Racism

[Meg 368]

There was a post here earlier that brought up the topic of racism.  Unfortunately, it was a rant full of racial slurs so it was archived.   I do, however, believe it could be an interesting discussion if it follows the rules.

All of the ranting aside, it is true that racial issues usually not openly discussed.  Perhaps we can do that.  (Perhaps not; we shall see)

Do some groups "get away with" having racist institutions while others do not?  The example raised in the post pointed out that there are black universities but a white university would be perceived as racist.

Is it time that we give up the notion of hyphenated-Americans and acknowledge that we are simply American?

Can we really be a color-blind society if we are talking about the first African-American this or the first Latino-American that?

or does the fact that we are still having "firsts" mean that we still have a very long way to go?

Are other countries more effective at achieving racial equality than America where, in theory, "all men are created equal"?

Keep in mind the rule:  Discuss the issues and not each other.

[Kevin 101]

Originally posted by: Meg

or does the fact that we are still having "firsts" mean that we still have a very long way to go?

quote>

We do indeed have a long way to go. Race is largely a product of social constructs, but the fact is those social constructs are in place, and to ignore them at this point would be like burying your head in the sand.

I attended a lecture by a guy named Tim Wise last year... he made some excellent points about racism and its prevalance in America. The below clip will give you a pretty good idea of what he talked about:

Warning: If you watch this clip on youtube, be prepared for some pretty offensive comments beneath the video.

It was a great lecture... he packed a 3000-seat auditorium and spoke for almost 3 hours, plus a Q+A session. Almost everyone stayed the entire time... he was very thought provoking

[Z77 3]

Very interesting clip Cheese89

I come from a town of 35,000 in illinois that is, indeed, still very racist. Now, i am not AT ALL racist. i have met some very nice african-americans, hispanics, etc. and i have met some not so nice ones. Yet there are plenty of really, so to say, mean white people out there too. Our town has always been a known place that African-Americans tend to stay away, simply because of the people and the gangs. Up until, oh..id say 1986ish, there was a sign on our bridge saying, (now im not being offensive, just stating a historical fact) "No n----- in town after sunset." We still currently have the lynching tree in front of our courthouse that a very vicious gang (dont remember the name right off hand) would...use, all the way up until the late 1980's. Our city government was run by the Klu Klux Klan up until the late 70's, early 80's and our newspaper had a seperate "classified" section for recruting new members of the KKK, including 'Junior Members' 

Now, much has changed since then, but people in my town are still fairly racist. Most people are generally quiet about it though. I am personally against anyone who are racist. (which is one of the many reasons i really dislike my dad and his side of the family). There are African-Americans living in my town, though not that many. And those people are, sadly, treated poorly. Its very sad that people in my town generally can go around yelling the n-word and not get in trouble and the high school, that has a student size of about 2,500, there are ONLY 5 African-American students. which would mean that there would be about only 7-8 families in our town.

But then again, our town has the highest amount of Meth dealers in central illinois., and one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in illinois. So our town is definately, so to say, "Messed up" 

[hym 358]

Obama's Presidential bid prompted a study on racism in the US.  Adults and teenagers from every one of the continuous 48 states were asked detailed questions about their opinions on race, and then tests were conducted on their response to various images.  Test results were broken down as follows: Racially Biased, Non-Racially Biased, and Inconclusive.  Furthermore, Racially Biased was subdivided into Obvious Racial Bias and Subconscious Racial Bias.  The average results were:

Racially Biased	97%
Non-Racially Biased	1%
Inconclusive	2%

Interestingly, these general numbers never fluctuated outside the study's margin of error no matter where the researchers conducted their study.  The only numbers that fluctuated as they moved around the country where the Obvious Racial Bias and Subconscious Racial Bias figures.  But even then, when the two were added together, the Racially Biased score still came to approximately 97%.

For those who are interested, the same study was conducted in Europe.  While the researchers noted a decrease in confirmed racial bias, that category still averaged over 90%.

Note: If can find the study, I will post it,  though given the fact that my only source to it was a news article published in 2008 I kind of doubt I will be successful.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

Do some groups "get away with" having racist institutions while others do not?  The example raised in the post pointed out that there are black universities but a white university would be perceived as racist.quote>

I'm not sure what you mean by "black university". A university that only admits black students? I don't think that's legal. I mean, the National Society of Black Engineers isn't permitted to exclude members of other races. I was at one of the meetings of their local chapter once. It was fun!

Though, you are onto something here. We don't have a "White History Month".

I personally actually see a huge irony in the idea of black history month. Think about it. We struggled for years to end segregation in our society. How do we memorialize it? By segregating the calendar!

(I have a hilarious image that makes this point rather bluntly, but I'm not posting it here as I just know someone would take it the wrong way and cause a ruckus. It's available on request by PM if you're curious.)

Is it time that we give up the notion of hyphenated-Americans and acknowledge that we are simply American?quote>

It's been time for a while.

Can we really be a color-blind society if we are talking about the first African-American this or the first Latino-American that?

or does the fact that we are still having "firsts" mean that we still have a very long way to go?quote>

Well, we've elected our first black President. Where is there left to go that's higher than that? Seems as good a time as ever to drop it.

But, the fact of the matter is, a lot of people don't want to be color-blind. We've developed a society full of double standards where you are special if you can claim to be a victim of any sort of oppression: this includes not only minorities but also poor people, women, homo-/bi-sexuals, etc. So this idea that there are poor black victims and then there are evil rich white oppressors is persistently sticking around. People who walk through life with that kind of mindset won't be giving it up easily.

Are other countries more effective at achieving racial equality than America where, in theory, "all men are created equal"?quote>

I'm not entirely sure that that's a fair question. What other country is as much of a "melting pot" as America is (besides perhaps Canada)? I mean, I don't think Denmark has too many issues with racism, but who lives there that isn't Danish? It's easy to not have racial tensions when everyone around is of the same race.

Besides, you'd be surprised. The Polish (as in, was born in and grew up in Poland) woman working in my father's office would gladly rant about how she hates Russians and Germans (a little knowledge of history makes this unsurprising)... and has had to adjust to the fact that it isn't acceptable to say things like that here the way is was back home. It's very much a "not in Kansas anymore" sort of feeling for her to realize that she can't go around berating Russians and Germans because for all she knows she might be talking to someone with ancestors from there.

Originally posted by: hym

Obama's Presidential bid prompted a study on racism in the US. {...} still averaged over 90%.quote>

There is no doubt something innate about reacting differently to people that look differently. We always judge people on their appearance and presentation, regardless of what race they may be of. Why do you think "making a good first impression" is so important? People react to the way you look. This is human nature, it is not a learned behavior. It's not going away. Ever.

That said, we can, despite this tendency, try to judge people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" as much as possible.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

In Canada we tend to be culturallay colour blind when it comes to minorities. Our culture is a mosaic of peoples rather than a melting pot. Our main racial problem right now is mainly related to the native peoples and some of us, myself among them, try to overcome this. My kids are both culturally colour blind, but I am not sure how they stand on native persons. Unfortunately we are estranged these days, probably because they are my step-children.

It is truly unfortunate that the United States is broken into so many disparate "states" which are very jealous of the prerogatives and that visible minorities suffer various levels of racial hatred. Mr. Lincoln would have been saddened about the way his great vision turned out. Now that you have a "token" black in the White House, I seriously doubt that you will ever have a token Hispanic or a token Jew. The glass barriers seem to be everywhere in the average population.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Muck308 55]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

So, blacks were slaves for 100 yrs in America (as a nation), less than citizen's rights until the 1960s, and still struggling for equal standing today. Given the trend, "racism" has another 60 yrs in the US before our National Bigots get their heads out of their poop-chutes and understand the world does not revolve around a White America.

quote>

Good point. I think most racism is learned from parents. My maternal grandmother was, for lack of a better word, a bigot. I recall the way she used to laugh at Jesse Jackson on the televison, and say to me. "Look at that colored fellow running for president." Thankfully she used more tasteful jargon, given the options.

I didn't rub off on me but it might have on others. People learn these ways from their parents first. The rest of their environment contributes after that. Segregation doesn't help and despite the fact that ayone of any color is free to live where ever they please, voluntary, so to speak, segregation exists.

My neighborhood is predominantly white. I hear plenty of racist remarks, usually towards blacks, when walking the streets, (i actually do walk quite a bit.) Now I live in a huge metro area, so obviously there is diversity. Just not in my neighborhood.

People can grow up in environments like this, or far worse for that fact, and still learn to be not just tolerant of other races, but compassionate of them. In other words, treat everyone as equal. My girlfriend, for instance, has never muttered a racist word or even told a "playful" racist joke in the 7 years I've known her.

But getting back to what Barbarossa was saying. Racism will remain as long as racists remain. Simple. We just have to teach our kids the right way to make racism and bigotry diminish.

[morriswalters 16]

I don't think anyone is free of some racial bias.  When I was younger I always believed that I was above that.  My father and I fought about it, with me thinking that as I was way some superior to him.  It was disconcerting to realize how thin the veneer was.  Part of it is faces, I came to the conclusion that the cues I use to make judgements about people with don't work as well with other races as I thought they did when I was younger. Part of it is language. I once sat with a group of black males for a purpose that I won't disclose.  I realized that I couldn't understand the conversation that happened in front of me.  Faces and language, two very primitive human traits.  The last thing is fear.  A generalized fear that comes with growing older, and realizing a sense of reduced capability.  I often tell my friends that my liberal sensitivities are tested more often as I get older.  I recognize it and I fight it, but it's a fact I can't avoid.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Not to point out flaws, but I have seen first-hand that Canada is not the melting pot many think it is. Canada was actually the first country I heard the terms "rag-head" and "towel-head". There seems to be a lot of latent hostility towards citizens (and proto-citizens) from the Middle East (and technically South Asia).quote>

Canada has never been, nor has the concept of "melting pot" ever been thought of in recent times. The term applies to the United States.

I live near London, Ontario which has a large, visible and fully integrated Muslim community near the University. Pejorative terms for eastern people will always be with us. I have a friend from Zimbabwe and he makes no bones about the term "kaffir" which in Afrikaans and Swahili is the same as the N-word on this continent. He is not ex-patriot by choice, and I gather had to get out before being got.

Some peoples have headdresses as a part of their religion others as part of their culture. We make no attempts, these days, to disallow any of this. We allow Sikhs in the RCMP to wear their turbans and carry their Kris when in uniform. This has been fought out in the Supreme Court shortly after the promulgation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since this happened in the Trudeau era, it is ancient history to the most current generation. Our Charter has given rise to the cultural mosaic that we take pride in.

Yes, we have some quite serious racists. We also deport them sometimes. (Ernst Zundle)

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Personally, I do not think that the idea of a "melting pot" belongs solely to the US, although I understand your point. However, I still come back to the idea that both Canada and the US share many facets of life (er... remove a letter and you have Facts of Life... please don't reference the TV show).

This issue of racism is nice for us to have. We won't make much of an impact, I think, but the conversations it will produce is fodder for talk.

I am not racist in the least. I don't care about the origins of the people I deal with on a daily basis. This does not mean that I can't appreciate off-color humor, often based on stereotypes that hold a grain of truth. I am anti-PC (politically-correct) and I am never offended by jokes. I think that most people nowadays need much thicker skin.

This hasn't been brought up yet, so I am throwing a bone for conversation. Barbarossaquote>

I think we would all be better off if people had a better sense of humor and less PC. Because lets be realistic, All humor is based on someone or something becomeing the object of that joke, so every joke thats ever been told has  to have offended someone.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Political correctness is one of the burdens of our society that has grown out of the liberalization of the education system. The idea that you "must not offend anyone" has caused a great deal of acceptable humour to vanish from our culture. Too bad because, as everyone knows, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

[Duke87 1,070]

Part of the problem is that the distinction between racial and racist has become lost on a lot of people. Both terms can be simply defined...

Racial: having to do with race

Racist: being hateful on the basis of tace

Anything racist is by necessity racial, but the converse is not true. Let's look at an example statement here:

Italians like spaghetti.quote>

This is a stereotype, sure, and if you consider "Italian" to be a race (it's an ethnicity, but that's a largely semantic difference), it is thus racial. But, is it racist? I can't find anything remotely hateful about it. It's a perfectly benign statement. So, no, it's not. But, some would insist it is - because there's this highly prevalent fallacy that saying people are different means saying they are unequal. Which is absurd... everyone is unique, we cannot avoid being different. But that doesn't mean we can't treat each other equally and be equal in the eyes of the law.

Another interesting point here is that this labeling of things as racist happens more with some groups than others. Not too many people complain about statements like the one above made about Italians, because Italians aren't "protected victims" in our society. But, swap in a different ethnic group and a different ethnic food and watch what happens:

Mexicans like tacos.quote>

There is nothing fundamentally different about this statement compared to the first one. Yet, it elicits a different reaction.... because the immigration/class issue makes Mexicans "protected victims" in a way Italians are not.

Just another one of those pesky double standards.

[morriswalters 16]

If words are as harmless as everyone seems to think they are then a joke should be able to be told to anyone.  If it can't be told to everyone then one might ask if it should told it at all.  I've listened to these little behind the back jokes for years, and now that I don't have to be silent to protect my job I feel no need to continue to listen.  Most are demeaning and are often a response when someone has to "take" it from a person they don't like or who they presume to be inferior, kind of a way to regain status in the eye of their peers.  If that's PC then I'm guilty. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Words are not harmless. Consider the expression

bagel bunniesquote>

often used to refer to Jews. In some contexts it is harmless, but if you are a member of a neo-NAZI movement it can be quite poisonous.

[Duke87 1,070]

In those cases it's not the words that are bad, it's the hate behind them. No hate, no harm.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

a collection of random thoughts about the conversation at hand...

if the NAACP can still use 'colored' in its name, offense at that archaic term is not allowed, period.

Meg is right, we can't be colorblind and still note the color of candidates or 'firsts'. One or the other!

I routinely identify as 'hopelessly honkey', and screw anyone who takes offense. I also have black and native blood, among the Euro parts, so I will make jokes about any ethnicity or race I so choose.  I don't mean it hatefully, just poking some fun.

If anyone is familiar with the Facebook game 'Mobsters 2: Vendetta', my mobster name cannot be repeated here without causing an uproar (it is a serious jab at Our Fearless Leader). I have black mobbies who know the difference between political speech and racist speech, and are good with it, many are even in agreement with me. It does get mistaken for racism occasionally, but I have demobbed/defriended others for racist comments.

A Mexican friend laughed about the old joke about Hispanics buying car insurance when an Asian moves into the neighborhood, an Asian coworker laughed even harder. If you can't laugh at yourself or idiosyncrasies associated with various groups, you really need help IMHO.

[morriswalters 16]

Maticorefan

Colorblindness is a myth.

I like candor.  It lets me know where I stand with a person even if I don't agree with him.  It's the back biters, and the "in the closet haters" that I don't trust and detest.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

if the NAACP can still use 'colored' in its name, offense at that archaic term is not allowed, period.quote>

An interesting point. Usually it's accepted that it's okay to use pejorative terms in self-reference... they get away with using the term because it's self-descriptive. White people don't get away with it because it's not. There is a distinct difference in reaction to someone saying "I'm a ___" than there is to someone saying "You're a ___". Seems to be because it's understood that no one will be racist against themselves... so the assumption of racism that comes with the use of such terms doesn't apply.

But there's the problem, you see: an assumption of racism. If I say that someone is "colored", I am assumed to be racist, without having any chance to defend what I said. We assume someone is racist too quickly and easily (especially if they're white. How often do you hear someone who's a "minority" get accused of being racist?), and we treat accusations of racism as guilty until proven innocent. That's just wrong.

On a semi-related note.... there was a colorful clown character in the first Rockman.EXE game by the name of "Coloredman". To avoid the unintended connotation in the overseas versions (Megaman Battle Network), Capcom unsurreptitiously cut out a couple letters, making it just "Colorman".

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Here is a fact: No Arabs are anti-semitic.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Here is a fact: No Arabs are anti-semitic.quote>

umm . . . . huh?

Take the sentence:   "No ____ are anti-____"

I'm having difficulty imagining any words that could fit in there and always be true.

Maybe "No humans are anti-oxygen" but other than that . . .

[Vahr 341]

No potatoes are anti-quark?

Well that didn't make sense...

Anyways, thing is with human kind, there's almost always an exception somewhere.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Meg

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Here is a fact: No Arabs are anti-semitic.quote>

umm . . . . huh?

Take the sentence:

[hym 358]

Based on my study of syllogistic argumentation, I am going to make the educated assumption that your minor premise is "No one is self-racist."  Assuming I am correct, your argument would be developed as follows:

All Arabs are Semites

No one is self-racist

Therefore, no Arabs are anti-Semetic

As far as syllogism is concerned, this is a valid argument as it develops the conclusion through the proper use of the double premise, but the bigger question is: "Is it a sound argument?"  This is where the conclusion, and thus the argument as a whole, runs into real problems.  Soundness requires both validity of the argument type and veracity of the premises and the accuracy of the minor premise is highly suspect.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

Based on my study of syllogistic argumentation, I am going to make the educated assumption that your minor premise is "No one is self-racist."  Assuming I am correct, your argument would be developed as follows:

All Arabs are Semites

No one is self-racist

Therefore, no Arabs are anti-Semetic

As far as syllogism is concerned, this is a valid argument as it develops the conclusion through the proper use of the double premise, but the bigger question is: "Is it a sound argument?"  This is where the conclusion, and thus the argument as a whole, runs into real problems.  Soundness requires both validity of the argument type and veracity of the premises and the accuracy of the minor premise is highly suspect.

quote>

Nicely done.

The accuracy of the major premise is also somewhat suspect since the definitions of "Arab" and "Semite" seem to be a bit mushy.

But, NOB, I still appreciate your friend's reasoning.  I wish more people looked at it that way.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

The accuracy of the major premise is also somewhat suspect since the definitions of "Arab" and "Semite" seem to be a bit mushy.quote>

For one thing, the term "anti-semitism" is generally taken to mean "hatred of Jews", not "hatred of Semites" (which would be the literal definition). I don't think most people have any idea what a "Semite" is. How often do you hear the word used without the "anti-" prefix? It's rather archaic.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Duke87 For one thing, the term "anti-semitism" is generally taken to mean "hatred of Jews", not "hatred of Semites" (which would be the literal definition). I don't think most people have any idea what a "Semite" is. How often do you hear the word used without the "anti-" prefix? It's rather archaic.

quote>

Archaic? Only to the uneducated. In talking about racism, it is not a bad idea to know the names of the races. I am a Caucasian, what about you?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

In talking about racism, it is not a bad idea to know the names of the races. I am a Caucasian, what about you?quote>

Meh. I'm going to keep calling myself and others like me "white". I hate the term "Caucasian".

My family comes from Italy and Ireland. None of my ancestors ever lived anywhere near Caucasus. I am as Caucasian as I am Martian; it makes no sense to call me either. Though, the name would be appropriate if used to describe someone from, say, Armenia.

And, well, then there's also the fact that the usage of the term is due to political correctness, which I despise.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The so-called "white" people is such a mixed bag, it is hard to talk about it as a race. I really am Caucasian. My ancestors, way back, are of that stock, tribesmen who wandered into Europe sometime after the last ice age. Probably some Vikings and other marauders among them.