Why is race such a taboo subject?

posted by seagull

DonWhite.
In reading your responses to my post I have come to a conclusion . . You seem to be advocating a "nanny state" wherein the government assumes the role of benevolent caretaker. I agree govt. should play some role in helping protect our streets and neighborhoods, but the primary responsibility belongs with us, the citizens of this country. [Edited by Don W]

Ordinary citizens have neither the time, training or talent to “protect our streets and neighborhoods.” Since how long ago Sir Robert Peel founded the London constabulary, it is the accepted obligation of government to provide “law and order.” In fact, it is a legal doctrine called “police power” that is said to be inherent in any state or sub-state. This is the power to blow your house if it is needed to make a fire break, as in Chicago. Or the power to confine you in your home (or elsewhere0 if you have a contagious disease. It is the power under which police kill lawbreakers on the spot. Sans trial. Or execute convicted persons. It cannot be realistic to expect or to advocate ordinary citizens should excise this authority or power. We call that vigilantism.

I put my money where my mouth is, I support those clubs I mentioned. I volunteer where I can. I'll grant you that it’s not the inner city, it’s small town America, but it’s still important. Personal responsibility is the key to solving these problems, not the only key, obviously, but by for the most important.

Well, for sure, I’m not advocating personal Irresponsibility as a set-off to your advocacy of personal responsibility. My problem is that as volunteers help a small number of those needing help, all too many - nay I say most - fall through that private safety net. All too often those in private help groups want that to be it, to be the only help, to let the rest just go to seed. And I must add, I do not like to see faith based organizations taking public funds, and acting as if they can "separate" funds and practices. Lying about misuse of public funds is not a practice limited to faith based groups. Look at a list of DoD contractors and you’ll see hundreds also listed on America’s Fortune 1000. Just last week the Pentagon admitted they had "lost" $7 billion to some or all of those listed. "Lost?" Yeah. Is it true, "Birds of a feather flock together?"

When I was a kid, just after the Great Depression, there were not enough homeless people to get onto the civic radar. I’m not saying there was a time when there were no homeless people, but it was not until the mid or late 1960s when homeless people came into “existence” in the US. Before that, they lived in India, China or Africa. Now they live here. By the 10s of 1000s and growing.

Soup kitchens are the most popular private response. To homelessness. Often supported in part - sometimes large part - by tax funds. So when does this private undertaking cease to be private and become public? I’m sure this gets my point across. Private is OK for a secondary response team effort, but it is not at all adequate for a primary response team effort. It is a public problem, anyway, and not a private one. And, I am very skeptical of the motives of privates who denounce the publics.

I agree that enforcement of our laws has been, in the past, and in the present as well, somewhat racially insensitive, for lack of a better term.

Gosh, SeaGull, don’t choke. I know “ . . somewhat racially insensitive . . ” was a hard one to swallow.

All the more reason for us to assume a more proactive stance in advocating personal responsibility. Government can not be the voice of change, it can only respond to that voice. If we want change, regardless of what sort, WE must bear the responsibility of forcing that change. Big Brother can't, in fact won't, do it. It isn't in the govt. best interest.

Looks like we’re back where we started.

I offer you this, “Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgement. Life's persistent and most urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?” Dr Martin Luther King jr.



[edit on 6/3/2006 by donwhite]

Aaargh! You got me. I'll admit that line about "racially insensitive" was abit on the silly side. Call it what it is, racist.

I think we are going to wind up chasing ourselves in circles here, DW. I believe that less gov't. is better. You seem to think otherwise. Somewhere in the middle is the answer. A well regulated society is a wonderful notion, we just have to mind the regulators, is all.

Sorry, but my batteries are running abit low. It was a long night at work, and a certain young niece of mine is graduating from High School tonight, so I gotta get some sleep.

DW, post again please, I do enjoy reading them. Don't always agree with you, but respect the thinking going on there .

Sorry, but my batteries are running abit low. It was a long night at work, and a certain young niece of mine is graduating from High School tonight, so I gotta get some sleep. DW, post again please, I do enjoy reading them. Don't always agree with you, but respect the thinking going on there

.

Sleep tight

Originally posted by ceci2006
For the record, I am not saying the race card doesn't exist. It does. I am saying that the person who accuses another of "using the race card" is trying to nullify the other's experience.

Well, I have to agree with you. But if someone's using the race card, what's wrong with nullifying their experience? If they're using the race card (crying racism where it doesn't exist), then their experience should be nullified. Shouldn't it? Shouldn't someone who's using the race card be called on it?

Is it your position that people should never accuse another of playing the race card?

Maybe this is a situation where our definitions aren't lined up. To me. The Race Card is when someone feels victimized somehow and says it's because of their race when it isn't. Here's an example for clarity:

Richard has a job at a spring company. He shows up late, he takes long breaks, his work is sub-par and more than once he's told the boss off. One day the spring company has had enough of his shenanigans and he gets fired. Richard claims he got fired because he's Hispanic. Richard has just played the race card.

So, upon hearing of Richard's firing and subsequent claims, I say, "You weren't fired because you are Hispanic! You were fired because of your performance"! I have just accused Richard of 'playing the race card'.

Am I nullifying his experience? You bet your ass I am. He used the race card and I'm calling him on it. What's wrong with that?

The other situation, of course is where Carol, a very good and conscientious worker, gets fired because the new boss doesn't like Hispanics. Carol claims racism. Someone (incorrectly) accuses her of playing the race card. Their intent being to nullify her experience. This is not cool. But it's understandable that somebody is going to say it, because of the 'Richards' in the world. Maybe they don't like Carol, maybe they tried to pick her up and got turned down, maybe they're racist. Who knows? But their accusation is incorrect.

People get accused of doing stuff ALL THE TIME that they didn't do.

Any comments?

And I know you probably just missed them, but in the spirit of answering people's questions, could you answer these?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by ceci2006
He sold you a bill of goods and the sky is green.

Excuse me? What are you talking about? jsobecky sold me a bill of goods?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by ceci2006
But, it is amazing to me how it isn't clear to except the possibility that "tar baby" is also a racial slur.

Who said that? I never saw anyone claim that.

I don’t know who first used the phrase. The first time I recall hearing the phrase was in reference to the OJ Simpson double murder trial. Detective Mark Furman was a lead detective in the investigation. Defense lawyer Johnny Cochrane, on cross examination of Det. Furman, casually crossed into the area of Furman’s possible bias against blacks, and posed the question had he, Furman, ever used the “N” word. To which Furman emphatically replied “No.”

Now any adult white American ought to know that the LAPD cops used that word a lot. Cochrane had trapped Furman. He had already gone to Canada and found an author who had taped several hours of Furman talking about his experiences on the LAPD which included him using the “N” word often in conversaatoin. This only confirmed the suspicions of the blacks on the jury who knew his denials were false, but could not prove it. Now they heard proof out of his own mouth.

On summation, Cochrane used that exposure of Furman’s easy willingness to lie under oath to further persuade the jury that the case against OJ Simpson was not “proved” beyond a reasonable doubt. The press referred to that as using or “playing the race card.”


[edit on 6/3/2006 by donwhite]

Thank you donwhite.

Here's what Wikipedia says about it:

...an allegation often raised against a person who the accuser feels has unnecessarily brought the issue of race or racism into a debate so as to obfuscate a matter of debate.
...
The phrase is used in two contexts; In the first, and more common context, it refers to someone allegedly falsely accusing another person of being a racist in order to gain some sort of advantage.
...
In the second context, it refers to someone exploiting the fear of another race for political or some other advantage.

I had never considered the second context, but I know that happens. I just didn't realize that used the same term.

Originally posted by ceci2006
For the record, I am not saying the race card doesn't exist. It does. I am saying that the person who accuses another of "using the race card" is trying to nullify the other's experience. I have not done that to the both of you. I have never said your experiences were not true.

In fact you have said it doesn't exist by making such a generalisation.
I accused someone of using the race card after they assaulted me so your statements include me. You make no mention of exceptions. How did you expect me to react? Exactly how I am reacting. You said people who claim someone is 'crying wolf' [race card] are nullifying real racism. Who are you accusing of doing this? You've also accused me of having a confrontational style. Your style is to be manipulative and you bait people. It doesn't seem to matter to you what you say.. so long as it looks 'nice' and can be blamed on me or someone else for pushing you too far. Take responsibility.
I believe you only put the 'nullify' spin on the race card to bait me as you made NO exceptions in your theory and you know very well I am the main person for the last fifteeen or so pages who has strongly taken issue with people who deny it's existence so you would have known AGAIN saying would piss me off. Don't play the innocent.. you've made a point of making sure everyone knows how I've hurt your feelings and how scary I am.. don't start claiming ignorance to my feeling on the race card when it's been my main gripe.

Now, it is fair to you to say, I did call you a racist. But that was until I was pushed to the wall.

:shk:
Here we go again.
It was NOT after you were pushed against the wall. You accused me of racism in you VERY first reply to me.. I protested because nothing I said indicated that I blamed an entire race for my experience. That was your assumption.
I accused you of racism after you had made a series racist remarks [which you refused to take responsibilty for]. I never called you are racist.. I have said you are guilty of racism. and I've agreed that you are one. Slight difference.

However, you are too quick to take offense and make accusations on things that you could have asked me about.

Indeed when we have asked you nicely about things you have ignored them. Quick to take offense? Weren't you the one on about the 'tar baby' thing..?

And what would even be better if no one accused each other of the "race card".

Better for who? I've noticed it is fequently used to justify racism against whites. Why shouldn't it be mentioned unless you want to nullify these experiences..?

Now feel free to paint yourself as an innocent victim yet again who's only trying to make a better world and you can make me the big bad wolf again.. I don't care how I look because anyone who's read the entire thread objectively can see why it's progressed the way it has.
From earlier:

I guess you've already read what has happened to me. I have been accused of being "racist" because of some remarks.

It's always something that 'happens' to you rather than something YOU caused.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by riley]

Before I reply to Benevolent Heretic's answers in a future post, I just want to type a short note to riley:

riley,

Fine. Whatever you say. You obviously have your opinions about what I've said. And I am tired of trying to post things to refute them. At this point, if I were to truly were to give thought to what you said in your latest post and provide an answer, you'd twist my words again. And accusing me of something else. Boy, is it getting tired.

I've extended the olive branch. You threw it up in my face--even when I've made offers for you to cover an issue of your choice. So, I've decided to reevaluate how I respond to you.

Try a new schitck to make me notice. Your "finger wagging" is getting old as well. I don't need to be lectured to. But I do respond to polite and civil inquiry. Please learn some manners. And also find academic sources that cover "reverse racism" and "Anti-White" sentiment among people of color. And then, I might reconsider your requests and discuss this with you in a civil manner.

About the "nullification issue" read BH's definition about the race card. It exactly defines what I've been trying to say. Lest you accuse the person who wrote the defintion of racism too.





[edit on 3-6-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
Excuse me? What are you talking about? jsobecky sold me a bill of goods?

I'll just lay it on the line here too. jsobecky does not address race. You must have noticed by now that he has not answered anything yesterday or today. I still stand by my words in my posts yesterday that he cannot define what racism is in a thoughtful way. But instead, he uses insults as a way to nullify other people's experiences without any means of investigation. Knowing he hasn't set up a criteria about what race means to him, let alone his own insertions into race--I think he has sold a bill of goods. And therefore, he doesn't have a set of criteria to judge what is determined "racist" or not.

He respesents someone who is beseiged by race. And he doesn't refute this at all by any of his statements. When asked about race, he dodges the question by insulting others or he doesn't reply at all. His deafening silence is proof of this.

I just find it ironic that he posts on this thread at all without an attempt on his part to address race on the simple civil terms of debate. And until he does, I cannot think any differently about his responses.

This is not personal. Nor this is a tirade or a hissy fit. This is how I just interpret jsobecky's responses regarding race. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Who said that? I never saw anyone claim that.

I am describing the amount of resistance that has been put up on the "Tony Snow" thread when regarding "tar baby" as a racial slur. I understand your point of view of the term. And I have nothing to refute with you about the definition. However, other posters haven't demonstrated to me that they haven't explored the other side of the term adequately enough. Escromutus, on his part said he understood that "tar baby" was a racial slur. But he also said that "I have hate in my heart for Whites" and that I should "deal with my issues".

I think that is uncalled for. I asked then as I ask now, why is it assumed that a Black person has "issues" if they bring up another side of a word that in their experience has been offensive to them. I've asked other people of color about the word "tar baby". The majority admit that what Tony Snow did does not qualify as racist. However, they say that the word is offensive But, the people I asked had the sensibility enough to notice that he did not adequately explain enough in his reply to explain otherwise. Instead, he chose to ignore any inquiries of the kind.

But, the statements on the "Tony Snow" thread, for the most part refused to address the other side of the issue--even when I posted information about "white male privilege" and how "tar baby" does represent a derogatory word. Other posters in those examples have also acknowledged that "tar baby" is offensive and a racial slur.

But, even after that, there was hardly any attempt by the majority of the comments to civilly address what I posted as proof, except to say, "I surely hope you don't believe that conspiratorial stuff".

Since when does another point of view that has been proven by proof that the word is racist and has a precedent for that racism continues to be repeatedly ridiculed?











[edit on 3-6-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
I'll just lay it on the line here too. jsobecky does not address race. You must have noticed by now that he has not answered anything yesterday or today. I still stand by my words in my posts yesterday that he cannot define what racism is in a thoughtful way. But instead, he uses insults as a way to nullify other people's experiences without any means of investigation. Knowing he hasn't set up a criteria about what race means to him, let alone his own insertions into race--I think he has sold a bill of goods. And therefore, he doesn't have a set of criteria to judge what is determined "racist" or not.

He respesents someone who is beseiged by race. And he doesn't refute this at all by any of his statements. When asked about race, he dodges the question by insulting others or he doesn't reply at all. His deafening silence is proof of this.

I just find it ironic that he posts on this thread at all without an attempt on his part to address race on the simple civil terms of debate. And until he does, I cannot think any differently about his responses.

This is not personal. Nor this is a tirade or a hissy fit. This is how I just interpret jsobecky's responses regarding race. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Listen, sister, you think too highly of yourself. To think that you set the questions and people must answer is more than a bit conceited.

I stated that I chose to ignore you and your question. Why? Because I see the way you treat other members here. Because you go to other forums and cry "What is an appropriate topic for discussion?"

Because you u2u me whining about how you want a "truce" and are tired of fighting. Yet you come back here and keep spewing your racist crap.

You lost a lot of your credibility as a serious thinker and poster. You lost a lot of your debating privileges, too, because most serious thinkers see you for what you are, and can't be bothered with you anymore.

You use insults more than anyone else here, so don't play innocent.

You have an insecurity problem; you need acceptance to validate your life. "Let's see what the mods think about this" and "we think such and such is true" are very telling statements from you.

I don't dodge questions. At least not from serious thinkers.

Cece,
What does 'accademic proof' mean? There's always proof in the news. I'm also under no obligated to prove something I have experienced personally. I have been both victim and eye witness to it.

There is also no such thing as 'reverse racism'. It is ALL racism. That term is dependent on the presumption that it's mainly whites who are racist.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by riley]

riley,

What I mean by academic proof is that it is written by an academic researcher who has done research in the area that I have requested (i.e., sociology, cultural studies, psychology, politics, etc.) and has published a study which covers the issues of "reverse racism" or "Anti-White" racism. I agree with you that "reverse racism" is racism, nevertheless. However, people in academia have written and discussed the different issues related to race relations--especially how it is viewed by different races.

So, to post their work as a frame of reference for me to read would help me better understand your side of the issue. And then, your experiences will have added weight in expression instead of just saying that you experienced it. Of course, you experienced it. But it would help me to see how your experiences compared to what has been studied. Then, you can reframe your argument.

By framing your argument, then, you can pose questions for me to respond to instead of making accusations.

Thank you for addressing my comments.




[edit on 4-6-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally quoted by jsobecky

Listen, sister, you think too highly of yourself. To think that you set the questions and people must answer is more than a bit conceited.

I stated that I chose to ignore you and your question. Why? Because I see the way you treat other members here. Because you go to other forums and cry "What is an appropriate topic for discussion?"

Because you u2u me whining about how you want a "truce" and are tired of fighting. Yet you come back here and keep spewing your racist crap.

You lost a lot of your credibility as a serious thinker and poster. You lost a lot of your debating privileges, too, because most serious thinkers see you for what you are, and can't be bothered with you anymore.

You use insults more than anyone else here, so don't play innocent.

You have an insecurity problem; you need acceptance to validate your life. "Let's see what the mods think about this" and "we think such and such is true" are very telling statements from you.

I don't dodge questions. At least not from serious thinkers.

Yawn........


You just dodged the question now. Now I know why truthseeka dislikes you. And you did nothing to disappoint him. And you just proved me right. You can't answer a question about race. You only accuse others. And you've shown no empathy either. Nor express any interest in learning about other races. So don't repeat your condescension here. I've heard your dry, boring anger on S.O.'s thread.

You won't treat the subject seriously. Therefore you don't have the desire nor the thoughtfulness to answer it as others have done. And I don't have to insult you to tell you this. Your posts prove it. So save yourself some time and avoid talking about race altogether. That is what you really want to do. Just say it and do it. Don't hide behind your insults.

This is the last time I will answer your posts. There isn't a u2u coming not anytime in the future.

I've seen how you've horribly treated people as well. I'm not going to throw stones here. But you sure are.

For shame.

I guess the only recourse you have is to complain to the mods about me--which I encourage you to do so. Or u2u Ngydan for a debate challenge.







[edit on 4-6-2006 by ceci2006]

Ceci.
Expecting me to provide you with academic proof of anti-white racism is unreasonable. You expect me to provide studies? Are there any such studies PROVING blacks have experienced racism? Probably not.. it's already a given. Studies about white racism probably don't exist either. The absence of such 'proof' doesn't prove it doesn't happen. The news and history provides the proof. White south african farmers being slaughtered is proof. Leboneze gangs going around looking for 'aussie' girls to rape is proof.. these things happen. What exactly are you arguing against?

[edit on 4-6-2006 by riley]

Yes, riley, there are countless studies that research not only Blacks, but other people of color who experience racism. Especially in prison, in the work place as well as in government.

They are out there. People have done the leg work. And it's not unreasonable.

So, I'm sure some academic has studied racism experienced by White people as well along these lines--even when it has to do with crime, institutional racism as well as political racism.

I'm not arguing against anything. You are trying to prove whites experience racism. You need proof to help re-frame your argument. That is why academic sources help.



[edit on 4-6-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
I'm not arguing against anything. You are trying to prove whites experience racism. You need proof to help re-frame your argument. That is why academic sources help.

Then why the request of academic sources? I have already proven whites experience racism.. I do not need to prove it any further.

Well, for one. If you think that your experiences alone have not convinced me, then you need those academic sources to back them up. So, you might have to put in extra work to get your point across instead of accusing people.

It doesn't bother other posters on this board to look up proof to prove their points on their respective threads. Why should this thread be any different?

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by ceci2006
I'm not arguing against anything. You are trying to prove whites experience racism. You need proof to help re-frame your argument. That is why academic sources help.

Then why the request of academic sources? I have already proven whites experience racism.. I do not need to prove it any further.

Riley, I don't want to involve myself in the, um, 'heated discussion' going on between you and Ceci, but I think her request was a legitimate one.

Don't think I'm dismissing your experience. When I read your story, I was appalled, but I have to admit that my first thought, as a black woman, was "Really?!" Not as in, I don't believe you, but like, No he didn't! I've been around a lot of white people, and I had never heard a story like that before. As an armchair sociologist, I would like to see an academic article, or somthing like it, that discusses what you've been through, but in numbers, just to get a grasp on it.

On ATS, we always ask for sources. Personal experience is important, but only as a single example.

Originally posted by ceci2006
It doesn't bother other posters on this board to look up proof to prove their points on their respective threads. Why should this thread be any different?

Because I have already proven it. Why? Do you think racism can't happen to whites..?

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Riley, I don't want to involve myself in the, um, 'heated discussion' going on between you and Ceci, but I think her request was a legitimate one.

No it wasn't. She keeps saying she believes me then demands more proof so she is the last person I would take orders from. If she wants to prove racism doesn't happen against whites she is quite welcome to try prove it.. but then her argueing the point would indeed be racist anyway. How would you feel if I demanded accademic proof of racism you've suffered? Shouldn't your own experiences be enough? What if I told you that it's all in your imagination? Even though she keeps saying "Oh I believe you........ but". She is always contradicting herself and it's really hard to tell what she's driving at.. even now. Why is she asking me to prove it yet again? I already have. I don't know what point she is trying to make. Is she trying to say blacks are more victims or racism than whites or than other races are? I'm guessing here but it's clear she's trying to say something. She's been trying to say it the entire thread.

Don't think I'm dismissing your experience. When I read your story, I was appalled, but I have to admit that my first thought, as a black woman, was "Really?!" Not as in, I don't believe you, but like, No he didn't! I've been around a lot of white people, and I had never heard a story like that before.

In my experience.. 'white' people are very reluctent at sharing their experiences of racism because usually they are either not believed, feel like they somehow deserved it [historically] or feel obliged to walk on eggshells so do not know how to bring up the subject or if they are 'alloud'. I obviously do not feel this way.

As an armchair sociologist, I would like to see an academic article, or something like it, that discusses what you've been through, but in numbers, just to get a grasp on it.

On ATS, we always ask for sources. Personal experience is important, but only as a single example.

I could look up news stories I suppose but I don't think they've been any studies done.. and I don't think it would prove anything. What about studies about eskimos? Do they get picked on? It's just skin colour.. it doesn't give one immunity from racism and it make NO sense to assume it does.

Some 'whites' are nice.. some aren't. Same applies to africans, indonesians, chinese, aboriginals, swedish etc. If you assume one race is more prone to being more racist or immoral than another that would make you a racist.

[edit on 4-6-2006 by riley]