Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
So it would appear…
However
I believe most people confuse racism, prejudice and bigotry.
Maybe its a bout time we defined terms and cleared things up…
- Status
However
I believe most people confuse racism, prejudice and bigotry.
Maybe its a bout time we defined terms and cleared things up…
S
Seraphim73
Guest
I agree. There is almost zero racism still in America. Racism is the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another. There is lots of prejudice but that is human nature. If we didn’t pre-judge situations the human race would never have survived. I would also argue prejudice has very little to do with race. Look at these two pictures.
http://www.chamtheblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/tidjane.jpg
http://i.pandorama.com/i/30700917_487_320_04162014_68c292f823ed18e0ccd7a9c134a3d74c.jpg
Now imagine if you met these two guys walking down the street. Would you feel more threatened by one than the other? Would you be more likely to cross the street if you met one or the other? I got news for you if you weren’t a little concerned by the guy in the second picture you have issues. So it really has very little to do with race and everything to do with perceived danger. If you see a black man dressed like a thug you will be concerned just as if you see a white guy in a Hell’s Angels or Outlaws jacket you would be concerned.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not recall any evidence that race was a factor. I know it was claimed, but no one has offered support for that claim.
I think racism in America is about as rare and insignificant that it has ever been in any civilization ever. There are a few racist, and they are not tolerated. When most people find race playing a factor in their life, they view it as a fault and compensate for it and try to eliminate it. As it stands, I do not think any demographic in America is more prone to racism than any other group.
W
WilT
Guest
huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-racist_n_5218572.html
in los angeles we had a big racism scandal that involved the la clipper basketball franchise. There is racism still around but it’s kept intact until it is brought forth into the limelight. Basketball legend Magic Johnson was clearly insulted in this controversy.:ballspin:
in los angeles we had a big racism scandal that involved the la clipper basketball franchise. There is racism still around but it’s kept intact until it is brought forth into the limelight. Basketball legend Magic Johnson was clearly insulted in this controversy.:ballspin:
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
It seems to have gotten the attention that it did because of the escalation in force that occurred afterwards. In the weeks before and after the event there were several other unarmed people that were killed (even with little to no provokation) that got little attention.
Related to this thread, has any one else noticed the KKK seems to have been increasing their recruitment efforts?
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
I do not understand your post.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Understand that getting a complete answer to your question will be hindered by the prohibition of speaking about political figures in this sub forum. See the message pinned at the top of this sub forum.
S
sallybutler
Guest
Based on your description, I think that racism is still alive. I’ve seen posts where people ask the question, why aren’t ‘enter group name’ more like us. Especially around the subject of Ferguson. “you wouldn’t see whites rioting if a black cop killed a white boy”, “why are they destroying their own community”, “if they would just do xyz like my group does”.
As soon as someone starts using Us/Them language, that may be an indication that someone things one group is better (superior) than the other and one is worse.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Indeed I did travel the South, including the Deep South. The Southern Mo Ozarks where I grew up were not like the Deep South when it came to race relations, probably because there were almost no blacks in the Ozarks. It was an odd combination, though, in both places, of personal, even group, relationships that were mostly quite human, but with segregation always in the background.
Yes, yes, I know segregation was an awful thing. i get it. No reason for anyone to go on a rant. But it might be mildly helpful to know more about the reality of living with it.
I truly think that for most white southerners, the end of de jure segregation came as a relief. It was an uncomfortable formalistic structure, and not just for blacks. Everybody was pretending, and everybody knew it. I remember, for instance, feeling “required” on a bus not to sit next to a black woman, the consequence of which I would have to stand and “pay homage” to segregation just because it existed and for no other reason at all. It didn’t take me long to decide “to h— with it” and sit. I expect it made her a bit uncomfortable, though, something that probably would not have been true only a couple of years later.
That was in the Ozarks where segregation was nowhere near as rigid as in parts of the Deep South, though. There weren’t “whites only” signs, there was just a sort of background understanding. In rural Mississippi, I might not have felt so brave, because the next stop might have loaded a couple of white businessmen who couldn’t have cared less, or a handful of drunken deep country crackers who might have taken umbrage with the woman or myself or both.
But I will add that even in the Deep South, the person-to-person relationship between southern whites and southern blacks was a lot better than that between southerners and Yankees generally. And it was a lot better than I found between the races in northern cities, by a long way.
I realize this thread is about racism, and the relationships among white groups are not the topic. But even today there are prejudices between white northerners and white southerners. I was at least mildly amused when my wife told me, while we were going together, that she (a Yankee) assumed I was uneducated when she first heard me talk, because of my accent.
I don’t think humans will ever fully purge prejudices, including but not limited to racial ones from our psyches. The question is, to me, not a matter of that. It’s how we treat other humans.
U
Usagi
Guest
All right, how would you define those three terms?
I would say …
Prejudice is a matter of mental attitude, applying a pre-formed stereotype to a person or situation before you know the full story. It is probably inescapable and in some forms can be positive (our brains can’t evaluate every minor interaction as a brand-new situation), but is harmful when it leads to treating people differently or making legal/social policy based on your incorrect assumptions.
Bigotry is specifically the attitude that one group (usually your own) is superior to another and deserves to be treated differently/better – though in practice it often takes the form of treating one or more “other” groups worse. Again, perhaps inescapable in minor forms, but can lead to trouble when it shapes behavior or social/legal policy.
Racism, officially, is prejudice/bigotry based on “race” (itself a social rather than biological phenomenon) that is backed up by institutional power. That’s why some academic types say that minorities can’t be racist; it’s not that they can’t have the same toxic attitudes, but that by being “on the bottom” relatively speaking they don’t have the structure to enforce those attitudes on the more powerful group. Actual, overt legal racism (different laws applying to people based on racial classification) is indeed gone in the U.S., but in many places social pressure backed up by private harassment or violence can have very strong effects. The legal system can still be biased even if the laws themselves are not, if certain kinds of people get more scrutiny/hostility from the police or are treated differently by the court system.
Usagi
U
Usagi
Guest
Whether the racial difference between the police officer and the young man who was shot was a factor that motivated the actual shooting is probably hard to know (though an investigation is ongoing).
That enormous racial tensions were present in that community and spilled over as a result of the shooting is pretty obvious, though. The black community in Ferguson clearly does not trust the police to perform their duties fairly. The police at all levels seem entirely clueless about the situation AT BEST, and individuals within the police force have made disgusting racist statements.
For me, the most horrifying part (besides the death of the young man, of course) is the stuff I’ve seen on the internet in the wake of the shooting and the response. There are folks literally comparing black people to barbarians or animals, or going out of their way to create a “thug” image for the young man who was killed (and the ease with which that image is accepted has a lot to do with people’s general attitudes about race). I know that the internet is a cesspool of human depravity in all ways, but the response to this situation demonstrates the existence of a lot more than a few racists who are ashamed and despised.
Usagi
meltzerboy
New member
Good points, Ridge, about the persistence of White Northern prejudiced attitudes against Southern Whites as well as Blacks. Even the '60s folksinger, Phil Ochs, derided so-called liberals in one of his clever songs.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Sometimes biases can be almost accidental, or the result of misunderstandings. As I recall, you’re Jewish, and you might find offense at the following, but maybe you won’t. I hope you don’t, because it’s not meant to be.
I recall once being at a Christmas party put on by a drovers’ club. All of them were rough-hewn Ozark country people except for one couple that was Jewish. The latter had moved into the area from back east somewhere in order to raise prize Arabian horses. They trained some of them to pull a beautiful coach of some kind; you know, the sort European royalty rides on state occasions. Not sure what they call them. But regardless, it was a very fancy looking thing; beautiful coach drawn by Arabians. It was breathtaking. It really was.
The Jewish couple were older people, and got along quite well with the locals. That was a bit surprising, because if your people haven’t been in the Ozarks for 200 years, you’re “newcomers”. But they knew a lot about horses and took good care of them, and that was appreciated, as were their unassuming ways and kindness toward others.
Anyway, at the Christmas party, people drew names for piddling gifts and all of that. Well, the Jewish lady took the floor and announced that, being Jewish, they had a different celebration called Hanukkah and while they gave gifts, it was a different sort of thing. They gave each other a penny and that penny was supposed to grow a thousandfold by the end of the following year. So this lady began handing out pennies to the attendees.
One of the attendees, a VERY down country sort, said loudly “Well, ain’t that jist like a Jew”. Now, I know for an absolute certainty he meant nothing at all negative in saying it. He was an excellent horse trainer and had, on previous occasions, worked with the Jewish couple in getting their horses ready for shows. I don’t doubt that somewhere in his deep memory, up popped something someone had said long ago about Jews and money, and I truly think “Jews-good with money” bubbled up from somewhere in his mind. He probably thought the Jewish lady’s gift of the penny was a blessing to him just as she intended it…more effective perhaps than someone else’s more conventional wish for good luck and prosperity because, well, because it came from a Jew.
The Jewish lady looked like she had been shot when he said that. Her husband, however, went over, slapped the hillbilly on the back and laughed…told him he had better go get his penny or he would miss out on the fortune he was going to get next year and be just as poor as he was that year and “you won’t be able to feed those pony mules of yours”. Everybody laughed, including the hillbilly.
Nobody in the group even reacted, except to laugh. It was just, I guess, something they all thought somewhere in their minds. “Jews-good with money”. I should mention that there are virtually no Jews in this part of the country, so probably these were the first Jews these people had ever met.
So, there’s a biased, ethnicist, religionist expression, and one that could be taken as harshly as the lady took it, at least initially. But there was no harm meant; no adverse judgment intended. In a way, it was the very opposite. Yet, it was certainly a prejudice, and one that, perhaps in its origins, was intended to be hurtful, but which, in this particular individual, contained no venom. The Jewish man saw that.
L
lerapt78
Guest
I respectfully disagree… If one has ever inquired as to who may qualify for federal/state grants and government contract opportunities, it becomes quite apparent that anyone deemed to be a minority gets special consideration:
Minority-Owned Businesses
sba.gov/content/minority-owned-businesses
**Health Promotion **
grants.gov/web/grants/search-grants.html?keywords=minority
Agricultural and labor skills development, Transportation, short-term housing
government-grants.us/minority-government-grants/
Education:
government-grants.us/minority-education-grants/
Housing / Home Ownership
portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/library/minorityhome
The above are but a few examples, though there are many more opportunities for minorities to claim federal benefits.
Who qualifies? Among the eligible candidates are those from the Hispanic/Latino, African American, Asian, American Indian, Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Female, and the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender populations. So, pretty much everyone BUT the white heterosexual male gets a crack at free federal money to help themselves get ahead in life.
There is indeed racial discrimination in this country. And it’s legally condoned at both the state and federal level, where the “race is a social construct” line for some strange reason doesn’t garner much support when it comes to determining which people should be the recipients of financial benefits.
I do agree with you about this possibility. “Hate crime” legislation, being an example, in which whites are disproportionately charged. One can read the transcript of the Senate Judiciary Committee SD-226 hearing to see Attorney General Eric Holder flat-out admitting that the federal Hate Crimes bill is not only biased, but was in fact *intended *to be biased. An example of the invisible type of discrimination, where equality exists “on paper” but inequality is carried out in actual practice.
meltzerboy
New member
Either the Jewish man understood the intent or he just didn’t want to make a big deal of it at the time and ruin the party. Since Jews have been traditionally stereotyped as both cheap and rich, I can understood the woman’s reaction. I think most groups that have been discriminated against for a particular perceived characteristic tend to become overly sensitive to such remarks. I recall once when I was renting an apartment in New York and the landlady expressed pleasure in my becoming her tenant because, as she said, Jews are so intellectual, that remark took me by surprise. Even so-called positive stereotypes may be regarded as offensive at times.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I agree with the positive stereotypes being offensive. Stereotypes in general demean people making them out to be somehow as part of a hive not an individual in their own right.
K
Kal2012
Guest
Yep - just come to the Metro Detroit area. You’ll see it on full display. Whites hating on the blacks. Blacks hating on the whites. A lot of people thinking that we should just leave Detroit (i.e. the black people) to fend for themselves. A lot of people thinking that the suburbs (i.e. the white people) want to take over Detroit when they suggest alternative ways of doing things in the city. A lot of suspicion on both sides.
We can split hairs about whether people are being racist or prejudice or just bigoted, but in the end, people know hate when they see and hear it.
You cross the border into Canada and racism isn’t as overt. I love visiting Canada because life doesn’t revolve around race as much as it does here in the States. It matters a lot more here whether you are white or black. I don’t know how to quantify a feeling, but there’s a different vibe to Canada that’s noticeable when you cross the border. I’ve noticed that Canadians are proud of their ethnic background, but there’s isn’t as much of the “us vs them” mentality that you see in the States.
We can split hairs about whether people are being racist or prejudice or just bigoted, but in the end, people know hate when they see and hear it.
You cross the border into Canada and racism isn’t as overt. I love visiting Canada because life doesn’t revolve around race as much as it does here in the States. It matters a lot more here whether you are white or black. I don’t know how to quantify a feeling, but there’s a different vibe to Canada that’s noticeable when you cross the border. I’ve noticed that Canadians are proud of their ethnic background, but there’s isn’t as much of the “us vs them” mentality that you see in the States.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Positive stereotypes are still stereotypes. My point exactly, adding that no human is free of them, either positively or negatively. It’s part of the human condition. My further point is that it’s self-deceptive on the part of people to claim that they’re free of bias. The question is not whether I’m free of biases, but what I do with regard to others, despite them.
And it isn’t all racial or ethnicist or any of the “traditional” biases we all recognize. Right now the medical world is coming up with all sorts of biases that enter into treatment protocols.
Is it always wrong to hold a bias? What about the polls showing, for example, that some 10% of all Muslims have jihadi sympathies? Should we, in the name of not having prejudices, ignore that entirely, or should we perhaps be more cautious when it comes to scrutinizing young men from the Muslim world at airports than we are with superannuated Irish nuns?
In this country, we have answered it one way; no, we should not. Enhanced scrutiny should be random, so that the octegenarian Irish nun has an equal chance of being additionally searched as a young man from Somalia, because we would be showing bias in giving additional scrutiny based on something that’s objectively true. There are more young Muslim terrorists than there are octegenarian Irish nun terrorists.
El Al has, as we know, answered it quite a different way; yes, we should give additional scrutiny based on factors common to terrorists. That’s a bias, no question about it. But it also makes good sense, objectively.
But El Al doesn’t have all young Muslim travelers taken out and shot for that reason alone. Offense is one thing, consequences are another. I don’t doubt many are offended by El Al’s scrutiny protocols. But they’re not shot. If they’re cleared, they get on the plane and go their way.
Again, the question is not whether we have preconceived notions of people, but what we do about them.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
One suspects, without really knowing, that Canadian politicians and media do not exacerbate racial issues for their own purposes; something that is practically an industry in the U.S.
Numbers probably matter in this. There would be little gain in ginning up racial antipathies where I live, because there are almost no minorities. There would be no political rewards to doing it. But in Ferguson, Mo, which (to my understanding) has recently become majority black? Most definitely there can be political rewards to doing it.
It’s not always political either. There can be money in transitioning a neighborhood or a town.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
You run into issues where terrorists these days don’t fit people’s preconcieved notions of Muslims, for example the white guy from Kosovo, the Nigerian one (Nigeria is mostly Catholic), etc. I’d be far more worried about converts in the West tbh.
- Status