It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is race such a taboo subject?

page: 21
1
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 04:58 AM
link   
donwhite. Sorry for the delay. Life came up and got a hold of me. Dang it, anyway
.

I don't think I was advocating vigilantism per say. Vigilance, yes. Vigilantism, no. Police powers should be used as support to our own efforts at policing our own neighborhoods, not as the be all end all.

Naturally enough, having said the above, there are exceptions. Most of which you talked of yourself. I have no argument with you there at all.

I think, however, the more power we give a government, the more power it wants. That makes for a cycle we won't like at all. Republic or not. After all, Rome started out as a Republic, too.

The support of soup-kitchen type efforts by government is one of the reasons I pay my taxes, not the only one, but one of them. I understand your point, and share it to a large extent. I am not quite as good as you at putting it down in an understandable fashion
.

Again, that remark of mine was a bit stupid. My apologies.

I'd not seen that quote from Dr. King before, my loss obviously. It pretty much sums it up, does it not?

Thanks again, I'm sure we'll argue again sometime. It's fun. For me anyway
.




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
But hinder people from talking, I haven't.


Again, you have totally misunderstood me. My point is that we don't need your permission to talk. So you aren't 'granting' it to us. The opportunity isn't yours to give. You can't keep us from talking because you don't have the power to do that. The very fact that you said you have "given us the opportunity to talk" sounds like you have some kind of control over whether we talk or not. You don't. I'm not complaining, I'm setting you straight. You have not 'given' us the opportunity to talk, because we talk when we want whether you think you 'give' us the opportunity or not.

How could you possibly have misunderstood what I meant? :shk:



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
HH, Thank you for that info. I will have to revert to my original assessment of this case and say that I simply don't have enough information to make a judgment on this case. I'm less sure, though, that her claims of racism are false. It may very well be that it was a case of racism by the Capitol police. (A black woman with braids and gold shoes??? Pretty scary, all right!)


It seems that there may have also been political motivations and other factors that we may never be privy to.

So, I'll withhold my judgment. Mine doesn't really matter anyway in the scheme of things.


p.s. Your link is linked to the reply page. Here's the proper link to the FoxNews story.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Hi, Riley, and thank you for responding to me. I'm still trying to figure out how to respond to long posts, in a way that's visually pleasing, so I numbered the stuff you said that I wanted to respond to. I hope my format makes sense.

Good idea. Thankyou.

1. That's not really true. Since you introduced the topic of racism against whites, the burden of proof is on you.

In fact I didn't. Ceci introduced the topic of racism. Review: Someone said the race card doesn't exist and I gave an example of it. Despite the assertions that I was believed.. Ceci has now requested 'extra' proof and you have echoed this request. Why? Because I'm white? She certainly has not asked for proof from other races. How many extra hoops to I have to jump through?

2. If our own experiences were enough, Cynthia McKinney wouldn't be having her problems. Our own experiences are never enough to definitively prove anything, except that it happened once. What I'm looking for, and I think Ceci as well, is a pattern of racism. That's where an academic source would be helpful. An article, even, is dependent on the preconceptions of the reporter and/or editor, and would likely have a smaller sample than an actual study.

I am unfamiliar with American politics and I only have a vague idea of the Cynthia woman. As far as I know she didn't have her ID with her, was stopped and punched the guy in the stomach and then justified it my saying he was racist? Sounds a bit iffy IMO but then again ATS is the first I've heared of it. Could be a political stunt I giess.. something doesn't sound right about it.

Indeed BH was good enough to post accademic proof. What happened? Ceci dismissed it as BS so that does not inspire me to post proof [that matches her criteria] myself.

3. Of course... I hadn't thought about that. But, that also explains why the concept of racism against whites is so foreign to me. The squeeky wheel gets the grease, or whatever that saying is. The remedy would be for white victims of racism to be more vocal, so that other people are aware that there's even an issue.

Hopefully society will start becoming more aware of these problems. I'm still stunned that people even think you have to be a certain colour to be a victim or perpetrator of racism. 'Whites are racist.. everyone else are their victims'?! Why do I seem to be one of the few who sees something wrong with perpetuating this generalisation? This myth is racist and extreamily frustrating.

5. I'm going to ignore the implication that because I asked for a source, aside from you, I must be racist, and say this again: We believe you. The question here, though, is not whether we believe Riley, but is his/her story representative of a new phenomenon?

Phenonemon?
It's not a new 'phenomenen'.. it happens all the time. It's just not all over the media. Humans have been around for a couple of millions years.. if someone were to think that whites have a behavioural inclination for being more biggoted and that all other races don't that would be racism. I will not search for this accademic proof because I do not see it as relevent and would fully expect it to be dismissed.. though if you really think it is I would ask in return for scientific proof that africans and other 'non whites' are less likely to be prejudiced than caucasions.

And, I have a question for you. Why do you put the word "whites" in quotation marks sometimes, but not others? Just curious.

Because I am not used to such discussions and would have been emphasising it.

Thanks HarlemHottie for hearing me out.


[edit on 5-6-2006 by riley]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

Again, you have totally misunderstood me. My point is that we don't need your permission to talk. So you aren't 'granting' it to us. The opportunity isn't yours to give. You can't keep us from talking because you don't have the power to do that. The very fact that you said you have "given us the opportunity to talk" sounds like you have some kind of control over whether we talk or not. You don't. I'm not complaining, I'm setting you straight. You have not 'given' us the opportunity to talk, because we talk when we want whether you think you 'give' us the opportunity or not.

How could you possibly have misunderstood what I meant?


Set me straight you have, Miss Scarlett. It is certainly amazing when one tries to teach another a lesson. I perfectly understood what you said. And I know what I said in response to you. And this sounds like another pronouncement from the "judge and the executioner". Yes, it even conveys more about issues of power. Which still is not my problem, but yours.


Well, thanks for your comments. I have decided in the spirit of your complaints, to take a sabbatical from this thread for a while. I would like to work on my blog and other issues that I would like to pursue.

I am sad that I have to do this because I am very proud of what I started and I love this thread because I do want people to understand one another. But to keep the peace, I find that I must in order to maintain the integrity of this thread.

So, let me go back to the slave quarters now and quietly fade into the sunset from this thread for a while.






[edit on 5-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Set me straight you have, Miss Scarlett.
...
So, let me go back to the slave quarters now


Miss Scarlett? Slave quarters? What kind of guilt do you hope to arouse in me here? Is this how you always respond in life when someone confronts you directly? By playing the race card? By bringing up Miss Scarlett and the slave reference, you imply that my words to you are because of your race.

I will not defend this ridiculous charge because everyone in this thread and on this board, including you, knows that it is absolutely absurd!



It is certainly amazing when one tries to teach another a lesson.


That's a big part of the problem. I don't need to be taught a lesson, thanks.

And leave the thread if you want to, but your departure will not be my fault, nor is it my desire. It's entirely up to you.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Ceci has now requested 'extra' proof and you have echoed this request. Why? Because I'm white? She certainly has not asked for proof from other races. How many extra hoops to I have to jump through?

Aww, Riley, don't feel like that.


This is a thread where we ALL are supposed to be learning from each other, so there will be times when topics are introduced that some of us are unfamiliar with. That's to be expected. We're really just asking for some background, that's all.



I am unfamiliar with American politics and I only have a vague idea of the Cynthia woman. As far as I know she didn't have her ID with her, was stopped and punched the guy in the stomach and then justified it my saying he was racist?

Read my exchange with BH on page 20 of this thread. That might clarify some things about the McKinney issue, and why I brought it up.

BTW, where are you from?



Indeed BH was good enough to post accademic proof. What happened? Ceci dismissed it as BS so that does not inspire me to post proof [that matches her criteria] myself.

Its not about "Ceci's criteria," it's about academic proof. I went to all the links BH posted, and for the most part, they were opinion pieces, or on pages that were so biased that I couldn't take them seriously. When I say 'academic,' I don't mean, someone wrote it down somewhere and that makes it academic. I mean an actual study with the backing of a university, preferably done by sociologists, since this is their sphere.



Hopefully society will start becoming more aware of these problems. I'm still stunned that people even think you have to be a certain colour to be a victim or perpetrator of racism. 'Whites are racist.. everyone else are their victims'?! Why do I seem to be one of the few who sees something wrong with perpetuating this generalisation? This myth is racist and extreamily frustrating.

Society can't become more aware until people like you, who have experienced "anti-white racism," make themselves heard. In that process, of course, there will be skeptics, and its up to you, or others like you, to prove the point. That's how things go. How do you think blacks of the Civil Rights Era felt, when the white political majority responded to their cries for equality with either a laconic, Whatever, or more ominously, a threat on the lives of the complainants and their families? Given the experiences of past crusaders for equality, I'd say you have it easy.


Phenonemon?
It's not a new 'phenomenen'.. it happens all the time. It's just not all over the media.

Um, that would explain why I see it as a "new phenomenon."




Humans have been around for a couple of millions years.. if someone were to think that whites have a behavioural inclination for being more biggoted and that all other races don't that would be racism.

You're right, humans have been around for some time, but, alas, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

'Racism,' as we know it, is a social construct, created during European colonialism as justification for their foul treatment of everyone else. In other words, white people have cornered the market on racism since about the 1600's. Whether that equals a 'behavioral inclination for being more bigotted' is open to debate, but that may explain why some people, right or wrong, express shock at this alarming new trend. And I keep saying 'new' because it is. Until less than 40 years ago, people of color could barely look a white person in the eye for fear of lynching, much less pelt her with rocks. (And, I wasn't really participating in the thread when you originally told your story, but I would have kicked his @ss for you had I been there.)


I will not search for this accademic proof because I do not see it as relevent and would fully expect it to be dismissed.. though if you really think it is I would ask in return for scientific proof that africans and other 'non whites' are less likely to be prejudiced than caucasions.

I have a problem with the logic of your challenge. We're asking for a numerical idea of how often "anti-white racism" occurs, and you're asking for a study on prejudice. Totally different. Prejudice is what you feel in your heart, whereas "anti-white racism," as you've described it, is criminal assault. Totally different. If you want numbers on actual hate crimes, I'm sure we could find them.


Originally posted by HarlemHottieAnd, I have a question for you. Why do you put the word "whites" in quotation marks sometimes, but not others? Just curious.

Originally posted by riley
Because I am not used to such discussions and would have been emphasising it.

That's actually what I thought. So, I'm gonna go back and re-read your post, so I can hear you.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

Miss Scarlett? Slave quarters? What kind of guilt do you hope to arouse in me here? Is this how you always respond in life when someone confronts you directly? By playing the race card? By bringing up Miss Scarlett and the slave reference, you imply that my words to you are because of your race.

I will not defend this ridiculous charge because everyone in this thread and on this board, including you, knows that it is absolutely absurd!


I am not arousing any sort of guilt. Because you have none. After all, you have said yourself that you can call people racist without caring at all about other people's feelings. So, let my last post to you be treated in the same way.

And no, that's not how I respond to others when people confront me directly. I am just tired of being maligned because of the things I do. And I am also tired of people taking up space in this thread making accusations that have nothing to do with the subject matter whatsoever.

Furthermore, I am sick and tired of people accusing me of some sort of agenda when really this is a discussion about race on this thread. I am also sick of quarrels.

If you think this is playing the race card, it is your perrogative. Not mine. I mainly answered rhetorically--as I usually do. And knowing it is a question of power, I used one of the most pointed power relationships in literature, film, society and history: the slave mistress and the slave. But of course, you used the theory of Ockam's Razor in order to "wag your finger" at me once again.

However, it is as absurd as you bringing up all sorts of behavioral issues to degrade me instead of staying on topic. And equally as ridiculous when you throw around who's racist for any different opinion other than yours. Even more trivial is the comparisons to describe my behavior and words as being anything other than for what they are.


That's a big part of the problem. I don't need to be taught a lesson, thanks.

And leave the thread if you want to, but your departure will not be my fault, nor is it my desire. It's entirely up to you.


It is. And I mean to do it because I really want to do other things with my time other than disturbing the flow of the thread trying to respond to the absurdity of the attacks by riley and yourself. Not to mention your lack of answers regarding not finding anything worthy of academic reading and merit to educate the rest of us of "anti-White" racism.

It isn't a lesson. Think of my action as a graceful bowing out so that the thread will be civil once again. It isn't personal. It's just for the good of the thread. And since you have led the charge of pegging problems attached to my personality, I am taking my words and my "controlling" personality out of circulation for a while so that you and the others can build an environment more conducive to your discursive nature.

Besides, HarlemHottie is doing an excellent job with her points. And I laud her for making bridges where I--it appears--have burned them. Her points are valid. And they deserve to be discussed. Please, by all means, continue your discussion and treat her with the utmost respect--especially in the same way that you would expect to be treated yourself.

Now it is up to you and others to lead by example, since you tend to be respected as well as more capable of leadership ability. It shouldn't be a problem for you as well as the others to get your experiences out now. I'll read from a distance from now on.





[edit on 5-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
ceci, your post is again filled with unfounded and untrue accusations against me, but I'm going to let it go this time. It doesn't matter.

I realized something as I was just in the kitchen making dinner. I really feel badly about what has happened here between us. We started out very friendly and respectful and somehow it has turned into the most heated discussion by far that I have ever been in on any discussion board, and I've had a lot of discussions.

I don't feel badly about anything in particular that I've said, because it's all my truth, but I feel really bad about who I am in this discussion. I thought we were friends and as it turns out, that's not the case. I noticed the similarities in our personalities right away and I was attracted to you because of that. You are a strong, intelligent and yes, controlling woman. Just like me.

And as our 'aggression' grew, I realized that a lot of it was because we are so much alike. But we have some basic differences and in those, we're far apart.

All I have to say is that I'm finished with my part in this insane 'dance' we've been doing because I don't like who I am when I'm involved in it. You have brought out my inner bitch like no one else I know. And I have been a bitch. I'm stopping this. Not because I don't like you, but because I don't like who I have become in this debate with you.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
BH, I've been reading your posts since long before I ever registered at ATS, and you're one of the many posters who stood out to me, in a positive way, of course. I'm glad for the chance to interact with you personally, but I have to say that your last message to Ceci really raised you higher in my esteem. Very mature.


I don't know if you meant that you would stop the thing going on between you and Ceci, or if you were planning to leave the thread altogether, but I hope it was the former and not the latter.

Ceci, if these words can possibly change your mind, I very much would like for you to stay in the thread. You started it, and your contributions kept it going during that long period when no one really wanted to ask questions.


IMHO, at a certain point, 'Ceci, thread-starter' was supplanted by your own feelings on the topic, and that's when it got ugly. That's how it goes sometimes, but I know you can handle it.

To both of you, twenty pages means we're getting some important work done here. I encourage you both to see it through.

HH



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Thank you, HH. That means a lot. I admire you, too.

I have no intention of leaving the thread. I am just discontinuing with the negativity.

I have learned so much in this thread, especially in conjunction with the Feminist thread. There's so many similarities in the two movements (feminism and civil rights). And being on one side of one movement (a woman) and the other side of the other (non-black) has really given me some special insights.

In spite of the negativity on this thread, I have learned a lot about race relations and I'm extremely thankful for that. I think the subject (Race being such a sensitive topic) is really something that needs to be explored.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
HarlemHottie,

Thank you for what you said. And you are right. But it is also right that both you and BH pointed out that I have become "Ceci the thread starter". And I don't like the negativity either. What I wanted was a calm discussion about race.

I really don't like quarrelling. And it makes me feel bad that I have to respond to personal attacks. Although I do appreciate polite and civil debate. And that is because I am rather a brass tacks type of person. I would much rather talk about the theoretical and practical parts of the subject matter. It is something that I do.

And I've admitted before that I have a dry writing style that may seem off-putting to some people, but it's something I've tried to change and I can't. My sister laughs about it because she writes more in a style that conveys something to people. I only can write in a text-book style. And that's why people might think I am obtuse or cold or remote.

And I am sorry for that. I will think about what you said. But when I return, I will make an effort to be more responsive to people's feelings. And also I will not take on a more "hands-on" approach to keeping the thread organized. After all, this is an egaltarian effort and I want people to feel that they have had a hand in constructing this thread.


Benevolent Heretic,

As I stepped away, it severly hurt me to be unkind to you. Because, yes, we are alike. We're both powerful, strong-minded ladies with a lot of conscience and heart. And yes, I liked you right away because of that. That's why it pained me to say those things. And of course, it is terrible to me that you would think that it would take something like this to make you think that I am not your friend.

I am your friend. That is why I continued to talk to you when you did write your complaints. I tried to work it out . And I am still willing to try to work things out so that you don't feel negatively about this experience or about me. Despite what you might think, I am not a cold or unfeeling person. I do care about everyone and I don't like it that anyone goes away feeling badly.

And because of that, it hurt especially that we do have this tension. I want it to dissipate and to have us to return to simply talking things out. And no, I don't want my "inner bitch" to come out either. I don't want to be known as an aggressor. And I certainly am not happy to know that I make people upset for any reason.

But at the same time, I am not going to stand idly by and not defend myself. After all, I will do that regardless.

So, I do apologize if I hurt your feelings. Please do forgive me for what I've done and said. And, after I do take a little break from the thread so I can catch my breath and return to "Ceci the writer and thinker", I will come back into the conversation.

I will try to keep the peace and not make this thread a battle of wills. And I will forget the past. I make it a practice not to hold a grudge. I am not going to do anything different now.



So to you and HarlemHottie, I wish you both a good night. After I am done taking a bit of time away to let things settle down, I will be back to write about issues again.

Good luck posting!






[edit on 6-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Hi ceci
My $.02 on your original post.
Race is one of those issues that can get out of hand quick just by a slip of the lip. I see it everywhere. I must have something to do human nature/pride. I see whenever there is an outnumbering of one over the other regardless of color, race, religion,or even sexual orientation. Pride is a two edged sword you need self confidence but that can lead to boastful feelings. Then you get a bunch of self confident, boastful feeling, like minded people together and the mob mentality takes over. i.e. Look what happends at soccer games all over the world. That's just a game. 2 opposing teams with fans briming with pride beating the hell out of one another.
My point is I think being over proud is one of the main contributing factors of racism. But the problem goes farther then most realize. Pride in ones own team led to huge fights . You know the fight started with a "My teams better then your team" type thing and it's that "I'm better then you" part of pride that I think, leads to racism.
Its good to be proud of your race but at the same time respect other peoples pride in their own. Be proud don't make your race your burden.
I guess when it comes down to it if everone respected one another we'd live in a pretty decent world. What a pipe dream

peace



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Hi Hawk74,

Welcome to our thread and thank you very much for the comments. Yes, it does seem like that most of the time when you are talking about race. It gets very heated and sometimes feelings end up being hurt over the "Us vs. Them" mentality.

But, I think the lesson in all this is to focus on the game. And playing the game is the most important thing we have to dwell upon in order to have a civil discussion without things getting out of hand.

Race is very emotional. But that's for a good reason. People want their experiences to be heard. And I don't fault that. It's the coming together part that is most important. If people can understand one another and work these differences out, it would be a better world.

And not just a pipe dream.


Again, always feel free to contribute your .02 here. You are always welcome. We need new blood to continue the discussion of race-relations on this thread.

And yes, as I told another member who began to post in this thread, always look at Skippy.


[edit on 6-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I came across this interesting page. It makes a lot of sense and explains a lot to me, also. It's so simple, a child could understand it...

A Thought on Racism

I don't know if everyone would consider the following an 'academic' source or not, but the information comes from the Dept. of Justice and the FBI. It's certainly something to consider.

I'm curious, does crime against the opposite race play into racism at all? If so, then it's clear that racism against whites exists, is not a new phenomenon, and is more prevalent by far than white racism against blacks. At least as far as crime is concerned.

Interracial Crime at a Glance



In the United States, when it comes to race relations, much is said about white racism, which gives the illusion of Euro-american as a violent and threatening community. Yet this is a deceiving and prejudiced picture. A simple glance at the interracial figures show that European Americans are often targeted for interracial crimes while they seldom practice it.


Pie Chart - Interracial Crime


Anti-White Hate Crimes

Pie Chart - Anti-White Hate Crime:


Does anyone have anything to say about this information? Is it valid? Do you believe it? Is there any doubt that anti-white racism does indeed exist?

Or can we not call it "racism" because the perception is that a black person isn't in a "position of power" over a white person (historically)?

If so, what is it called, if not "racism"?

And if wielding a weapon, committing burglary, assault or murder isn't a position of power, what do you call it?

School Bans "Wrong-Race" Hairstyle



The above story involves an authority (a position of power) telling a white girl she can't wear that hairstyle simply because she's white. Is that not racism?

I am of the opinion that until black people acknowledge their power and fully embrace, realize and be accountable for their capability to exact racism against white people, and stop making excuses based on history that solidify their victim position, and the position of the white perpetrators, based on the "power structure" of the past, this oppression that is called racism (against blacks) will continue.

Call me Bill Cosby if you will, but I'm drawing from the Feminism thread again, knowing that until women acknowledge their power and fully embrace, realize and be accountable for their capability to exact sexism against men (male-bashing, divorce and child custody arrangements), and stop making excuses based on history that solidify their victim position in the male patriarchy, based on the "power structure" of the past, this oppression that is called sexism against women, will continue.

Thoughts?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
School Bans "Wrong-Race" Hairstyle

The above story involves an authority (a position of power) telling a white girl she can't wear that hairstyle simply because she's white. Is that not racism?


It is totally racism. The school 'authorities' go on at great length about the quality of the students at that school, the uniforms, the uniform culture, etc. and how that style of hair is not permitted. "Oh, except for the students whose ancestors came from some particular part of the world, and who have a racial identity to uphold." I say, bunk. These people are mixing the worst of racism and political correctness together, into one gigantic ball of stupidity.



I am of the opinion that until black people acknowledge their power and fully embrace, realize and be accountable for their capability to exact racism against white people, and stop making excuses based on history that solidify their victim position, and the position of the white perpetrators, based on the "power structure" of the past, this oppression that is called racism (against blacks) will continue.

Call me Bill Cosby if you will, but I'm drawing from the Feminism thread again, knowing that until women acknowledge their power and fully embrace, realize and be accountable for their capability to exact sexism against men (male-bashing, divorce and child custody arrangements), and stop making excuses based on history that solidify their victim position in the male patriarchy, based on the "power structure" of the past, this oppression that is called sexism against women, will continue.

Thoughts?


I tend, to agree, Bill (
). Moving past the victim position is the hardest and most effective way to get away from the problem. And I actually have seen this kind of mindset before: Many times, in my experience, conventional psychological therapy gets trapped in this... a great deal of time is spent "understanding the problem". And understanding the problem is valuable, to be sure, but moving past the problem is even more valuable. Too often, it seems that the process gets stuck at the "understanding the problem" phase, and ends up more wallowing in the problem.

And this works in all directions, on an individual as well as institutional basis. Individually, when a person is the recipient of racial (or sexual or sexual orientation, or ...) slur, they can choose to retaliate, or they can choose to move past the problem. Moving past is harder.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Thank you for those numbers, BH. I clearly stated that I 'believed' Riley, but I was curious to see how widespread it was. I do have a question, though. The "RacismeAntiblanc" page appears to be a french-language site. If so, why do they cite the (American) FBI? I didn't look all through the site, so I don't know if this was just a section devoted to the US.

I also have another question, but let me say this clearly, because I do not want to be accused of being an apologist. Criminals of any color deserve to be prosecuted. Now, that being said, BH, I know that there's probably no way to tabulate this, but how much of that black-on-white crime do you think is actually attributable to racism, and not classism? I really don't know, that wasn't a trick question.


About the little girl with the braids, I'm not sure that's racism. I read the article, but I didn't see any mention of what color the 'headteacher' is. I would call it racism if, a) 'Ms. Crompton' were black, and b) she had invented the rule on the spot. However, based on the quote she gave, IMHO, I doubt that Ms. Crompton is black, given that she seems to feel that the 'extreme hairstyle' in question, on anyone, is reflective of 'street culture.'


Ms Crompton said: "We don't allow any extreme hairstyles of any description at the school. We are a high-achieving school with high standards and we don't allow any street culture into school."


Maybe I misunderstood. Who's racist in this scenario?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I am of the opinion that until black people acknowledge their power and fully embrace, realize and be accountable for their capability to exact racism against white people, and stop making excuses based on history that solidify their victim position, and the position of the white perpetrators, based on the "power structure" of the past, this oppression that is called racism (against blacks) will continue.

Call me Bill Cosby if you will, but I'm drawing from the Feminism thread again, knowing that until women acknowledge their power and fully embrace, realize and be accountable for their capability to exact sexism against men (male-bashing, divorce and child custody arrangements), and stop making excuses based on history that solidify their victim position in the male patriarchy, based on the "power structure" of the past, this oppression that is called sexism against women, will continue.

Thoughts?


I hear what you're saying, but what would you say to those women who, regardless of all the other trappings of sexism, are still ticked off about the wage disparity between men and women with the same qualifications? Because, honestly, that's my problem with racism and sexism.

I don't mean to make you 'the spokesperson,' just food for thought. I'm sure the wage disparity ticks you off as well. I think that activists for both causes get too caught up in the trappings. As a black person, as long as I'm not getting lynched, I'm okay, but I want equal pay for an equal day's work. As a woman, fine, hold the door for me, or not, I don't care, but I want my paycheck to reflect my work, not my gender.

Now, what do you think about that?



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Thank you for those numbers, BH. I clearly stated that I 'believed' Riley, but I was curious to see how widespread it was.


My posting this information had nothing to do with Riley.
No amount of information from the internet will make Riley any more or less credible. I posted this information in the nature of the subject of the thread. Racism. My intent is to explore all areas of racism and discuss the entire realm of racism. Not just racism by whites against non-whites. I think it's important to realize that every race experiences discrimination based on our color at one time or another.

Curious... why in 'believed' in single quotes?



I do have a question, though. The "RacismeAntiblanc" page appears to be a french-language site. If so, why do they cite the (American) FBI?


I don't know. It's the data I found interesting.



Now, that being said, BH, I know that there's probably no way to tabulate this, but how much of that black-on-white crime do you think is actually attributable to racism, and not classism? I really don't know, that wasn't a trick question.


Again, I don't know. And I suppose the same could be said about the white-on-black crime. Regardless, I think we can agree that some amount is probably because of race on both sides. I'd like to ask you: Can we agree that there is in existence racism against whites by non-whites? Because they're white?

Whether we know the exact numbers or not, and regardless of my personal experiences or riley's, can we agree that racism is a societal problem that is exacted against all races, including whites? Or not? I would like to know if we agree on that premise. Or is racism something that only white people practice?

Again, I'm not trying to say the effect is even close to the effect on non-whites, I'm just trying to see if we agree on this basic premise. Much like there are sexist women who practice sexism against men. It has nowhere near the affect that the patriarchy has had against women, but for me to deny that sexism against men exists is just closing my eyes to the truth, imo.



About the little girl with the braids, I'm not sure that's racism. I read the article, but I didn't see any mention of what color the 'headteacher' is.


I don't see why the color of the teacher matters. They let black girls wear their hair in braids and they don't let white girls. Isn't that a racist rule? Can racism only be perpetrated by a person of a different color?

I saw a girl on Tyra once who hated being black and wanted to be white. She even denied being black because she wanted to be white so badly. She was racist against blacks, was she not?



Maybe I misunderstood. Who's racist in this scenario?


Whoever made and supported the rule.



I hear what you're saying, but what would you say to those women who, regardless of all the other trappings of sexism, are still ticked off about the wage disparity between men and women with the same qualifications?


I would say and have said that societal change takes time. We've some a long way (baby) and we've got a long way to go. We must persevere with our goals of being all we can be. Borrowing a quote from the feminism thread:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'd just like to say that legal and social equality with men is very important, but in my mind, the goal is for women to come into their own, without regard to men. I think it's important that women (to borrow a phrase) be all they can be. We already ARE equal to men, we just don't always get treated that way. So besides being treated equally under the law and socially, the goal is to define what 'woman' is without comparison to man (thus making "equal" and "superior" moot points) and to be fulfilled to our potential.



Originally posted by HarlemHottie
I think that activists for both causes get too caught up in the trappings. As a black person, as long as I'm not getting lynched, I'm okay, but I want equal pay for an equal day's work. As a woman, fine, hold the door for me, or not, I don't care, but I want my paycheck to reflect my work, not my gender.

Now, what do you think about that?


I also want equal pay. And I think if I were black, 'not getting lynched' wouldn't be nearly good enough for me, and when I read that, I felt sad. I wish you wanted more and felt like you deserved more or could actually attain more. Maybe my goals would be considered lofty, but I would want social equality, and I'd be willing to fight for as long as necessary for it. (And as a woman, I do.)

If someone holds the door for me, I am thankful because I don't discriminate. I also hold the door for other people, without discriminating.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My posting this information had nothing to do with Riley.


As I understand it, Riley brought up the valid point of anti-white racism and Ceci asked for numbers. At that point, the issue changed from Riley's encounter to Ceci's alleged racism. You provided several sources, none of which were remotely academic, as Ceci explained. Then I jumped in and seconded Ceci's request, at which point Riley said that you had already posted several sources, but, that Ceci had found them 'unacceptable' (Riley's words, if I recall correctly). Riley concluded that any further sources would also be found unacceptable, due to Ceci's alleged bias. I responded that I, too, had found the sources biased, but would also like to see some sources.

That's how this all came up, and why I thought you posted more information.



I think it's important to realize that every race experiences discrimination based on our color at one time or another.

I never disagreed with you, or Riley. Why do I feel like we're arguing?



Curious... why in 'believed' in single quotes?

I put it that way because I was emphasizing it. Sorry that wasn't clear. I meant that, although Ceci and I simply asked for a source, which is done in other threads on this board all the time, it was assumed that we didn't believe Riley. To me, at least, that was never in question. I took her word for it.



Whether we know the exact numbers or not, and regardless of my personal experiences or riley's, can we agree that racism is a societal problem that is exacted against all races, including whites?

Because we know the exact numbers, we can agree that racism is a societal problem exacted against all races.



I don't see why the color of the teacher matters. They let black girls wear their hair in braids and they don't let white girls. Isn't that a racist rule?

I really don't know. I read the article, and thought the whole thing was silly, so I didn't really give it a lot of thought.

But now that I think about it, considering the teacher's explanation of the rule, the administration consider braids to be low-class, but only make an exception for black girls because of their cultural tie to the hairstyle. By inference, is the school implying that black culture is "street culture." If so, that is offensive to black people. If anything, the white girl should be honored that school cares enough about her to protect her.

I'm nit-picking, but only because you asked. I'm also being a little sarcastic, to lighten things up a bit.
I really wouldn't have cared otherwise.



I saw a girl on Tyra once who hated being black and wanted to be white. She even denied being black because she wanted to be white so badly. She was racist against blacks, was she not?

I consider those kinds of people to be 'self-hating blacks'. As offensive to me as a really old-school racist white person, for example.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I also want equal pay. And I think if I were black, 'not getting lynched' wouldn't be nearly good enough for me, and when I read that, I felt sad. I wish you wanted more and felt like you deserved more or could actually attain more. Maybe my goals would be considered lofty, but I would want social equality, and I'd be willing to fight for as long as necessary for it. (And as a woman, I do.)

The patronizing tone of your response lets me know that I didn't make my point. In this country, every other disenfranchised group that eventually got their rights (like Jews, Italians, etc) followed specific steps in a specific order, and economic power has always been first. Economic power leads to political power.

To illustrate the point, although there are blacks in political office, blacks, overall, have not benefitted from most of their so-called gains. Why? Because blacks, overall, do not 'own' them. They get their money from the same corporate pot as all the rest of the politicians, so it behooves them to maintain the status quo. While they may garner popular support for taking a stand against racism, when it comes time for re-election, the coffers will be empty.

The same thing, in a way, could be applied to women's rights, I guess. I'm ashamed, but I didnt even realize the effects of sexism for a long while, so I didn't even know enough to think about seeking out candidates who would work on the wage- disparity. (Cut me some slack, though, I'm only 25- still figuring things out) I knew of the problem, but I was too busy worrying about 'black issues,' like gentrification in my comunity, to even consider giving money to a feminist candidate.

So, in both examples, movements stall because those who would benefit the most don't 'put their money where their interest are,' so to speak. That's what I was getting at in my post. I didn't explain. Social equality doesn't come for a group until they get the money to back up that request.



If someone holds the door for me, I am thankful because I don't discriminate. I also hold the door for other people, without discriminating.

Of course, so do I. I was trying to make the point that one of the social issues most easily identifiable by the majority is the holding-the-door thing, and that that is the least of my concerns.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
The patronizing tone of your response lets me know that I didn't make my point.


HH, My intent is neither to patronize nor argue.
I apologize if I 'sound' that way. I certainly am not interested in either. I swear there is no intended 'tone' to my communications here. I thoroughly enjoy this discussion and wouldn't do anything to compromise it. I am honestly looking for an exchange of information, opinions, views, ideas, nothing more. Please don't take my frankness as anything else.

The reason I posted more information was to keep a conversation about racism going by further exploring a different aspect of the discussion. I presented information and asked questions about it. I think you'll see there was nothing accusitory in my post at all. Just questions.
I was trying for a fresh start... to see where people stand on the aspect of racism against whites.

I've had enough arguing. I really meant that.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join