The way I see it, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are on a two-way street. The way it should be is, if Fred Phelps wants to protest on street corners, that's his bag.
However, I should also allowed to take offense...
Yup.
...and hit him with a shovel.
Not so much. ;-)
|
The way I see it, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are on a two-way street. The way it should be is, if Fred Phelps wants to protest on street corners, that's his bag.
However, I should also allowed to take offense...
Yup.
Not so much. ;-)
...and hit him with a shovel.
*puts down shovel*
You're no fun.
I have seen it explicitly stated (in numerous media) that advocation for smaller government is racist.
Seriously? That's pretty f'ed up.
The way I see it, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are on a two-way street. The way it should be is, if Fred Phelps wants to protest on street corners, that's his bag.
However, I should also allowed to take offense...
Yup.
Not so much. ;-)
...and hit him with a shovel.
LOL!
+1
The way I see it, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are on a two-way street. The way it should be is, if Fred Phelps wants to protest on street corners, that's his bag.
However, I should also allowed to take offense...
Yup.
Not so much. ;-)
...and hit him with a shovel.
I'd settle for being able to slap him across the face with a white glove and demand satisfaction with pistols at dawn.
Since the following post had my post in quotes, I will assume it is addressing my post:
I think it might be worth drawing a distinction between personal racism and institutionalized racism. The former seems to be growing less socially acceptable in most parts of the U.S., which I'm sure most would agree is a good thing. Institutionalized racism is another...I have seen it described as racism for smaller companies in narrow appeal fields to not go to extensive lengths to target demographics outside of their current narrow range when they want their business to grow but are not in a financially stable position that would allow them to take risks and cater to new demographics. The logic being that if they weren't bigoted they would realize the potential for growth and move upon it. But, these people always overlook that actually achieving that potential is a risk that might be unsafe for a smaller company to take. Note: Larger companies more often have the capital to attack new demographics and sometimes smaller companies succeed but that doesn't mean it would be a wise move for another company...I have seen the same reasoning used for changing attributes of a game's packaging with the intent of drawing in females and arguments that if they (these smaller companies without full resources) did not see it this way it was because they were incompetent at business or just sexist.
I have seen it described as bigoted for a dm to not bother taking the time to intentionally integrate non-traditional families (i.e two dads, two moms, or trans-gendered parents) into the families he sporadically includes in the campaign world when he has a group of players that he has played with a long time who are not interested in gender exploration through their D&D. In fact, it was stated that the dm SHOULD change his dm style to incorporate them and that he was a part of society's problems because he didn't take the time to do so in his games on his own personal time. This is completely separate form such demands for companies to include such themes in their products.
Now, bit by bit...
It's difficult to have a conversation that acknowledges the racial prejudices and discrimination reflected in many social and cultural institutions, because they frequently devolve into mis-communications wherein one party believes he or she is being accused of personal racism or bigotry by association.
I have no disagreement with this statement. The problem is that I am trying to see how it is in reference to the parts of my post that were quoted.
The discussions I am relating are ones in which those possibilities (miscommunication resulting in one party mistakenly believing it was being accused of personal racism or bigotry) were discussed and clarity was explicitly received. There was no mistake in believing an accusation was being made.
With respect to the companies catering or not catering it was explicitly stated that since the only way to expand was to grow a company's market, the only reason for not doing so was racism/sexism etc. The possibilities that resources may be scarce for developing new markets and that spending resources to develop a new market may cause loss of the market portion already held without addig new market to replace it was ignored in order to continue the racist/sexist claim.
In the discussion regarding the representation of non-traditional families it was explicitly stated over and over that because the dm had now been made aware of that his lack of inclusion did not correlate with the way things are in the real world he would be deliberately perpetuating a prejudice if he did not make a point to include them in the future and that he had no valid excuse for not including them. There was no ifs ands or buts about what was meant. Note: it should be stated that in this case the act of making such accusations was denied but it did not change the fact that it was being done. Sometimes, people claim to be not doing what they are explicitly doing.
Next...
Does it reflect a racist social norm that so few of the top Fortune 500 executives are minorities? Probably. Does that mean that every Fortune 500 executive is a racist? Absolutely not. Does it reflect a racist social norm when a published RPG adventure contains only 'white' humans? Probably. Does that mean that every person who produces or runs such an adventure is personally racist? Absolutely not.
This brings a question to mind. Just exactly what definition are you using for "racist social norm" and what evidence are you using that supports that definition enough to give a "probably" rating.
I am looking for some clarification here before proceeding.
But it's easy to see how commenting on the general social tendency can make people believe they're being personally accused of racism, I think.
But, with respect to the dm mentioned above, they were making comments explicitly about his choices as a dm. It wasn't a comment on the general social tendency.
Finally:
Which is not to say that I think we should stop commenting on it. Nobody ever learned anything by staying comfortable, IMO. Unless our society has people who are willing to challenge institutionalized injustice (on any grounds, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), then those injustices are going to remain unexamined and enshrined as part of our culture. On the other side, I think it's important for majority groups (and I include myself in this group when it comes to racial issues) be willing to examine the privilege they're granted by virtue of *being* part of the majority group, and recognize when that privilege creates unfairness. That's a hard thing to do, but ultimately valuable.
But, this brings me back to the post I was responding to that you picked a part out of:
I'm all for free speech, but I draw the line when it comes to bigoted remarks...it's not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but in today's brewing powderkeg of racial tensions it's damn close.
I was not bringing up the misuse of the term "bigotry" to say that people should keep their mouthes (sp?) shut but rather to say that if you choose to outlaw and stifle speech that is considered to be bigoted then it is really quite likely that you will end up putting a muzzle on legitimate concerns.
Further, since the post specifically addressed what is done in private (emphasis added mine):
The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world. The child never has a choice...it's all they know (there are a very few exceptions to this ie.-where a child grows up to learn the error of their ways but they are few and far between)
I find it closely related to the discussion mentioned regarding the inclusion of non-traditional marriages in d&d.
|
I'd settle for being able to slap him across the face with a white glove and demand satisfaction with pistols at dawn.The way I see it, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are on a two-way street. The way it should be is, if Fred Phelps wants to protest on street corners, that's his bag.
However, I should also allowed to take offense...
Yup.
Not so much. ;-)
...and hit him with a shovel.
Me too. I've wished that dueling was legal for years. And I'm a pretty good shot, too.
|
|
The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world. The child never has a choice...it's all they know (there are a very few exceptions to this ie.-where a child grows up to learn the error of their ways but they are few and far between)I find it closely related to the discussion mentioned regarding the inclusion of non-traditional marriages in d&d.
How so? I do not call for forced inclusion, I simply think that children should not be raised in any environment which essentially pre-sets their mindset when it comes to the world at large. Children should be raised to think that all people are equal, regardless of what they look like or what they believe. Personally, I am an atheist, but I will not "force" this belief upon my children. I will encourage them to explore all avenues of belief or disbelief; if they ask what I believe, I will tell them and tell them why but I will not tell them what I think about christian mythology and fanatacism.
I fail to see how this has any bearing on the issue of people getting upset because GLBT relationships are not included in fantasy roleplay campaigns.
Emphasis added is mine:
The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world. The child never has a choice...it's all they know (there are a very few exceptions to this ie.-where a child grows up to learn the error of their ways but they are few and far between)I find it closely related to the discussion mentioned regarding the inclusion of non-traditional marriages in d&d.How so? I do not call for forced inclusion, I simply think that children should not be raised in any environment which essentially pre-sets their mindset when it comes to the world at large. Children should be raised to think that all people are equal, regardless of what they look like or what they believe. Personally, I am an atheist, but I will not "force" this belief upon my children. I will encourage them to explore all avenues of belief or disbelief; if they ask what I believe, I will tell them and tell them why but I will not tell them what I think about christian mythology and fanatacism.
I fail to see how this has any bearing on the issue of people getting upset because GLBT relationships are not included in fantasy roleplay campaigns.
The argument in the discussion was one based on heteronormativity.
One side was arguing that because the dm was not intentionally including (as opposed to intentionally excluding) nontraditional couples (in campaigns that did not delve into gender issues) he was perpetuating an at large problem where these couples are not seen as the norm. Their absense in the game (supposedly) meant that the dm did not properly respect such people and that it perpetuated that lack of respect in the other gamers.
This appears to me to be classifying it in the same way: "I simply think that children should not be raised in any environment which essentially pre-sets their mindset when it comes to the world at large." So, if that logic is accepted then it has passed where you think the line should be drawn with respect to free speech. If a parent does not deliberately include non-traditional parents (and a host of other topics) in his games with his children then it is arguably across that line you have drawn with respect to free speech.
|
|
In truth, Germany has always been an immigration country, and will likely be a long time. By denying that fact, the immigrants that were there were poorly integrated for many years, even decades. The effect is that many immigrants, especially those from Turkey, the various Balcan States and former Soviet Union, have worse education than german people. This in turn leads to immigrant children having less chances to get a good job or university education, and a higher than average criminal ratio among these groups. This of course leads to the immigrants being seen as disruptive elements. So, a mislead political dogma lead to the exclusion of the immigrants and to a latent or sometimes open racism. Mind you, some turkish people live here in the 3rd generation already, and their integration can still be quite shaky.
My wife is Turkish, from Turkey, lived there all her life until,we got married. We have now lived in Germany for 4 years and I am still amazed and the amount of Turkish people in Germany, can't walk any where with out meeting a few. Though I can't say much about the Turkish integration into the German culture, since I am not a part of that culture, I can say that the my wife does sometimes have problems speaking to Turkish people in Germany that are 2nd and 3rd gen because the language has changed enough in just those short amount of generations.
I can definitely state that the Turkish food in Germany is not even close to as good as it is in Turkey.
|
|
Emphasis added is mine:
The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world. The child never has a choice...it's all they know (there are a very few exceptions to this ie.-where a child grows up to learn the error of their ways but they are few and far between)I find it closely related to the discussion mentioned regarding the inclusion of non-traditional marriages in d&d.How so? I do not call for forced inclusion, I simply think that children should not be raised in any environment which essentially pre-sets their mindset when it comes to the world at large. Children should be raised to think that all people are equal, regardless of what they look like or what they believe. Personally, I am an atheist, but I will not "force" this belief upon my children. I will encourage them to explore all avenues of belief or disbelief; if they ask what I believe, I will tell them and tell them why but I will not tell them what I think about christian mythology and fanatacism.
I fail to see how this has any bearing on the issue of people getting upset because GLBT relationships are not included in fantasy roleplay campaigns.
The argument in the discussion was one based on heteronormativity.
One side was arguing that because the dm was not intentionally including (as opposed to intentionally excluding) nontraditional couples (in a campaigns that did not delve into gender issues) he was perpetuating an at large problem where these couples are not seen as the norm. Their absense in the game (supposedly) meant that the dm did not properly respect such people and that it perpetuated that lack of respect in the other gamers.
This appears to me to be classifying it in the same way: "I simply think that children should not be raised in any environment which essentially pre-sets their mindset when it comes to the world at...
Most of parenting is not done by straight-out teaching. Children learn a lot by observing our actions, and will notice if their parents treat everyone with an equal degree of respect. I do not need to teach my children all of the in's and out's of homosexual relationships, but they will see me treating homosexuals with respect (when they understand what homosexuals are). And if they ask why two men live together and have a child, I will simply tell them that a person can love anybody they choose...race and gender do not matter as long as they love each other. What is wrong with teaching all children that lesson?
Emphasis added is mine:
The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world. The child never has a choice...it's all they know (there are a very few exceptions to this ie.-where a child grows up to learn the error of their ways but they are few and far between)I find it closely related to the discussion mentioned regarding the inclusion of non-traditional marriages in d&d.How so? I do not call for forced inclusion, I simply think that children should not be raised in any environment which essentially pre-sets their mindset when it comes to the world at large. Children should be raised to think that all people are equal, regardless of what they look like or what they believe. Personally, I am an atheist, but I will not "force" this belief upon my children. I will encourage them to explore all avenues of belief or disbelief; if they ask what I believe, I will tell them and tell them why but I will not tell them what I think about christian mythology and fanatacism.
I fail to see how this has any bearing on the issue of people getting upset because GLBT relationships are not included in fantasy roleplay campaigns.
The argument in the discussion was one based on heteronormativity.
One side was arguing that because the dm was not intentionally including (as opposed to intentionally excluding) nontraditional couples (in a campaigns that did not delve into gender issues) he was perpetuating an at large problem where these couples are not seen as the norm. Their absense in the game (supposedly) meant that the dm did not properly respect such people and that it perpetuated that lack of respect in the other gamers.
This appears to me to be classifying it in the same way: "I simply think that children should not be raised in any environment which essentially pre-sets their mindset when it comes to the world at large." So, if that logic is accepted then it has passed where you think the line should be drawn with respect to free speech. If a parent does not deliberately include non-traditional parents (and a host of other topics) in his games with his children then it is arguably across that line you have drawn with respect to free speech.
Most of parenting is not done by straight-out teaching. Children learn a lot by observing our actions, and will notice if their parents treat everyone with an equal degree of respect. I do not need to teach my children all of the in's and out's of homosexual relationships, but they will see me treating homosexuals with respect (when they understand what homosexuals are). And if they ask why two men live together and have a child, I will simply tell them that a person can love anybody they choose...race and gender do not matter as long as they love each other. What is wrong with teaching all children that lesson?
That was not the argument being made.
The argument being made was that unless you specifically make a point to include them in your stories their absence in the stories would perpetuate the bigotry. The dm specifically stated that if such a topic were brought up by his players (analogous to you saying you would address it if your children brought it up...) he would include them and elaborate. That was not good enough. This inclusion only at the behest of players was disrespectful. Not including them regardless of whether or not the players were interested or brought it up was the only right way.
That wasn't the point I was making originally at all. I'm not sure how you came to think that my argument was in support of the post regarding GLBT inclusion in gaming.
1. Xpltvdeleted: Made a post about drawing a line with respect to free speech: I'm all for free speech, but I draw the line when it comes to bigoted remarks...it's not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but in today's brewing powderkeg of racial tensions it's damn close.
2. TTfBtE: This brought to mind claims of bigotry I thought were unfounded and I asked the question: But, what should we do when people are labeling things as racist that are not racist and telling us we can't say them?
3. Xpltvdeleted: responded by giving specific examples of what he was referring to and asking the question: Do you have examples of that to which you are referring?
4. TTfBtE: Gave my examples...calling small government desires racist, the demographic catering case, and the heteronormativity argument
5. Lindisty: Apparently, I'm not certain, suggested that it was a case of becoming defensive due to difficulty in subject matter with respect to demographics and heteronormativity topic.
6. TTfBtE: Explained how the two were not cases of mistakenly thinking bigotry was being accused. It was a correct conclusion that bigotry was being accused in those cases. Related its importance because claims of bigotry would possibly fall under the freedom of speech line that Xpltvdeleted wanted to draw.
7. Xpltvdeleted: States How so? I do not call for forced inclusion, I simply think that children should not be raised in any environment which essentially pre-sets their mindset when it comes to the world at large.
8. TTfBtE: The example given, (note: the example was asked for in 3.) is a claim of creating and perpetuating harmful preset mindsets: bigotry.
9. Xpltvdeleted: I do not need to teach my children all of the in's and out's of homosexual relationships, but they will see me treating homosexuals with respect (when they understand what homosexuals are). And if they ask why two men live together and have a child, I will simply tell them that a person can love anybody they choose...race and gender do not matter as long as they love each other. What is wrong with teaching all children that lesson?
10. TTfBtE: The argument being made was that unless you specifically make a point to include them in your stories their absence in the stories would perpetuate the bigotry
11. Xpltvdeleted: That wasn't the point I was making originally at all. I'm not sure how you came to think that my argument was in support of the post regarding GLBT inclusion in gaming.
My argument was not that you were supporting the argument made in the heteronormativity discussion. It was an argument that people misuse the terms you wished to use to draw the line with respect to freedom of speech. Problems would arise when they draw the line.
If accepted as true, the argument made in the heteronormativity discussion (not intentionally including non-traditional parents in stories would propagate disrespect of such people and that it would be deliberate propogation of bigotry to continue not doing so after it was pointed out to you) would fall into a parameter you gave for raising children: I simply think that children should not be raised in any environment which essentially pre-sets their mindset when it comes to the world at large. and, if someone else were drawing the line instead of you, I'm all for free speech, but I draw the line when it comes to bigoted remarks...it's not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but in today's brewing powderkeg of racial tensions it's damn close., it would probably fall under that category also.
Going back to my original post for clarification, I was not specifically challenging you but rather challenging the notion that others should make choices for me about what I should say to my children (when I have them) because they are often wrong, IMO.
Your choice to bring such discussions up when asked falls short of the ideal set by those taking one side in the heteronormativity argument. If they were the one drawing the line, you would be forced to raise your children differently.
I don't want that line to be drawn by someone outside my family for my family.
|
|
Ok that makes more sense, I was confused as to what you were referring to. That argument does make sense, but I just cannot reconcile abandoning children to a life of hatred and bigotry in the name of free speech. OTOH, I also do not want somebody else telling me how to raise my kids so i guess it's a catch-22.
Ok that makes more sense, I was confused as to what you were referring to. That argument does make sense, but I just cannot reconcile abandoning children to a life of hatred and bigotry in the name of free speech. OTOH, I also do not want somebody else telling me how to raise my kids so i guess it's a catch-22.
Fair enough. I think that sometimes there just aren't any good answers to some problems. Possibly time will work at least some more than it already has.
I'm curious how the children of racists (specifically those belonging to established hate groups) have grown up. Does anyone have any data on how many of those children remained associated with the parents' group? Anyone even know if any studies have looked at that?
I strongly suspect that some children grow up to find their parents beliefs wrong... and not just children of racists....
Personally, I am an atheist, but I will not "force" this belief upon my children. I will encourage them to explore all avenues of belief or disbelief; if they ask what I believe, I will tell them and tell them why but I will not tell them what I think about christian mythology and fanatacism.
Most of parenting is not done by straight-out teaching. Children learn a lot by observing our actions, and will notice if their parents treat everyone with an equal degree of respect. I do not need to teach my children all of the in's and out's of homosexual relationships, but they will see me treating homosexuals with respect (when they understand what homosexuals are). And if they ask why two men live together and have a child, I will simply tell them that a person can love anybody they choose...race and gender do not matter as long as they love each other. What is wrong with teaching all children that lesson?
*scratch head*
Might you not in fact "teach" your children to look down on religous individuals, unintentionally perhaps. As you point out, how we react to others is just as much instructive as what we say or do not say.
|
|
Personally, I am an atheist, but I will not "force" this belief upon my children. I will encourage them to explore all avenues of belief or disbelief; if they ask what I believe, I will tell them and tell them why but I will not tell them what I think about christian mythology and fanatacism.Most of parenting is not done by straight-out teaching. Children learn a lot by observing our actions, and will notice if their parents treat everyone with an equal degree of respect. I do not need to teach my children all of the in's and out's of homosexual relationships, but they will see me treating homosexuals with respect (when they understand what homosexuals are). And if they ask why two men live together and have a child, I will simply tell them that a person can love anybody they choose...race and gender do not matter as long as they love each other. What is wrong with teaching all children that lesson?*scratch head*
Might you not in fact "teach" your children to look down on religous individuals, unintentionally perhaps. As you point out, how we react to others is just as much instructive as what we say or do not say.
Touché...I've started trying to watch what I say as I can be a bit of a douche when it comes to religions and the religious.
This brings a question to mind. Just exactly what definition are you using for "racist social norm" and what evidence are you using that supports that definition enough to give a "probably" rating.
I am looking for some clarification here before proceeding.
The 'racist social norm' in question in both of the examples I cited is the notion that white is the default. The fact is that U.S. culture, politics, and society has historically been controlled by white males, specifically. Our cultural and social institutions have generally treated white males as the 'default' case, and those who don't fit that category as the outliers. This is less true now than it used to be, and it's changing all the time. One simple example of this kind of institutionalized privilege of being the 'default' is that sample groups for drug experiments used to use white men as the baseline study groups, and never considered whether there were gender-based differences in how drugs might affect female patients. That's changing, gradually, in the medical field. But there are other contexts in which the notion of 'white' and 'male' are still very much the default case for our society.
So when I say that it probably reflects a racist social norm when 'white' humans are the only ones portrayed in an RPG adventure, it's because unless there's a story reason for it, then the assumption that all the people in the fantasy setting are white is a reflection that 'white' is the default race for humanity. A gaming company that produces such a product may have no intention of being racist, and in fact may be very progressive, but that doesn't mean the product isn't reflecting a racist social norm.
Does that clarify things any?
5. Lindisty: Apparently, I'm not certain, suggested that it was a case of becoming defensive due to difficulty in subject matter with respect to demographics and heteronormativity topic.
What I was getting at is that very often, when someone points to an example of a specific instance as something that reflects a racist (sexist, etc.) social norm, it's perceived as being an accusation of personal racism (sexism, etc.). I wasn't party to the conversations you referenced, but I've been involved in more than one conversation where I said, "<X> is an example of socially institutionalized <insert your 'ism' of choice>" only to have someone perceive that I was accusing them of being personally bigoted. Everyone perceives things through their own filters, so while I wasn't party to the conversations in question, I thought perhaps some of that dynamic might have been present, and thus it seemed worth mentioning.
|
link to Edward James Olmos speaking on RACISM!
I was with him right up to the point where he laid the origins of Racism on Caucasians 600 years ago. Then I shot him in the back and sided with the CYLONS!!!
Racism has been with us since be beginning when we kicked people we didnt like out of our caves and built walls around our cluster of mud brick huts to keep their decendants out.
|
|
I'm curious how the children of racists (specifically those belonging to established hate groups) have grown up. Does anyone have any data on how many of those children remained associated with the parents' group? Anyone even know if any studies have looked at that?
I strongly suspect that some children grow up to find their parents beliefs wrong... and not just children of racists....
I don't know about any data, but my grandfather was affiliated with (not a member, but close) the Ku Klux Klan, and all of his kids ended up not following his beliefs at all.
|
|
link to Edward James Olmos speaking on RACISM!
I was with him right up to the point where he laid the origins of Racism on Caucasians 600 years ago. Then I shot him in the back and sided with the CYLONS!!!
Racism has been with us since be beginning when we kicked people we didnt like out of our caves and built walls around our cluster of mud brick huts to keep their decendants out.
You've hit the nail on the head AGAIN.
link to Edward James Olmos speaking on RACISM!
I was with him right up to the point where he laid the origins of Racism on Caucasians 600 years ago. Then I shot him in the back and sided with the CYLONS!!!
Racism has been with us since be beginning when we kicked people we didnt like out of our caves and built walls around our cluster of mud brick huts to keep their decendants out.
Especially given the way he says it makes it sound like everyone of that "culture" had uniformly intended to destroy "other cultures". That is painting with a very broad brush.
|
I'm curious how the children of racists (specifically those belonging to established hate groups) have grown up. Does anyone have any data on how many of those children remained associated with the parents' group? Anyone even know if any studies have looked at that?
I strongly suspect that some children grow up to find their parents beliefs wrong... and not just children of racists....
At a certain age, many young adults 'rebel' and begin acting in ways that are opposed to the way their parents act. 'Preacher's Daughter' syndrome is one apocryphal example (where the pastor's little girl is a wild child or the 'tough-on-crime' senator's son is always having to get bailed out of jail), but the generational pendulum swing seems to be fairly commonplace.
It's obviously not some hard and fast rule, and my 'rebellion' was to *not* join my mom in the 'turn on, tune in and drop out' free love-a-palooza that was her extended adolescence, and grow up into a fuddy-duddy instead. :)
From what little I know of social behavior, 'rebelling' against the beliefs of your upbringing and finding either the discipline / consistency / security that you didn't feel growing up in a fearful, stressful or insecure situation, or the freedom / experiences / opportunities that you were denied in a harsh, rules-heavy, 'my way or the highway' household, is pretty much normal, so I'd imagine that many young people growing up around racism (as I did, in some population 3000 town in Oklahoma, where black people were not legally allowed to own property or to live within city limits, even if this law couldn't be enforced, because it was blatantly against federal law, and I was taught in public school that black people were dark-skinned because they bore the mark of Cain) grow up to walk away from the stuff they were taught as children.
When my grandmother 'corrected' some jerk who was bragging about how he was gonna 'get his knife and go cut him some n***ers' by saying, 'They can't help being born like that!' I cringed and walked away from the conversation, since her unintentional racism was far more upsetting to me than some idiot's ramblings (since I gave a crap what she thought, unlike random idiot #32659).
In my experience, the most devout Catholics are those who came to the faith as adults, and *chose* the faith, instead of just following a family tradition (with a lot of so-called 'cafeteria Catholics,' who ignore any doctrine that doesn't suit their fancy, being from Catholic families where they are primarily Catholic because 'we all are' and not because they ever made a conscious choice to be a Catholic), so it's possible that even those growing up in racist surroundings, and having superficial signs of racist behavior, are only skin-deep, and don't really have any issues with other races, just are talking the talk as a form of 'protective coloration' to fit in with their society.
It's also 'cool' and 'trendy' to say deliberately offensive things, in some venues (like, uh, the internet). The 'un-PC' crowd loves nothing more than to say provocative things to get other people flustered, which makes it harder to gauge who actually has racist beliefs, and who's just saying 'wetback' because it's crap-on-immigrant week.
|
|
Racism has been with us since be beginning when we kicked people we didnt like out of our caves and built walls around our cluster of mud brick huts to keep their decendants out.
Perhaps at one point, there may have even been *reasons* to fear the Other.
On the most primitive level, discoloration can be a symptom of sickness or poor health, and allowing that sort of person into your cave could just infect your whole family and incomprehensible babbling can be a sign of fever, madness or other dangerous conditions, not just a 'foreign language.' (For the same reason, inviting a wounded person into your home could be dangerous. Something hurt that fellow, and what if it followed him? Was it a tiger? An axe-murderer? The Inquisition? Shut the door, Martha. We can't help.)
But on a more advanced tribal level, styles, clothing, shared behaviors and language all can serve to differentiate 'safe people' from 'others,' from something as similar as wearing your clothes a certain way to denote gang affiliation to killing anyone who can't pronounce the word 'shibboleth.'
But that's gone past it's shelf life, and turned around to being counter-productive, in a world were we don't live and die within 10 miles of where we were born, and where we are pretty much guaranteed to run into a variety of colors and shapes of people during the course of a day.
The way I see it, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are on a two-way street. The way it should be is, if Fred Phelps wants to protest on street corners, that's his bag. However, I should also allowed to take offense and hit him with a shovel.Racial slurs-no go
Someone of x race is inferior-no go
No daughter/son of mine is gonna date a x-no go
PC b#@&%!@#-questionable
All the gays are evil-no goAll seems to be common sense stuff to me. Do you have examples of that to which you are referring?
I beleive Abraham Lincoln stated that the right to freedom of expression ended at end of your opponents nose, advocating violence to eradicate speech you don't agree with is every bit as vile as the person spewing it, and in the eyes of the law the physical threat should take the fore-front as far as punishment. One evil doesn't undo another and sinking to a lower form than the hate monger sets back the fight for equality by giving ammuntion to those you have effectivley repressed with your violent assualt
Racism has been with us since be beginning when we kicked people we didnt like out of our caves and built walls around our cluster of mud brick huts to keep their decendants out.Perhaps at one point, there may have even been *reasons* to fear the Other.
On the most primitive level, discoloration can be a symptom of sickness or poor health, and allowing that sort of person into your cave could just infect your whole family and incomprehensible babbling can be a sign of fever, madness or other dangerous conditions, not just a 'foreign language.' (For the same reason, inviting a wounded person into your home could be dangerous. Something hurt that fellow, and what if it followed him? Was it a tiger? An axe-murderer? The Inquisition? Shut the door, Martha. We can't help.)
But on a more advanced tribal level, styles, clothing, shared behaviors and language all can serve to differentiate 'safe people' from 'others,' from something as similar as wearing your clothes a certain way to denote gang affiliation to killing anyone who can't pronounce the word 'shibboleth.'
But that's gone past it's shelf life, and turned around to being counter-productive, in a world were we don't live and die within 10 miles of where we were born, and where we are pretty much guaranteed to run into a variety of colors and shapes of people during the course of a day.
Another issue, historically, would be that if you waste resources or allow resources to be wasted on individuals without a strong relationship to your "kind", then that other individual might leave and those resources would be lost to the group. The survival of the group then could be put into jeopardy because the last resources without any return could be the difference between life and death.
It's also 'cool' and 'trendy' to say deliberately offensive things, in some venues (like, uh, the internet). The 'un-PC' crowd loves nothing more than to say provocative things to get other people flustered, which makes it harder to gauge who actually has racist beliefs, and who's just saying 'wetback' because it's crap-on-immigrant week.
Well I think that some times (but of course not always) people use various terms to "push buttons".
Let me give you a real life example. When I was in high school, my school which had the worst soccer team in the immediate area (my freshman year was the first year they offered it and so they didn't really have a good program yet) for a couple of years, during my senior year was beating the best team in the state. Now my school was the "ethnic" school of the area (around 47% white, 46% black, the rest being mostly hispanic with some asians also). Now this best school was from a much more rural city and was entirely white. When they started getting beat they started to racial slurs towards our minority players. Our minority players started getting upset (reasonably so). I said to my fellow players, "Look they are just trying to get you off your game, and look it is working. The next time they say something to you, just smile big and say, 'Your Mother' and laugh. Seriously, just do that, show them that it isn't going to get you off your game. Show them how truly pathetic their attempts are to getting you upset."
You know what happened? We won the game, and the other players were so upset they wanted to come after our players. Words only have the power you give them.
This is a very well though out discussion and I would like to ask some questions. I am not trying to be inflamitory in any way just seeking answers.
At what point do anti-racist mesures become racist themselves?
I use the horrible employment laws saying you have to have so many of X or Y in order to be considered for such and such benifits. If you want to improve race relations in this country then get rid of afirmative action and let people stand or fall on their own not on their skin color.
Next question what is the solution for reverse discrimination?
Reverse discrimination is becomeing alot more prevalent in this country but nobody seems to want to talk about it because it's not PC.
This is a very well though out discussion and I would like to ask some questions. I am not trying to be inflamitory in any way just seeking answers.
At what point do anti-racist mesures become racist themselves?
I use the horrible employment laws saying you have to have so many of X or Y in order to be considered for such and such benifits. If you want to improve race relations in this country then get rid of afirmative action and let people stand or fall on their own not on their skin color.Next question what is the solution for reverse discrimination?
Reverse discrimination is becomeing alot more prevalent in this country but nobody seems to want to talk about it because it's not PC.
It's still discrimination and should be treated as such. I was never in favor of most affirmative action measures because it's a dressed up quota system in practice, if not in intention. However, I would more say the problem with reverse discrimination(as described above) is the same problem general discrimination encountered after a while- while it exists, it's not EVERYWHERE, and moreover it shouldn't be seen as an automatic trump card to the discrimination/race card.
Excellent Questions. My opinions:
At what point do anti-racist mesures become racist themselves?
Racism, being often subjectively manifested or identified, is a tough issue to address through laws, and even tougher to adjudicate purely by letter of the law. If laws enacted to combat a disparity do what they are designed to do, then those laws need to be retired. But one can always find 'corner cases' where they may apply. My own opinion is that rather than rely on laws telling us what to do, we should rely on our own judgements and intellect (wow, my inner optimist must be strong today) to tell us what is right. Discrimination is quite often wrong and unfair, and we shouldn't need a law telling us to play fair. Unfortunately, in times past, appeals to law were often the only recourse - I woudl like to think that our society has matured to a point where other avenues are open and where the laws can be written to simply say fairness must apply to all.
In practice, there are still institutions with significant ethnic disparities. There are many reasons for this, and not all are blatant racism or discrimination. Rather than write laws to force integration, those institutions need to have strong and wise leaders with a policy of inclusion. While no situation can be rectified overnight, given a decade or two, equality should be achieved. The main problem I see is that people are inherently lazy and strong wise leadership is often only paid lip service.
Next question what is the solution for reverse discrimination?
Reverse reverse discrimination... if we continue our 'let's make a law for that' laziness. The real solution is to simply get to knkow your neighbors and learn about the people around you. YOu may find some generalizations about groups, but the more diverse an array of people you get to know, the wiser you will be in making decisions. Presumably that will carry over into economic situations as well.
Gee, I"m practically PollyAnna-ish today. But honestly, we need to move beyond seeing race everywhere. Yeah, it's easy to note the color of a person's skin, but it takes a little effort to judge the content of their character. But effort is what makes humanity advance.
Nice comments and on the whole I can agree with the replies.
I forgot one last question that may seem a touch explosive but in any meaningful race discussion it has to be asked.
WHY is raceism not ok?
Haveing been a "victim" of raceism I fully understand and support it when it comes to "PERSONAL" choice.
Now for the explanation before the flames get too high.
I attend adult oriented parties and on more than one occasion I saw an attractive looking nicely muscled black guy and when I made my intentions know was very politley told that "I don't date outside of my race" or "I'm not attracted to white guys"
By the classic definition this is raceist because they shut me down based on my skin color. Me, I had no problem with it and fully understood that it was a matter of personal prefrence.
So the question is, is personal choice and personal prefrence rasict and something to be legislated or is that type of discrimination OK.
|
I'm curious how the children of racists (specifically those belonging to established hate groups) have grown up. Does anyone have any data on how many of those children remained associated with the parents' group? Anyone even know if any studies have looked at that?
I strongly suspect that some children grow up to find their parents beliefs wrong... and not just children of racists....
No studies, but I have an anecdote. :)
My father's parents are racist. When my dad was 16, his father tried to get him to go with him to shoot a biracial man for dating my dad's older sister. My dad flat out refused - and stopped my grandfather from going too. This would be about 1970.
I think it would be hard for a 16 year old boy to stand up to his dad like that. I am unutterably proud of him for his strength of character. And once I found out about this, I lost all respect for my grandfather.
I'm curious how the children of racists (specifically those belonging to established hate groups) have grown up. Does anyone have any data on how many of those children remained associated with the parents' group? Anyone even know if any studies have looked at that?
I strongly suspect that some children grow up to find their parents beliefs wrong... and not just children of racists....
No studies, but I have an anecdote. :)
My father's parents are racist. When my dad was 16, his father tried to get him to go with him to shoot a biracial man for dating my dad's older sister. My dad flat out refused - and stopped my grandfather from going too. This would be about 1970.
I think it would be hard for a 16 year old boy to stand up to his dad like that. I am unutterably proud of him for his strength of character. And once I found out about this, I lost all respect for my grandfather.
I think your being a bit harsh to lose all respect for someone that up until that point you loved.
I understand what your saying but you have to remember they were a product of their times, it's no excuse but a little understanding can go along way.My mother never hit me growing up but when she found out that I went to a public park downtown with my black friends and their fathers she was livid.
I had told her where I was going and with whom but she didnt realise it was in public. Then she tried to explain to my 8yr old self why we don't do such things and I was told to no longer associate with blacks in public and found out that my friends mothers all told them the same thing. Apparently calls came in from all over town about the scandel. We could see and talk to each other at school but not at the grocery store or any place like that it just wasn't done.
My mother never hated blacks at all but things were in place for a reason. I remember growing up if a white man is on the black side of the tracks he's up to no good.
I can say that this wasn't racism just a social norm that everybody adhered to because thats just the way it was.
Nice comments and on the whole I can agree with the replies.
I forgot one last question that may seem a touch explosive but in any meaningful race discussion it has to be asked.WHY is raceism not ok?
Haveing been a "victim" of raceism I fully understand and support it when it comes to "PERSONAL" choice.
Now for the explanation before the flames get too high.
I attend adult oriented parties and on more than one occasion I saw an attractive looking nicely muscled black guy and when I made my intentions know was very politley told that "I don't date outside of my race" or "I'm not attracted to white guys"
By the classic definition this is raceist because they shut me down based on my skin color. Me, I had no problem with it and fully understood that it was a matter of personal prefrence.So the question is, is personal choice and personal prefrence rasict and something to be legislated or is that type of discrimination OK.
I remember you mentioning this before. If it helps, I've gotten that too(from women, at least- about two guys on my second job were attracted to me BECAUSE I was black [and wore glasses and didn't act stereotypical, at least outside of the bedroom as the second guy hinted]- something that amuses me greatly). It hurts, but remember- it is THEIR loss.
|
|
I think your being a bit harsh to lose all respect for someone that up until that point you loved.
I understand what your saying but you have to remember they were a product of their times, it's no excuse but a little understanding can go along way.
Well, I don't think I'm being harsh. He tried to force his 16 year old son to help him commit a murder because he didn't like the guy that was dating his daughter because of his race. I can't think that at anytime in my grandfather's life, from 1930 on that was ever okay. I guess there were places where he could've gotten away with it at points in his life, but even then I don't think most people would have called it right - especially involving his young son.
I'm curious how the children of racists (specifically those belonging to established hate groups) have grown up. Does anyone have any data on how many of those children remained associated with the parents' group? Anyone even know if any studies have looked at that?
I strongly suspect that some children grow up to find their parents beliefs wrong... and not just children of racists....
No studies, but I have an anecdote. :)
My father's parents are racist. When my dad was 16, his father tried to get him to go with him to shoot a biracial man for dating my dad's older sister. My dad flat out refused - and stopped my grandfather from going too. This would be about 1970.
I think it would be hard for a 16 year old boy to stand up to his dad like that. I am unutterably proud of him for his strength of character. And once I found out about this, I lost all respect for my grandfather.
I think your being a bit harsh to lose all respect for someone that up until that point you loved.
I understand what your saying but you have to remember they were a product of their times, it's no excuse but a little understanding can go along way.
My mother never hit me growing up but when she found out that I went to a public park downtown with my black friends and their fathers she was livid.
I had told her where I was going and with whom but she didnt realise it was in public. Then she tried to explain to my 8yr old self why we don't do such things and I was told to no longer associate with blacks in public and found out that my friends mothers all told them the same thing. Apparently calls came in from all over town about the scandel. We could see and talk to each other at school but not at the grocery store or any place like that it just wasn't done.
My mother never hated blacks at all but things were in place for a reason. I remember growing up if a white man is on the black side of the tracks he's up to no good.
I can say that this...
Steven, may I ask when and what part of the country this took place in?
I'm curious because it's such a stark contrast with my experience in west Texas in the early 70's.
|
|
Nice comments and on the whole I can agree with the replies.
I forgot one last question that may seem a touch explosive but in any meaningful race discussion it has to be asked.WHY is raceism not ok?
Haveing been a "victim" of raceism I fully understand and support it when it comes to "PERSONAL" choice.
Now for the explanation before the flames get too high.
I attend adult oriented parties and on more than one occasion I saw an attractive looking nicely muscled black guy and when I made my intentions know was very politley told that "I don't date outside of my race" or "I'm not attracted to white guys"
By the classic definition this is raceist because they shut me down based on my skin color. Me, I had no problem with it and fully understood that it was a matter of personal prefrence.So the question is, is personal choice and personal prefrence rasict and something to be legislated or is that type of discrimination OK.
Not being sexually attracted to someone who is outside of your race is not racist, it's simply a preference...some folks like blondes, some like redheads, some like darker complected people. I fall into the latter category. I have dated white women in the past, but I have always had a "thing" for black women. Does that make me a racist? No, it means I know what I like. It wouldn't even make me racist if I were to exclusively date black women.
Now as for refusing to date outside of the race, there are alot of societal pressures that come along with this, especially in the black community. "Out-dating/marrying" is still considered taboo to blacks for the most part (at least for black women--somewhat of a double standard when it comes to black men dating outside the race). While the intention behind not dating outside the race may be racist, I think it more often than not is due to fear of what their peers will think.
You are now $0.02 richer!
...may I ask when and what part of the country this took place in?
I'm curious because it's such a stark contrast with my experience in west Texas in the early 70's.
I know the question was for Steven, but I'll share an anecdote: I can tell you that two black schoolmates and I were refused service at a diner in West Virginia in 1987. We were traveling with a white teacher to visit prospective colleges, and two of us went in to get snacks and drinks for the road, and were told that they didn't serve 'our kind'. I was horrified.
But de facto segregation was very much the norm in my hometown during the 80s, and still is, so far as I can tell from my occasional visits to my parents. It's a big part of why I say West Virginia is a beautiful state and a fine place to be from. Living there now, though? Not so much. It's disconcerting enough sometimes going back for visits, because every time I realize just how alien I am to everyone I used to know. :P
I think it is totally natural for people to more often associate with individuals that have a similar social experience as their own. Often race plays a significant part in one's social experiences, right or wrong.
I notice one time when in high school that in a class where everyone was allowed to sit where they wanted (no forced seating chart), that all of the black students had sat on one side of the room and all of the white students had sat on the other. There was never any one pressure people to sit in a particular place, people just ended up sitting with people they were most familiar with and had the most in common with.
Now, understanding that this totally natural means I actually support some level of affirmative action. The reason is because the person doing the hiring or acceptance to the school or whatever is going to be (usually unconsciously) biased towards individuals that they can more closely identify with. So having a way to try to address this bias, is reasonable to me.
But I only support race being a consideration when it comes to a "tie-breaker" situation. I don't think it ultimately does anyone a favor to allow an underqualified candidate to take a position over a qualified candidate merely based on the pigment level in one's skin. In the case where you have essentially two equally qualified individuals, I believe attempting to increase diversity is a good goal, it forces people to move out of their comfort zone a bit more.
|
This isn't exactly my shining moment, but I hope it helps:
I grew up in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. For those of you not in the know, there's a lot of racial tension there between English and French. When I was young was I got caught up in it and became quite racist against French Canadians.
Growing up, there was (and still is) a rather large, French Canadian separation movement to have the province of Quebec leave Canada. You saw signs for it, and as an English child, you got afraid that it meant you weren't going to live in Canada anymore and weren't going to be able to continue speaking English and have English business' etc.
It didn't help that some of these beliefs are also held by my friends, and even some more grown-up English Canadians. Most of these beliefs were completely unfounded, but as a kid, I believed it and wrongly blamed all of the French. My friends and I used racist remarks and would act out against anyone acting differently. Some of my friends would target known separatists with vandalism. It wasn't until I became 15 and realized that I had French friends that I curbed it somewhat.
Later, when I moved to Ontario, I actually missed (and still do) the French culture of Quebec, as well as the people. I realized that I wasn't this Ultra-English Canadian and that I was wrong.
And it wasn't my home situation either: I grew up in a house that taught racial equality. I was taught about all the issues that had happened in my country and around the US and that racism was bad. Didn't stop me though in the end, and I didn't even think of myself as racist when I was young.
Racism is just a subset of a larger and more provasive issue of Intolerance.
Anti-Gay, anti-Jew, etc isn't racist because it has nothing to do about 'race' but everything to do with intolerance to those who beliefs, culture or traditions are different than our own.
It is the 'Us vs Them' mentality rooted in tribal mindsets that modern humankind has not grown out of since our primitive past, when other tribes were competitors for resources.
Intolerance is even a bigger danger than racism because it hides more easily in our society. But the outcomes of intolerance are just a tangible as racism.
Racism is just one type of intolerance in a wider field.
Intolerance is the main reason of the genocides in Rwanda and the Balkans. The Inquisition. The Purges of Stalin. The Killing Fields of Cambodian. And the list goes on and on and on.
You can couch it in terms of race, religion, social political background or sexual orientation but at it heart it is straight up intolerance to another group who is 'different' than you.
I use the horrible employment laws saying you have to have so many of X or Y in order to be considered for such and such benifits.
Just curious here, but I don't know of any such laws. Could you perhaps elaborate. *confused*
Certain large construction projects require a percentage (I often hear 18% quoted) of the contractors or subcontractors to be minority-owned firms in order to qualify for government financing. This applies even if the government is not the sole, or even the main, source of funding.Just curious here, but I don't know of any such laws. Could you perhaps elaborate. *confused*
I use the horrible employment laws saying you have to have so many of X or Y in order to be considered for such and such benifits.
I was half-way through writing against the above when I remembered why I had agreed with it in the past. I originally began to write that the project could just not accept the funding if it did not want to deal with the restrictions. But, that is not exactly how it works. The funding will determine how contractors bid upon a job.
So, if two general contractors are bidding on a job, the one which meets the pre-requisite can count on this funding and thus under bid a rival that does not mee the pre-requisite.
Or, to be more specific, if the only local general contractor capable of handling the scope of the job does not meet the pre-requisite he could be underbid by a contractor from outside the community that met the pre-requisite. Then, not only would money not go to local minority companies that the law was (most likely) designed to protect but it would leave the community altogether. As it would not be returned to the community there would be lost tax resources that could not be returned to particular community sectors (minority) that need developments of various sorts: teacher wages, police patrols, etc.
But, on its face, it can give a job to a contractor less able to meet the needs of the job. A business full of hard working employees ( sizable portion of which could be minority) can be denied work to pay their bills despite not engaging in any form of discrimination.
...may I ask when and what part of the country this took place in?
I'm curious because it's such a stark contrast with my experience in west Texas in the early 70's.
I know the question was for Steven, but I'll share an anecdote: I can tell you that two black schoolmates and I were refused service at a diner in West Virginia in 1987. We were traveling with a white teacher to visit prospective colleges, and two of us went in to get snacks and drinks for the road, and were told that they didn't serve 'our kind'. I was horrified.
But de facto segregation was very much the norm in my hometown during the 80s, and still is, so far as I can tell from my occasional visits to my parents. It's a big part of why I say West Virginia is a beautiful state and a fine place to be from. Living there now, though? Not so much. It's disconcerting enough sometimes going back for visits, because every time I realize just how alien I am to everyone I used to know. :P
I find it interesting how much overt racism is evident in all these areas outside of the deep south. I have heard similar anecdotes about the north east too. I also believe all the national socialists I know are from the west coast too.
I can definitely state that the Turkish food in Germany is not even close to as good as it is in Turkey.
Mmm... Spent a weekend in Antalya, Turkey when I was in the Navy. Some of the best meals of my entire Med cruise were had there. *lipsmack*
I find it interesting how much overt racism is evident in all these areas outside of the deep south. I have heard similar anecdotes about the north east too. I also believe all the national socialists I know are from the west coast too.
I dunno. A lot of my neighbors are black folks who moved here from Georgia and the Carolinas, and what I hear of their experiences before they left doesn't make me think the deep south is a paradise of perfect race relations. :) Then again, the anecdotes one hears from the people who are disaffected minorities who have left a particular place is going to be very different from the anecdotes one hears from people who stay in that place, whether the people who stay happen to be minorities or not. Perspectives vary widely, obviously.
Also, I would certainly classify the part of West Virginia where I grew up as 'Southern', though I recognize it's not the 'Deep South'. Hell, I know families there who STILL have schisms in them that date back to the Civil War, and a few folks of my grandfather's generation who still refer to it as 'The War of Northern Aggression'.
I find it interesting how much overt racism is evident in all these areas outside of the deep south. I have heard similar anecdotes about the north east too.
I'm from Troy, NY. The entire north half of the city proper was almost 100% black. The south end of the city proper was almost 100% white. Up on a hill to the east is a technical university campus, with an awful lot of Asians.