How to combat racism

[ScottA]

You are asking 2 different questions. The ideas are mutually exclusive. You can admire a person of a race and still disdain the race in general. Many frontiersmen regarded certain Indian warriors highly, but they still treated most Indians like subhumans due to their race. This is why it is often considered offensive to tell someone they "are a credit to their race", as it implies their race in general is inferior.

Treating certain people one way and others of the same race differently, was NEVER a matter of race, but a matter of behavior. It still is.

That's why what we are experiencing in culture now CANNOT be defined as racism. The problem is NOT about race, it's about behavior, and that behavior, is called: hypocrisy.

CORRECTION: It's only hypocrisy if defined by race.

Example: If I love my black neighbor, but hate a group of black looters. It's NOT racism. But if I say I love my black neighbor, but show disdain for all other blacks for no other reason than their race, that's (two faced) hypocrisy. Neither of these two examples is racism. Racism is not selective.

 

[bhsmte]

Treating certain people one way and others differently, was NEVER a matter of race, but a matter of behavior. It still is.

That's why what we are experiencing in culture now CANNOT be defined as racism. The problem is NOT about race, it's about behavior, and that behavior, is called: hypocrisy.

Yea, we get what your opinion is.

I and it appears many others disagree.

 

[nightflight]

I think the media and its bosses were completely thrown off by the outpouring of good will and forgiveness shown by the people of Charleston. Instead of discord there was prayer, hugs, reconciliation, expressions of goodwill. (Its a Southern thing.) They had to come up with something quick, to get maximum political juice and they zeroed in on a flag.

Its really a shame; the people of Charleston taught us something and the media and its overlords dumped all over it.

 

[ScottA]

Yea, we get what your opinion is.

I and it appears many others disagree.

Can't help you if you disagree with the definitions of terms in the dictionary. Too bad. You can't fix a problem you don't first properly identify.

 

[fat wee robin]

You base that on what evidence?

In my view, there is more evidence for the opposite situation; things may have been different if Zimmerman was black. We know Martin was next to his home by his conversation with his girlfriend. We know Martin made racial comments against Zimmerman according to the girlfriends testimony. We know Martin chose not to go home and instead circled back to confront Zimmerman and traveled several hundred feet to do so.

So, considering the racial comments, would Martin have gone home if he thought Zimmerman was black? Would he have circled back to confront Zimmerman if he knew Zimmerman was black?

All of this was clearly brought out at trial, with considerable evidence and is why Zimmerman was acquitted and also why, the FBI investigated him at length and found zero evidence to support racist behavior.

I stand by my statement, It was a horrible decision, for Obama to bring race into this comments, considering the facts in evidence, which he was well aware of.

Not sure what the video is, but I am quite certain, it has no bearing on the facts in the Zimmerman case.

You do know that Einstein hated atheists who tried to use him as an example of one ,and that although he had no religion ,he believed in God .Religion and God are not the same thing ,especially when you have been 'marked' by God to do His work and push forward the boundaries of HIS KNOWLEDGE .Einstein was one of them,he had gone beyond 'religious rituals ',he had graduated .

 

[fat wee robin]

Yes, admiration and racism do not mix...because, if it does, it's not racism, it's hypocrisy.

Well it's more pragmatism .There are some people who despise you because to them you have nothing that they want or can exploit for their own purpose (worldly types, shallow interests) .Having ignored you they find when you are appreciated by others for a skill or something else ,suddenly you are their favourite person.The US and certain English cultures are more prone to this whereas Scotland ,Ireland and Eastern europe as a generalisation would be the opposite .The clan system reigned ,where everyone had a role belonged as long as they were good or the overall future of the clan and extreme individual egoism would be either ignored as idiotic or if excessive if threatening .The US as a developement of Engish selfish arrogance thinks that the individual is more important than the 'clan' ,and so has become morally corrupt in a 'legal way ',probably on a scale never known before . The 'clan' represents God, in so far as it kept in place, those who would destroy others for their own selfish, short term desires ;so anyone whose desires do not correspond with the 'greater good' of the 'clan' is acting for themselves against God's plans, and will be banished for their pains .
Protestantism where is serves the purpose of individual egoism is being shown to be useless in the face of 'evil' ,while countries like Italy ,France ,and Spain based on a 'clan' system , are defying it ,are in the Streets against injustice, and the inversion of God's laws .

 

[SkyWriting]

First and foremost, to combat racism, one must destroy the institutions that aid and abet racism. In the case of the US, this means the complete abolition of international Capitalism and especially the bourgeois institutions that we refer to as the legislaturw, executive, and judiciary.

Yet isolated groups not affected by any of those issues have the same problem. So no.

 

[fat wee robin]

I am about to commit the sin of arguing without knowing most of the facts. I refused to immerse myself in the Zimmerman case because quite honestly I'm sick of this sort of thing. I've seen it so many times growing up that i just don't care for it any more.

My scant understanding of the incident is as follows.

There were some robberies in Zimmerman's neighborhood over the past year. Zimmerman notices Martin walking around the neighborhood and Zimmerman is suspicious. Zimmerman then follows Martin. Martin walks around a while and notices Zimmerman following him. Martin then confronts Zimmerman. Zimmerman shoots in self defense.

My comments are if Martin had been white, Zimmerman would not have A) noticed him or B) felt he was suspicious or C) followed him.

If we assign a probability to A, B, and C, I feel that the probability is reduced by something like 75% for each of the parameters and thus the incident probably wouldn't have happened.

I'm not arguing whether the shooting was justified or not, I'm just arguing that a white man walking around at night in a predominantly white neighborhood is not going to garner the same notice or suspicion as a black man walking around at night in said neighborhood. And as such, the chain of events probably would have been different.

EDIT: where do I come up with my 75% figure? Just a guesstimation on my part sorta based in part whenever I'm with my white friends yet I'm the one who gets singled out for doing what we are all doing... just based on my lifetime experiences...

Well I don't care what colour the skin of a mn is ,if he hovering around my home at night ,I would call the police .Colour does'nt come into it at all .

 

[Armoured]

Calling the police is fine.

Well I don't care what colour the skin of a mn is ,if he hovering around my home at night ,I would call the police .Colour does'nt come into it at all .

I don't think anyone has a problem with calling the police.

However, going full Rambo and trying to engage the "perp" yourself, a la Mr. Zimmerman, is more problematic.

 

[Armoured]

You do know that Einstein hated atheists who tried to use him as an example of one ,

He wasn't keen on religious people who tried to claim him, either.

 

[Armoured]

Treating certain people one way and others of the same race differently, was NEVER a matter of race, but a matter of behavior. It still is.

That's why what we are experiencing in culture now CANNOT be defined as racism. The problem is NOT about race, it's about behavior, and that behavior, is called: hypocrisy.

CORRECTION: It's only hypocrisy if defined by race.

Example: If I love my black neighbor, but hate a group of black looters. It's NOT racism. But if I say I love my black neighbor, but show disdain for all other blacks for no other reason than their race, that's (two faced) hypocrisy. Neither of these two examples is racism. Racism is not selective.

Rearranging the deckchairs words used to describe the basis for the problem doesn't really do much to fix it.

 

[Vylo]

Treating certain people one way and others of the same race differently, was NEVER a matter of race, but a matter of behavior. It still is.

That's why what we are experiencing in culture now CANNOT be defined as racism. The problem is NOT about race, it's about behavior, and that behavior, is called: hypocrisy.

CORRECTION: It's only hypocrisy if defined by race.

Example: If I love my black neighbor, but hate a group of black looters. It's NOT racism. But if I say I love my black neighbor, but show disdain for all other blacks for no other reason than their race, that's (two faced) hypocrisy. Neither of these two examples is racism. Racism is not selective.

If you love your black neighbor but by default treat every black person you meet as a thug and hate them in general, you are still racist despite liking one black dude.

This is literally the "but I have a black friend" argument.

 

[bhsmte]

You do know that Einstein hated atheists who tried to use him as an example of one ,and that although he had no religion ,he believed in God .Religion and God are not the same thing ,especially when you have been 'marked' by God to do His work and push forward the boundaries of HIS KNOWLEDGE .Einstein was one of them,he had gone beyond 'religious rituals ',he had graduated .

EXCUSE ME???

Please point out to me, how I used Einstein as an example of an atheist.

 

[JustOneWay]

I never pictured Einstein as a hater...

Now I know Einstein hated Bhmste.



LOL

 

[bhsmte]

He wasn't keen on religious people who tried to claim him, either.

That is correct and wrote some scathing letters to clarify how wrong people were who claimed he was a Christian, because he was not.

Einstein left the door open to a universal type of God. He also said, belief in personal type Gods was "childlike".

The poster above claimed I use him as an example of an atheist. How they concluded that, is beyond me.

 

[ScottA]

Well it's more pragmatism .There are some people who despise you because to them you have nothing that they want or can exploit for their own purpose (worldly types, shallow interests) .Having ignored you they find when you are appreciated by others for a skill or something else ,suddenly you are their favourite person.The US and certain English cultures are more prone to this whereas Scotland ,Ireland and Eastern europe as a generalisation would be the opposite .The clan system reigned ,where everyone had a role belonged as long as they were good or the overall future of the clan and extreme individual egoism would be either ignored as idiotic or if excessive if threatening .The US as a developement of Engish selfish arrogance thinks that the individual is more important than the 'clan' ,and so has become morally corrupt in a 'legal way ',probably on a scale never known before . The 'clan' represents God, in so far as it kept in place, those who would destroy others for their own selfish, short term desires ;so anyone whose desires do not correspond with the 'greater good' of the 'clan' is acting for themselves against God's plans, and will be banished for their pains .
Protestantism where is serves the purpose of individual egoism is being shown to be useless in the face of 'evil' ,while countries like Italy ,France ,and Spain based on a 'clan' system , are defying it ,are in the Streets against injustice, and the inversion of God's laws .

The simplest test of actual racism, is to ask the question of whether or not the problem is based in some "behavior." If it is, then it is NOT racism...and that is what we really have today.

 

[Vylo]

The simplest test of actual racism, is to ask the question of whether or not the problem is based in some "behavior." If it is, then it is NOT racism...and that is what we really have today.

Not if you say the behavior is tied to the race, which is frequently the argument of racists.

 

[bhsmte]

The simplest test of actual racism, is to ask the question of whether or not the problem is based in some "behavior." If it is, then it is NOT racism...and that is what we really have today.

What if the person feels people of a certain race behave a certain way?

 

[ScottA]

If you love your black neighbor but by default treat every black person you meet as a thug and hate them in general, you are still racist despite liking one black dude.

This is literally the "but I have a black friend" argument.

I think it is fair to call that type of person two-faced. But my point has been, that the person you describe would accurately describe the profile of lingering racism in the 60's, but is not the "general" problem we now see. So, if you want to be correct with the smaller part of an out of date problem, then you certainly can be.

But that (again, my point) turns a blind-eye to the real problem of "behavior" and lack of "moral character" we now have. If we refuse to move forward...we imprison ourselves in the past. I for one, am going to call it what it is (now), and move on, addressing the behavioral issues of honesty, decency, respect, and moral character. By holding to the past, we are not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

 

[ScottA]

What if the person feels people of a certain race behave a certain way?

By mixing the two, you compound the problem, and stifle efforts to find a solution. It is better to separate the two and deal with them separately. It's two different problems.