RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Agreed. But where will they go? The republicans thanks to the religious right isn't exactly what you'd call friendly to gays & lesbians. And as much friction as there would be between the rank and file Republicans and gays, you would have to multiply that by tenfold in regard to the republicans and black folk.
Yes, tell that to Condi Rice, Michael Steele, JC Watts, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powel...
as to gays and the GOP click here
Can't wait until some of these old bigots die off.
I agree wholeheartedly. Then everyone will be free to enjoy the rights of "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" as was originally intended without civil or religiuos restrictions.
I dont wish death on anyone but the more tolerant generations will look back just as we do today about some subjects and think "how could they have every reasoned something like that"
Ah, it's always nice when some one falls into my trap.So, there's no way to have an honest, open discussion about real issues? You're more interested in "out-clever"ing the "other side?" Hell with that.
Shin, thank you for your perspective. It reminds me a lot of being a non-Christian Yankee in many parts of the South.
I'd think you'd know me better than that Kirth.
I put my own beliefs in the disclaimer in my first post. I also would appriciate honest, open discussion. That kind of fell apart when Shin posted.
I also said that I assumed Shin was ok with the Klan. After all, it 'takes care of its community' and it is a 'community that whites mostly don't care or want to care about'. (funny how it's fine to lump all the 'white folks' into that statement)
Since the company I work for (since Shin brought in work, and his own beliefs that he'll never get anywhere) has a black CEO, we've had a black sec of state, and now a black president, I stand corrected.
When he says:
"Now you can work and put in the hours and do everything that's required of you and more but unless you're IN with the "boys" you're only going to get so far. Now that's true with any one white or black or latino or asian, but it's going to be especially hard for black males because of the common negative connotation that EVERYONE has toward us. " It's pretty clear that he's not in this country.
I've lived in this country for 35 of my 38 years so yeah, wrong on that there Matthew.
Your comment on lumping all the 'white folk' into that statement seemingly misses the point that I was generalizing everyone. You'll notice that I used "black folk", "asians" and "latinos" generally as well. If you would prefer for me to break things down into further classification for you I can do that.
I don't think that I've said this before but I'll say it now, what ever slack the president gets IN NO WAY translates to the average black person. The idea that because we have a black president that now everyone is going to all of a sudden respect and like black people is ridiculous. Which is what Matthew here seems to be implying. I also stand by my statement the perception of black males by the population in general is still overwhelmingly negative.
If youre not Denzel Washington or Will Smith or Morgan Freeman or Sam jackson...
Agreed. But where will they go? The republicans thanks to the religious right isn't exactly what you'd call friendly to gays & lesbians. And as much friction as there would be between the rank and file Republicans and gays, you would have to multiply that by tenfold in regard to the republicans and black folk.Yes, tell that to Condi Rice, Michael Steele, JC Watts, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powel...
as to gays and the GOP click here
You forgot Armstrong Williams, Alan Keys and Ward Connerly.
I'd also argue that with the exception of JC Watts, Condi Rice and Colin Powell, that the other aforementioned individuals have a great deal of contempt for black people. So you're not really helping your argument here.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Feh, now stop trying to put words in my mouth, Shin.
I'm not implying such a thing. I wasn't expecting such a thing post election.
I understand it's a foreign concept to Shin, but I do believe in the content of a person's character, not the colour of their skin.
Wow, those are good words, it's amazing they've never been said before.
Also find it funny when Shin's argument is 'unless you're all these people who disprove my arguement, my arguement is still valid.'
So far we've had "Those evil Republicans will never accept black folks, except the following..." (And I'll add Ken Blackwell, LaShawn Barber, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams...)
And 'No one trusts black men, except the following...'
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd also argue that with the exception of JC Watts, Condi Rice and Colin Powell, that the other aforementioned individuals have a great deal of contempt for black people. So you're not really helping your argument here.
Source?
Or are you now saying they aren't legitimately black to you?
Hint, when you're in a hole, Shin. Stop digging.
I'd also argue that with the exception of JC Watts, Condi Rice and Colin Powell, that the other aforementioned individuals have a great deal of contempt for black people. So you're not really helping your argument here.
Source?
Or are you now saying they aren't legitimately black to you?
Hint, when you're in a hole, Shin. Stop digging.
Listen Matthew, I'm not insulting you or making snarky comments toward you. I'm trying to have a conversation with you. If you can't do that without coming across like your looking for a fight then we need to take this to email or something.
I'm also honestly trying to see where I said that theyre not legitimately black.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd also argue that with the exception of JC Watts, Condi Rice and Colin Powell, that the other aforementioned individuals have a great deal of contempt for black people. So you're not really helping your argument here.
Source?
Or are you now saying they aren't legitimately black to you?
Hint, when you're in a hole, Shin. Stop digging.
Listen Matthew, I'm not insulting you or making snarky comments toward you. I'm trying to have a conversation with you. If you can't do that without coming across like your looking for a fight then we need to take this to email or something.
I'm also honestly trying to see where I said that theyre not legitimately black.
I'm just asking for a source is all. You painted a pretty broad brush. Surely it wouldn't be that hard to back up the statement that they 'have contempt for black people'? Since it can be implied you're calling them 'self hating'.
EDIT: I'll add, 'I have not yet begun to snark.'
|
I'd also argue that with the exception of JC Watts, Condi Rice and Colin Powell, that the other aforementioned individuals have a great deal of contempt for black people. So you're not really helping your argument here.
Source?
clipListen Matthew, I'm not insulting you or making snarky comments toward you. I'm trying to have a conversation with you. If you can't do that without coming across like your looking for a fight then we need to take this to email or something.
I'm also honestly trying to see where I said that theyre not legitimately black.
Well you did say that Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, Armstrong Williams, Alan Keys and Ward Connerly "have a great deal of contempt for black people." I think that Matthew is perfectly justified in extracting from that comment that you either believe that they are self loathing African-Americans or they are are not African-American enough. I believe that the term tht was used when Bill Cosby gave hipound cake speech was "oreo." I also believe that based on the gravity of the charge you made, he is perfectly justified in asking what led you to this belief. He could have phrased the request in a less snrky manner, but it is a legitamate request and one tha should not be ignored simpley because you dislike the way he phrased the question. Takes off his debate judge hat.
Let's attempt to keep this discussion less about nailing each other to the wall, and more about a the meaning of racism vs. prejudice, or something esoteric like that.
I'm afraid I may have stirred the hornet's nest a bit (perhaps a tiny bit intended) with my simple statement: "REAL racism is basically gone." I stand by that, according to the way I've defined the term.
200+ years ago, the Founders of our great country, who wrote "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" owned Black slaves. They were good men, honest men, even admirable men...yet they owned Black slaves. Were they racist? Not by my definition, for they treated them well, provided for their needs, and in many cases eventually set them free. They neither hated Blacks nor abused them (even while using the generally accepted term, "Nig---"). While freedom, suffrage, and other privileges were withheld from their slaves, it was done so NOT because they were Black, but because they were slaves. Free Blacks obtained privileges just as enslaved Irishmen did not.
150+ years ago, at the time of the Civil War, many great men (both North and South) still owned slaves, though the concept was increasingly appalling. Were they racist? In some cases, yes; in many cases, no. Was racism growing? Certainly.
50+ years ago, REAL racism was rampant. While Blacks (and other races) were legally "equal" they were made to be "separate." This is at the heart of my chosen definition. During this time, in order to achieve standing or even to have many options, Blacks had to organize in separate schools, universities, sports teams, churches, etc. This was a horrible and shameful time in our history. I grant that the Black race took the brunt of this, but I am convinced that REAL racism cut both ways.
Today, there are still pockets of mean-spirited, hateful folks of every stripe. But REAL racism is basically gone. There is no more institutionalized suppression of Blacks, Chinese, Irish, Italians, Mexicans or any other race. Isolated incidents, yes, but not widespread activity. The KKK is a good example, and so are the Black Panthers. Black men and women succeed all over the place--they own hugely successful businesses, they are university professors, they make blockbuster movies, multi-platinum records, talk shows, ranking politicians, and on and on... Good folks, the days of Black suppression are OVER!
Ironically, the ideas of segregation aren't. Black COC, Miss Black USA, NAACP, etc...and in truth, a sizeable portion of voters brought Obama into Office precisely because of his race in rank spite of his political views and past associations.
What is also lingering are the cries of "racist" where no racism has occured. The examples of this are plenteous, of which Mr. Limbaugh is just a recent high-profile case. And, equally ironic is the fact that those who toss this label around most freely are frequently the most guilty of it. Mr. Jeremiah Wright is a potent example here.
I do not think for a moment that prejudicial thinking or behavior is gone, and I freely admit to possessing some myself. I am of the belief that a certain amount of prejudice is not only unavoidable, but also necessary and sometimes helpful. But when one's prejudice causes one to treat another man unfairly because of his race, then one has slipped into racism. Often I have found that my prejudices are unfounded when I give another man "a fair shake." I then dispose of the prejudice and gain a friend of another race. But sometimes those prejudices are simply strengthened when I observe the ill behavior, caustic remarks, and illogical reactions of the other man as he vilifies me, threatens me, puts horrid words in my mouth, and acts a fool...all while accusing me of racism.
I hope you find my words well-thought and tempered, even if you don't agree.
Well you did say that Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, Armstrong Williams, Alan Keys and Ward Connerly "have a great deal of contempt for black people." I think that Matthew is perfectly justified in extracting from that comment that you either believe that they are self loathing African-Americans or they are are not African-American enough. I believe that the term tht was used when Bill Cosby gave hipound cake speech was "oreo." I also believe that based on the gravity of the charge you made, he is perfectly justified in asking what led you to this belief. He could have phrased the request in a less snrky manner, but it is a legitamate request and one tha should not be ignored simpley because you dislike the way he phrased the question. Takes off his debate judge hat.I'd also argue that with the exception of JC Watts, Condi Rice and Colin Powell, that the other aforementioned individuals have a great deal of contempt for black people. So you're not really helping your argument here.
Source?
clipListen Matthew, I'm not insulting you or making snarky comments toward you. I'm trying to have a conversation with you. If you can't do that without coming across like your looking for a fight then we need to take this to email or something.
I'm also honestly trying to see where I said that theyre not legitimately black.
...And I just pretty much stated that that's NOT what I was stating.
Also, I'm not going to back up my statements about Michael Steele, Clarance Thomas, Armstrong Williams, Alan Keys and Ward Connerly. Not to you or Matthew or anyone else on this board. Here's why: They're SUBJECTIVE.
They are what I've gathered from watching Armstrong Williams of AMERICAS BLACK FORUM for about two years when he was on that show with Juan Williams and two other people who's names escape me at the moment. I think that mostly my impression of him comes from his defense of racist policies and his relationship with Strom Thurmond.
Both Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly come across as really smart men, who really don't like black people all that much.It's especially galling in their cases as these are guys who used AA to help them get where they are but are willing to dismantle it in the name of equality. Now if they hadn't been recipients of AA I might not feel as strongly as I do about them.
Alan Keys may have been unfairly lumped in with rest. He may or may not have contempt for black folk but he's definitely not friendly towards liberal democrats (of which there are quite a few are black...).
What I do find a little interesting here is how quickly Matthew (and now David) are willing to come at me to quantify my negative statement towards that list of Black Republicans but have not asked why I actively excluded Colin Powell, Condi Rice and JC Watts from that list.
Let's attempt to keep this discussion less about nailing each other to the wall, and more about a the meaning of racism vs. prejudice, or something esoteric like that.
I'm afraid I may have stirred the hornet's nest a bit (perhaps a tiny bit intended) with my simple statement: "REAL racism is basically gone." I stand by that, according to the way I've defined the term.
200+ years ago, the Founders of our great country, who wrote "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" owned Black slaves. They were good men, honest men, even admirable men...yet they owned Black slaves. Were they racist? Not by my definition, for they treated them well, provided for their needs, and in many cases eventually set them free. They neither hated Blacks nor abused them (even while using the generally accepted term, "Nig---"). While freedom, suffrage, and other privileges were withheld from their slaves, it was done so NOT because they were Black, but because they were slaves. Free Blacks obtained privileges just as enslaved Irishmen did not.
150+ years ago, at the time of the Civil War, many great men (both North and South) still owned slaves, though the concept was increasingly appalling. Were they racist? In some cases, yes; in many cases, no. Was racism growing? Certainly.
50+ years ago, REAL racism was rampant. While Blacks (and other races) were legally "equal" they were made to be "separate." This is at the heart of my chosen definition. During this time, in order to achieve standing or even to have many options, Blacks had to organize in separate schools, universities, sports teams, churches, etc. This was a horrible and shameful time in our history. I grant that the Black race took the brunt of this, but I am convinced that REAL racism cut both ways.
Today, there are still pockets of mean-spirited, hateful folks of every stripe. But REAL racism is basically gone. There is no more institutionalized suppression of Blacks, Chinese, Irish, Italians, Mexicans or any other race. Isolated...
I do find your words well thought out and I do respect your view and the way that you present them. Even though I absolutely do not agree with about a fair amount of what you just said.
But you know what? Civility goes along way towards mutual respect and understanding so for now lets just agree to disagree.
I think it's sad that things like this still happen. Still, I think it shows how far we've come that this has generated such an outcry. Personally, I think this judge should be fired with extreme prejudice.
I personally refuse to discriminate on the basis of race, nationality, religion*, disability, sexual preference, gender, age, or most of the other lines we use to separate humanity. I do this for the simple reason the the capability to be a jackass or idiot knows no bounds and is endemic to the human condition.
*With regards to religion, I must confess to a severe dislike for Satanists. I've never gotten along with any of them I've met.
I work in Corporate America so I see how it works every damn day. I work in an office with about 250 employees. Outside of the mailroom (which is outsourced to Canon) there are about 5 black men who work here. I'm one of them. (I don't count black women in this number because they are not commonly perceived as a threat to white male power structure. Not because they are black but because they are women. Now being married to a black woman with two post graduate degrees, I can tell you that not considering them a threat is a REALLY BAD IDEA.) Now you can work and put in the hours and do everything that's required of you and more but unless you're IN with the "boys" you're only going to get so far. Now that's true with any one white or black or latino or asian, but it's going to be especially hard for black males because of the common negative connotation that EVERYONE has toward us.
I have nothing to do with those undesirables that you avoid. I'M NOT THEM. But I get tarred with the same brush regardless and I've learned to accept that to a point. But to say that for a group of SUCCESSFUL black business men & women to get together and support one another where the mainstream wont and doesn't give a crap about them is racist?
AME takes care of it's community, once again a community that whites typically don't care or want to care about, but because it exists it's racist? I mean it's not like there wouldn't be an uproar if AME or all black churches ceased to exist and their partitioners started to flood into white churches. I'm pretty sure there would be cries of "Forced Desegregation" and "we should be allowed to worship in our own way!" and all the other crap good, God fearing people would use to make sure there were no darkies in their church. The kicker would be if these former partitioners didn't go to church they'd be labeled "Godless heathens".
So you do not like being grouped with a negative stereotype of people with similar racial and sexual traits. On the other hand you have no problem classify large numbers of people with different racial traits negatively ("don't care or want to care").
I don't think that I've said this before but I'll say it now, what ever slack the president gets IN NO WAY translates to the average black person. The idea that because we have a black president that now everyone is going to all of a sudden respect and like black people is ridiculous. Which is what Matthew here seems to be implying. I also stand by my statement the perception of black males by the population in general is still overwhelmingly negative.
So despite people that share racial and sexual traits with you having wide powers, you don't see that as proving an empowerment of others like yourself. Yet you still seem to assume that because some white men hold wide powers that this "translates to the average [white] person".
Is it possible that there is some hypocrisy going on?
And with that I'm done responding here, as the conversation between myself and the person that I initially responded to has come to a respectful end.
I do find your words well thought out and I do respect your view and the way that you present them. Even though I absolutely do not agree with about a fair amount of what you just said.
But you know what? Civility goes along way towards mutual respect and understanding so for now lets just agree to disagree.
And thank you for your returned civility. Realizing this is a touchy subject, I approach it gingerly (though boldly).
I would be interested in the distinctions you place on racism vs. prejudice, if any.
Since there has been some discussion of the perceived antagonism of certain prominent Blacks toward of their own race, I would like to make a few random comments loosely in that regard.
I find it eternally frustrating when well-minded people are destroyed by cries of "racism" when clearly none was intended--never mind when the accusation is entirely fabricated.
It rankles me to no end when various Blacks make the same kind of "racially insensitive" remarks toward others and there are NO similar cries of racism. This appears to be a stark double standard.
It seems rather ludicrous when people accuse prominent Blacks of not being "Black enough." What does that even mean? And isn't race and skin color NOT supposed to matter?
The persistence of Hyphenated-American terms seems to be an obtuse clinging to racial segregation. Why bother?
If someone has a political view (e.g. small government, less dolence) that indicates a Conservative position...and a great number of people having a opposing political view (e.g. more government control, increasing welfare) are Blacks, how can this possibly make the former a racist?
If you don't feel like addressing these comments/questions, I understand. Some of these perplexing things have occured in this thread, which is why I hope to gain some understanding.
No offence intended to you Malachi, but I think the whole Racism vs Prejudice thing is a bit of a crock. Racism is prejudice, it’s just being prejudiced against someone’s race. You can be prejudiced against other things besides someone’s race. Sexism for example is being prejudiced vs a certain gender. Ageism is being prejudiced with regards to people of a certain age group. I’m not sure they have a name for it yet, but damn it if I’m not prejudice of people from the south. I know it’s wrong, but whenever I think of the south in the back of my mind I will always think it’s full of nothing but KKK members drinking cheep beer while talking about nascar and shooting at small animals or minorities.
Sorry, got a little sidetracked there with what a horrible person I am, but the point is Racism = Prejudice. Yes, racism now days is less prevalent than it was when rich land owners were trading black folks willy nilly, but if you think less of a group of people because they are of a certain race then you are a racist. If you don’t like it, don't blame me blame Webster.
Again, no offence to you Malachi, I am in no way meaning to imply that you are prejudiced against people of a different race. I'm merely disagreeing with your definition of Racism.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
And with that I'm done responding here, as the conversation between myself and the person that I initially responded to has come to a respectful end.
For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly with you on most of your points and don't think that anyone can ever really prove anything when it comes to political discussions. We can only look at similar situations in the past and see what happened then, but no two situations are ever the same, and there's no way to ever know what an outcome will be until it is tested. And since analysis of history is entirely subjective and can be slanted or skewed to support opposing positions, I don't think doing so really supports an argument.
That said, I agree that many prominent African Americans in a lot of influential organizations, from Congress to private institutions, do not always support or put forward policies and practices that benefit the typical member of their ethnicity. Denying the social and financial situations of millions of Americans (which are often the results of complex historical and modern societal institutions) in order to give the appearance that these policies do less harm is a common tactic of those who support those policies.
Sorry that you feel you can't participate in a discussion about which you obviously have a valuable perspective. That shouldn't be the atmosphere we encourage on these boards.
No offence intended to you Malachi, but I think the whole Racism vs Prejudice thing is a bit of a crock. Racism is prejudice, it’s just being prejudiced against someone’s race. You can be prejudiced against other things besides someone’s race. Sexism for example is being prejudiced vs a certain gender. Ageism is being prejudiced with regards to people of a certain age group. I’m not sure they have a name for it yet, but damn it if I’m not prejudice of people from the south. I know it’s wrong, but whenever I think of the south in the back of my mind I will always think it’s full of nothing but KKK members drinking cheep beer while talking about nascar and shooting at small animals or minorities.
Sorry, got a little sidetracked there with what a horrible person I am, but the point is Racism = Prejudice. Yes, racism now days is less prevalent than it was when rich land owners were trading black folks willy nilly, but if you think less of a group of people because they are of a certain race then you are a racist. If you don’t like it, don't blame me blame Webster.
Again, no offence to you Malachi, I am in no way meaning to imply that you are prejudiced against people of a different race. I'm merely disagreeing with your definition of Racism.
All squares are rectangles, that does not mean all rectangles are squares.
All racists may have racial prejudices, but that does not mean all people with racial prejudices are racists.
You say you have prejudices about people from the South. Ok, so if a person from the South and a person from the North-East were both applying for a job, and the person from the South had better work experience and qualifications, would you choose the person from the North-East? If not, then it is a prejudice, but not something akin to racism/sexism/whateverism.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
That said, I agree that many prominent African Americans in a lot of influential organizations, from Congress to private institutions, do not always support or put forward policies and practices that benefit the typical member of their ethnicity. Denying the social and financial situations of millions of Americans (which are often the results of complex historical and modern societal institutions) in order to give the appearance that these policies do less harm is a common tactic of those who support those policies.
Just a question Yoda, because I honestly don't comprehend this...
Why should they?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Let's attempt to keep this discussion less about nailing each other to the wall, and more about a the meaning of racism vs. prejudice, or something esoteric like that.
I'm afraid I may have stirred the hornet's nest a bit (perhaps a tiny bit intended) with my simple statement: "REAL racism is basically gone." I stand by that, according to the way I've defined the term.
Thanks for responding to my question about the difference between racism and prejudice. I'm sorry for handing you a stick to stir a hornet's nest with.
I think of racism as a belief that humanity can be objectively divided into different races, e.g. 'blacks,' 'whites,' 'asians,' etc and racial prejudism as the desire to include or exclude based on that division.
One can recognize that these races are not a biological fact and still be concerned about ameliorating the effects of racial prejudice. An organization may be founded not on the belief that 'blacks' constitutes a race but still desire to make things better for people who have been socially constructed as 'black'. Thank you for your response.
It was clear to me from your first post that your definitions and mine were different and I just wanted to get a sense of how you were defining your terms.
|
|
I was living in California when the big push back against affirmative action began. It actually had a lot of support among the African American community. The reason was that the state had announced that they were going to start giving less state contracts to African American and Latino owned companies because they over quota in those areas. In this case, the program had worked so well that continuing to enforce it would have been detremental to those who it was supposed to help. I believe that this happens a lot in this country.
No offence intended to you Malachi, but I think the whole Racism vs Prejudice thing is a bit of a crock. Racism is prejudice, it’s just being prejudiced against someone’s race. You can be prejudiced against other things besides someone’s race. Sexism for example is being prejudiced vs a certain gender. Ageism is being prejudiced with regards to people of a certain age group. I’m not sure they have a name for it yet, but damn it if I’m not prejudice of people from the south. I know it’s wrong, but whenever I think of the south in the back of my mind I will always think it’s full of nothing but KKK members drinking cheep beer while talking about nascar and shooting at small animals or minorities.
Sorry, got a little sidetracked there with what a horrible person I am, but the point is Racism = Prejudice. Yes, racism now days is less prevalent than it was when rich land owners were trading black folks willy nilly, but if you think less of a group of people because they are of a certain race then you are a racist. If you don’t like it, don't blame me blame Webster.
Again, no offence to you Malachi, I am in no way meaning to imply that you are prejudiced against people of a different race. I'm merely disagreeing with your definition of Racism.
According to Webster: racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." Again, that kind of activity is basically GONE from our society, with the exceptions of various individuals and some groups, like the Black Panthers or the Klan.
According to Webster: prejudice is "a preconceived judgment or opinion, adverse to anything without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge" It also has a legal definition (which doesn't apply here), and it used in other ways as well.But see...the distinction is not crock, but a very necessary differentiation of terms. This is precisely why I went to lengths to make that clear. They are NOT the same, and when we lazily proclaim them to be, we make the whole discussion rather mirky and difficult. I realize it's an emotional issue, but we should be diligent to remain clear and precise; else, we remain bogged down in blinding emotions.
Prejudice can lead to racism, sexism, "ageism," ...a host of stupid beliefs and behavior. But prejudice itself is NOT the same thing. In fact, some prejudice can be prudent.
Which is worse: group "A" having a negative prejudice against group "B" because of B's stereotypical bad language, behavior, et al.; or group "B" persisting in this foul, unacceptable conduct while equating A's prejudice with racism?
All squares are rectangles, that does not mean all rectangles are squares.
All racists may have racial prejudices, but that does not mean all people with racial prejudices are racists.
You say you have prejudices about people from the South. Ok, so if a person from the South and a person from the North-East were both applying for a job, and the person from the South had better work experience and qualifications, would you choose the person from the North-East? If not, then it is a prejudice, but not something akin to racism/sexism/whateverism.
I disagree. Just because I'm not letting my... let's call it 'Latitudeism'. Just because I'm not letting my Latitudeism overpower my desire to have the best person for the job doesn't mean I'm not a Latitudeist. Certainly I'm less of a Latitudeist than someone who would toss out someone's application based solely on being from the south, but the fact that it would have played any kind of factor at all makes me Latitudeist.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
According to Webster: racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
You forgot the second definition. I put it in bold.
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective
According to Webster: racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."You forgot the second definition. I put it in bold.
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination— rac·ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective
That would be the definition I was refering too, not that I think the first is any less racist mind you.
You forgot the second definition. I put it in bold.
RACISM
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
I didn't forget it. I understood what the dictionary was doing by listed the first defintion first; that is, it is the most important, most prominent, original, basic, otherwise foremost definition of the word. This is how I was taught to use a dictionary. Since the second definition is a minor synonym-like entry, it appeared to me that it was actually lesser, or even a forced definition because of comman usage.
Admittedly, I did not use the first dictionary entry for prejudice. That is because, after much deliberation of consistency, I determined that it was a legal term. As such, it has its place in our courtrooms, but not so much in everyday speech. The second definition, which I gave, is the one I was using.
Words have meanings, and we must use them correctly. We cannot Clintonize our language to make a term mean whatever we want, as it suits our purposes. Tarren, I am NOT attributing this to you. Many people butcher the language, however, and so I make sincere attempts to find and use the right words.
To this, I still contend that the terms are distinct. As was pointed out, racism is a subset of prejudice, but the two are not equivalent terms. If it helps any at all, I am simply using them distinctively.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
You forgot the second definition. I put it in bold.
RACISM
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discriminationI didn't forget it. I understood what the dictionary was doing by listed the first defintion first; that is, it is the most important, most prominent, original, basic, otherwise foremost definition of the word. This is how I was taught to use a dictionary. Since the second definition is a minor synonym-like entry, it appeared to me that it was actually lesser, or even a forced definition because of comman usage.
Admittedly, I did not use the first dictionary entry for prejudice. That is because, after much deliberation of consistency, I determined that it was a legal term. As such, it has its place in our courtrooms, but not so much in everyday speech. The second definition, which I gave, is the one I was using.
Words have meanings, and we must use them correctly. We cannot Clintonize our language to make a term mean whatever we want, as it suits our purposes. Tarren, I am NOT attributing this to you. Many people butcher the language, however, and so I make sincere attempts to find and use the right words.
The second definition is not a wrong one. According to Websters, racism is both a belief in racial difference and prejudice and discrimination based on that difference.
So, according to Websters, if you believe that there are people who are 'black' and that this makes them behave in certain ways and then you don't let them marry people who are 'white', that is racism.
So, according to Websters, if you believe that there are people who are 'black'...
I'm not certain that Webster required me to first believe in the existence of Black people... ;)
By the way, the rest of your statement is true, and I concur that this judge acted with racist motive. And yes, it is entirely possible for that judge or any person to harbor racism but not act on those impulses. However, I wish to remain clear that I was making a purposed (and dictionary allowable) distinction between the two terms, precisely so that I could illustrate that it is also possible for a man to be prejudiced against a certain race without being racist.
But really, being mired in semantics is not my idea of a fun discussion, albeit it is sometimes a necessary one. Sigh...
Words have meanings, and we must use them correctly. We cannot Clintonize our language to make a term mean whatever we want, as it suits our purposes. Tarren, I am NOT attributing this to you. Many people butcher the language, however, and so I make sincere attempts to find and use the right words.To this, I still contend that the terms are distinct. As was pointed out, racism is a subset of prejudice, but the two are not equivalent terms. If it helps any at all, I am simply using them distinctively.
Using a word to mean something that it means is not incorrect use of a word. Just because you may disagree with which definition of the word someone uses doesn't make you right.
Words have multiple definitions because people use the words differently at different times and in different places to mean different things. That may be inconvenient, but it doesn't make those usages wrong.
I wish to remain clear that I was making a purposed (and dictionary allowable) distinction between the two terms, precisely so that I could illustrate that it is also possible for a man to be prejudiced against a certain race without being racist.
This is exactly the problem. When you label it prejudice against a race, there is a level of prejudice you seem prepared to accept. If it was labeled racism, which it is, by definition (webster accepts that definition whether you do or not), then it would be more forbidden. You are softening the man's racism by using another term to describe it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
So, according to Websters, if you believe that there are people who are 'black'...I'm not certain that Webster required me to first believe in the existence of Black people... ;)
Actually, in writing "a belief that race is the primary determinant ..." Websters implies a belief in race. So, you would need to believe in race in order to believe that race is a primary determinant. I don't believe that humanity is made up of distinct races. I don't believe Barack Obama is black. I don't believe my brother was black. Race is a social construct.
You're right though. Websters left that as a presupposition.
However, I wish to remain clear that I was making a purposed (and dictionary allowable) distinction between the two terms, precisely so that I could illustrate that it is also possible for a man to be prejudiced against a certain race without being racist.
But really, being mired in semantics is not my idea of a fun discussion, albeit it is sometimes a necessary one. Sigh...
So, you are saying that a person may not be racist according to the first meaning of the term and only be racist according to the second meaning of the term? Or, are you saying that a person may not believe that these arbitrary social constructions called race have any real basis but still make decisions based upon them?
|
There's a lot of talking past one another that happens when two people use the same word to mean different things.
I could go with Tarren's definition that racism is the belief in races. For a variety of reasons I simply refuse to acknowledge that there are different races and I notice that most people conflate the word race with the word ethnicity in their usage of it. Whenever possible I try to answer surveys about race with the answer that I am human (and when the question asks concerning ethnicity I answer that I am American.) Its probably a futile gesture to refuse to answer questions regarding race but its my small stand against a term I personally find ridiculous.
Sadly the people who are quickest to cry racism are often the quickest to try and segregate people according to the color of their skin.
...there is a level of prejudice you seem prepared to accept.
Yes. I have made this distinction previously. For example, I am prejudiced against all women who are not my wife...
If it was labeled racism, which it is, by definition (webster accepts that definition whether you do or not), then it would be more forbidden. You are softening the man's racism by using another term to describe it.
I have not rejected the dictionary definition; I simply made a distinction between two terms that I found were being unneccesarily confused.
Further, I am not attempting to "soften" someone's racism by applying a different term to it. Quite the opposite, I am acknowledging non-racist behavior with the term prejudice instead of "hardening" it with the term racism.
|
|
However, I wish to remain clear that I was making a purposed (and dictionary allowable) distinction between the two terms, precisely so that I could illustrate that it is also possible for a man to be prejudiced against a certain race without being racist.
I found your earlier post insightful and thoughtful but I'm not sure I agree that being prejudiced against a race (skin tone) can occur without some level of racism. I think what you are more trying to say is that you think there are degrees of prejudice, which is something I would agree with.
I also agree that some prejudices are beneficial (though which those are is going to be a matter of hot debate). I would disagree that any prejudices based entirely on skin are helpful. If your prejudice was against individuals who dressed a certain way and spoke a certain way, I would argue that it is not the color you are prejudiced against, it is the behavior. It is unfortunate when behavior and skin gets conflated on the part of either party.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
However, I wish to remain clear that I was making a purposed (and dictionary allowable) distinction between the two terms, precisely so that I could illustrate that it is also possible for a man to be prejudiced against a certain race without being racist.I found your earlier post insightful and thoughtful but I'm not sure I agree that being prejudiced against a race (skin tone) can occur without some level of racism. I think what you are more trying to say is that you think there are degrees of prejudice, which is something I would agree with.
Well, what if I thought that biological notions of race were a total crock (which I do) but I acknowledged that, in society, there are many people who discriminate on the basis of race (which I do)? What if, then, I refused to allow my daughter to marry a man who I felt was going to be discriminated against by society. Would that be prejudism without racism?
What if I believed that race was a crock but believed that programs could be set up to help specifically those who are discriminated against (affirmative action). Could that be 'prejudism' without racism?
So, you are saying that a person may not be racist according to the first meaning of the term and only be racist according to the second meaning of the term?
Yes. And to avoid confusion of terms, I have called that simply prejudice, which the dictionary also allows. I tried really hard to be clear on that.
Or, are you saying that a person may not believe that these arbitrary social constructions called race have any real basis but still make decisions based upon them?
Yes again.
I, for one, do not believe there are very many actual differences between the groupings we call race (aside from color, tone, texture, etc.). There may be real differences of stature, muscular tone, or tolerance of either heat or cold, but that would be about it, and those might have nothing to do with race so much as geography. Rather, what we often show prejudice toward is based more on culture. We don't like _________ culture, so we are prejudiced against ________ people. Fill in the blanks with whatever group you like.|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
So, you are saying that a person may not be racist according to the first meaning of the term and only be racist according to the second meaning of the term?Yes. And to avoid confusion of terms, I have called that simply prejudice, which the dictionary also allows. I tried really hard to be clear on that.
Or, are you saying that a person may not believe that these arbitrary social constructions called race have any real basis but still make decisions based upon them?Yes again.
I, for one, do not believe there are very many actual differences between the groupings we call race (aside from color, tone, texture, etc.). There may be real differences of stature, muscular tone, or tolerance of either heat or cold, but that would be about it, and those might have nothing to do with race so much as geography. Rather, what we often show prejudice toward is based more on culture. We don't like _________ culture, so we are prejudiced against ________ people. Fill in the blanks with whatever group you like.
Thank you for clarifying. I now understand how you are differentiating between the terms.
I also agree that some prejudices are beneficial (though which those are is going to be a matter of hot debate). I would disagree that any prejudices based entirely on skin are helpful. If your prejudice was against individuals who dressed a certain way and spoke a certain way, I would argue that it is not the color you are prejudiced against, it is the behavior. It is unfortunate when behavior and skin gets conflated on the part of either party.
Wicht, this is one of my points, and on this we agree. What happens quite often, however, is your lament. When one group exhibits prejudice against another group's poor behavior or tacky dress, they get branded "racist" when their complaints had nothing to do with race at all.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I also agree that some prejudices are beneficial (though which those are is going to be a matter of hot debate). I would disagree that any prejudices based entirely on skin are helpful. If your prejudice was against individuals who dressed a certain way and spoke a certain way, I would argue that it is not the color you are prejudiced against, it is the behavior. It is unfortunate when behavior and skin gets conflated on the part of either party.Wicht, this is one of my points, and on this we agree. What happens quite often, however, is your lament. When one group exhibits prejudice against another group's poor behavior or tacky dress, they get branded "racist" when their complaints had nothing to do with race at all.
If they are acting and thinking as a group then racism (in the sense of a belief in the existence and significance of race) had to come into it somewhere.
EDIT: Unless by group you meant doctors or D&D players. Given the context of this discussion, I assume by group as in 'white people' or 'black people.
|
|
Whoo hoo break out the hoods and the white sheets boys them uppity nigras is looking fer a whuppin'
Seriously..I come from a family where more than half my relatives by marriage, blood and adoption are black.Of course here the whole Marriage Cert thing is handled by civil servants who actually know their business.
Well, what if I thought that biological notions of race were a total crock (which I do) but I acknowledged that, in society, there are many people who discriminate on the basis of race (which I do)? What if, then, I refused to allow my daughter to marry a man who I felt was going to be discriminated against by society. Would that be prejudism without racism?
What if I believed that race was a crock but believed that programs could be set up to help specifically those who are discriminated against (affirmative action). Could that be 'prejudism' without racism?
Both interesting scenarios, Tarren. Here's my opinion, FWIW.
If you refused to allow your daughter to marry a man outside of your own "race," you would be exhibiting racist behavior, according to the terms I've used. Your prejudice against the other group led to your withholding of privileges from your daughter.Ironically, if you set up programs to specifically assist one "race" and not any others, you would also be exhibiting racist behavior based upon your prejudices.
Kinda screwy, isn't it?
|
|
Well, what if I thought that biological notions of race were a total crock (which I do) but I acknowledged that, in society, there are many people who discriminate on the basis of race (which I do)? What if, then, I refused to allow my daughter to marry a man who I felt was going to be discriminated against by society. Would that be prejudism without racism?What if I believed that race was a crock but believed that programs could be set up to help specifically those who are discriminated against (affirmative action). Could that be 'prejudism' without racism?
Those are good questions. The first of course gets back to the original point of this whole thread. I would argue that in the first, if your reasoning is entirely as you said it is neither racism nor prejudism. You are not biased against the young man. You are simply fearful of the consequences of the choice. I tried to make this point earlier in the thread when I spoke of having this conversation with a black minister in Florida who had invited me home to eat with him. He clearly was not prejudiced against me. But he was quite adamant that black men who married white women were fools. He was not against the action per se but he felt the consequences of the action would be detrimental in the long run to the couple and their children. He acknowledged that such marriages had occured in the past and been alright and that there might come a time when they would be fine again but thought that at the present time it was the wrong thing to do because of societal problems. (I disagreed, I want to make clear, but I could see how one could hold that view without actually harboring prejudism in the heart). Perhaps a better way of saying it is that you are not prejudiced against the individual you are prejudiced against the society around you.
As to the second question, thats another whole can of worms. Is it right to discriminate against one group in retaliation for discrimination done in the past against another group? My personal views are that while those that initiate such programs might do so with pure motives it leads to further discrimination and 'racism' as you are perpetuating the division of the culture into unnecessary groups.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Ironically, if you set up programs to specifically assist one "race" and not any others, you would also be exhibiting racist behavior based upon your prejudices.
Even if you believed that there is no scientific basis to the notion of race but that racism is a social reality and what you were trying to do was assist those who had been discriminated against?
If so, aren't any attempts to protect those who have suffered from racism are racist.
|
|
Two comments. One, I have noticed that despite the atempts of some to paint one political party or another of being racist, the outrage over this judge's actions has sparked outrage from people whom I know from past discussions sit at all points of the political spectrum. I think the idea that one party is more in tune to minority needs than another is a political myth, particularly when you actually look at the political history of our country.
Second, I think that the argument over semantics os not going to get anyone anywhere. In fact, judging by the past roughly page and a half, this thread may be wearing out as a place for useful discussion. There seemsto be a lot of finger pointing, name calling, and political oneupmanship. I think I will drop out now, while there is still hope of not getting sucked into the mud.