….

this is where the definition of power being used is the social science definition, or ethnic studies definition. it's a very humanties way of putting things. the fact is power in this sense is enforcing something on someone else. this can be putting a gun to their head, or making a law that says they can't have guns. it can be spitting on them or it can be cussing them out so bad that they cry. all these things are violence caused by "power" of an individual or a group. regardless... once it crosses that threshold of thought and speech, it should be unacceptable to be so intolerant.

If a person has that preference, and then votes in that manner, they have shown preference, are in a position of power (a vote) and takes action (votes.) Therefore a person who votes for Obama where his race is a considered component in their decision-making process IS a racist.

it won't be violence until obama passes some antiwhite laws (which i don't hope he tries to do). and in that case you can call them racist or prejudice but they're not enacting any violence yet.


in response to your "closing arguments" jwarren.

i agree with you and i just articulated differently, to me, understanding brings tolerance, to you, respect and communication bring tolerance. it's all the same. the endgame is to be able to live amongst one another, not even to like each other, just live side by side without someone violating someone else.

in that sense i think people need to stop playing down the other side. every time i hear some stuff about race card, i think to myself, why mention it??? we know it for what it is, even if it is sometimes bull**** but take this thought...

as minority there were many times in life when i was the subject of some racial violence in either a childish or professional way, either or. that brought about in me a sensitivity, one that is commonly observed by both "victims," "perpetrators" and bystanders of racial violence/violation.

this hypersensitivity ripples through the generations like a wave, depending on what time the first pebble is dropped and how much understanding and education comes over the life time. if there's anything we know about ripples in a pond its that they subside. youthful ferver brings big ripples, and yes there are surges and resurgence of racially motivated agendas on all sides. but it's like youthful Democrats turning into aged libertarians... eventually things settle out if the right efforts are placed towards understanding, respect and communication.

one problem with the race subject is that it's ugly and gets ugly and this natural progression towards moderation and tolerance is many times hindered, slowed or just reversed all together because of the ugly nature of the debate and the grouping nature of humans.

 

[JWarren]

trinydex,

I like your line of reasoning based upon a violence model.

However, I do have to make an editorial comment.

It is clear that our society does not view the concept of racism in those terms.

Having my masters in Public Relations, I have kinda made a "hobby" of examining the double-standards we accept without examination in our society.

I suspect that if we applied your model, we would get a much different application of the terms. I suspect that many people would have to be "re-categorized." It would be interesting.


Thanks for your take on it.


-- John