# What IS racism?



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

So, rather than continue to spar with billi over on his "What isn't" thread, I thought a more cogentn and measured examination of the issue might be in order. We've been here before, of course, but it might be worthy of some attention again.

Firstly, from the Merriam-Webster _English Language Technical Manual _(that's engineerspeak for "dictionary" :lfao: ):



> [h=2]rac·ism[/h] _noun_ \&#712;r&#257;-&#716;si-z&#601;m _also_ -&#716;shi-\
> [h=2]Definition of _RACISM_[/h]1
> *:* a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
> 
> ...



So, one definition says that belief that race determines traits and capacities is racist, or that differences produce an inherent superiority is racist, or that prejudice or discrimination are racist.Let's roll with that.

When Obama called his grandmother a "typical white person" that was somewhat racist. Was it less racist than Rush Limbaugh saying that the NFL had a vested interest in a successful black quarterback (at a time when there were numerous black quarterbacks) or Jimmy the Greek talking about black athleticism being a consequence of selective breeding of slaves? I don't know. I know Jimmy the Greek got shafted-there's an element of truth to what he was saying, but no one dares to speak of it. I know Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot-and what he said was racist , superfluous, and idiotic: at the time he made those comments about Donovan McNabb, the NFL had a bunch of successful black quarterbacks, and had for years. It was pretty silly. Whether either of those instances is more racist than Obama's calling his grandmother "Toot," a "typical white person" I couldn't say, though I'd say they're all equally silly.


Racism often is silly. I was in the grocery store in Los Alamos a few years back, talking with a colleague from Arkansas (Mark is a delightfully intelligent and gentle man, and a remarkably competent and coherent physicist-I stole the whole "explain it to my mother" paradigm from him) and another colleague in Spanish. A cashier in the store (who was Hispanic) remarked that she didn't know anyone with a Southern accent could speak Spanish. A silliness which points out the real root of racism: _ignorance_. In this country, we all too often assume that those from the south are less intelligent-that a southern accent means that a person is less smart than the rest of us. This is, of course, simply ignorant. People with southern accents are no more or less intelligent because of their accent, and to assume otherwise is a kind of racism, a sort of prejudice that assumes inherent superiority based upon a racist-or, in this case, _regional_ trait. 

I can't tell you about all the instances in my life when racism has had an impact on me. The first time that I took note of was probably in third grade, when one of my teachers, Mrs. Marantz, told me that I'd have to be a janitor when I grew up. I laughed at her: my parents had probably been telling me I was going to college since I was born, and that's what I told her: I was going to college, and going to be a marine biologist. Of course, it was 1968, in New York, not 1957 in the deep south, and my parents about tore the school down when I told them the story. 

Mrs. Marantz was a silly racist, but to someone with less ego and support than myself, she could have been very hurtful. 

Likewise, because of my mixed heritage, and somewhat exotic appearance( I dunno, I got curly hair, big lips and this lump of cartilage at the end of my nose; is it really that complicated? :lfao: ) people think it's perfectly alright to ask me-in variously invasive ways-what my ethnic heritage is. Like, _What *are* you, anyway?_ or, sometimes, _Excuse me, but what's your ethnic heritage?_ This isn't racist, exactly, but simply curiosity-of course, I tend to think that they wouldn't ask the "typical" Scotch-Irish/Cherokee person from Oklakhoma or Georgia this question; they'd just assume they were "white." 

Native Americans-_Indians_, what I call 'em, 'cause we always have, and because we were "Native" *before* "America"-have their own little racisms, and their own little games around them. Lots of them have been really surprised at my heritage, though a few knew all along, or right from the start. Navajos, for whom the blood quanta is coupled with an entire catalogue of clan affiliations, have their own little slights and needles for black people, or people of mixed-blood. They'll nod at me about white people, call them _bilgaana_-"the ones you fight constantly," and call me _nakaii_, which means "dark Mexican," :lfao: , or_ zhinni_, which means "ape."  Seems like everyone's racist, one way or another, given a chance. 

When I was in 8th grade, I asked a girl out. She was white, and had come to my birthday party. We were friends, but going out? She said, and I quote, _No ****ing way._ Of course, I didn't know that she'd gone out with another -erm-"colorful fella", and her dad had beaten the crap out of her for it. Oh well. 


Is *Obama* racist? Well, I'd tell anyone who wants to know to _*read his books*_, and read between the lines-make up their own mind. In _my opinion_, yes, Obama's racist. Maybe no more or less than the rest of us, but almost certainly racist in a-oddly enough-*very typically *black American way. _He doesn't like white people very much._ Of course, from what I've seen of black America, he's not at all alone in this, and often with good reason. While the ravings of Jeremiah Wright are viewed by mainstream America as insane, they're all too frequently believed by members of the African American community. When you have history that includes the Tuskegee "experiment," it isn't too much of a stretch to AIDS being a government invention to wipe out black people. In Obama's case, it has a lot to do with how his mother raised him, and the places where he lived, and his grandparents. It's strange, and.....sad, kinda. The man is lost, adrift in an America he has always had to make a place for himself in. 

I've listened to more than my fair share of "raps" from members of the Nation of Islam, a religion that masquerades as Islam, and is racist to the core in its ideology. _Blecchh!- _and a :lfao: ! I also don't have much use for Afrocentrism, though it seems mostly misguided and the product of poor scholarship,desperate rather than outright malevolent. In fact, most of the afrocentrists are missing where they would be right, and looking in all the wrong places. Oh well.

I took my diver's certification at a relatively early age. Took lessons in the VA pool. Took the bus to the VA. Rode with deranged Viet Nam vets. Worst, though, was this black woman who got on the bus, and raved about how much she hated white people-scared the crap out of everyone, _including me_, but especially the white people. 

Was she racist? Or did she come by her hate honestly? Is there such a thing as "honest hatred?" 

Who's to say?

I brought a girl home from college, once. In college I went on a pretty serious Asian girl tear.:lfao: Was *that* racist? I dunno-I think attraction to a phenotype isn't necessarily racist, but probably has a racial component-though I didn't wind up taking an Asian bride. ANyway, I had my reasons, in retrospect.I've always thought it was partly a reaction to my frustration from 14 months of celibacy in Japan....:lfao:.... Anyway, I brought a Korean girl home from college, and my parents were nice, and polite. Later, my mother took me aside and told me to *never* bring a "filthy Japanese" into their home again. I pointed out that Audrey was Korean, but my mom said _What's the difference?_ Now, mom was a kid during WWII-just old enough to understand the rape of Nanking, and all atrocities Japanese ,and to take all anti-Japanese propaganda to heart. Even 30 years later, though, that doesn't excuse her racism for me. I'm not even going to get into her anti-Semitism, which, given all the Jewish friends that she had, I've never completely understood-except that she's from Wyoming, and didn't know any Jews before coming to New York, and was taught as a child that Jews were "Christ-killers." My parents taught me to never hate anyone, and I've tried my best not to. I think I've succeeded pretty well-I raised my kids the same way, and they certainly don't hate anyone.My dad didn't hate anyone, or even make judgements based on ethnicity-he judged people by how they behaved. I try to judge people by how they behave, rather than how they appear, and that usually has worked for me, white, black or whatever.

Of course, I deal with all sorts of reactions to all sorts of things: my professional position (guy who has my job *has* to be white) my gorgeous, super intelligent, hyper-tomboy,Playboy girl (women of the forest service, 1987) _one you were looking for when you settled for whoever you're married to,_ white, *blonde! *wife . My singing "country" music. No really. Okay, make that _western_ music. I sing-occasionally in public, playing guitar, mandolin, banjo, harmonica and everythingelse they'll let me. If you're ever in New Mexico, maybe you'll find me at Los Ojos Saloon, which is right down the road from my old house,has animals and guns mounted on the walls and bullet holes in the ceiling, and where i've played a time or two. It's also where a rather gap-toothed, rednecked, Confederate flag wearing, beer-swilling, bullying ******* insisted that I couldn't be singing "Marty Robbins and Johnny Cash songs," because " _a n-i-g-g-e-r has no business singing those songs_." :lfao:

Of course, I wanted to kick his testicles clear up to his spectacles, but Joe Grider, the owner and fellow lab employee, had him thrown out, and had the Sandoval county sherrif waiting to take him away for drunk driving, etc., etc., etc., which was very satisfactory, since I got to keep singing......:lfao: 

What is racist? Usually something ugly-though sometimes silly. Not always what we expect it to be, certainly. 

Almost certainly *not* disbelieving in man-made global warming, or wanting the government to spend less.

Of course, the case *could* be made that the "tea party" is at least partly a racist reaction to a black President, but what the hey.....

What do *you *think?


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 5, 2011)

almost all accusations of racism are not, i know that first hand.

first of all, we have to agree of terms.

racism versus prejudice

how do YOU see each of those terms?


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 5, 2011)

by the definition you posted this is a racist statement:

sickle cell anemia almost 100% a back persons disease.

it is also 100% true, people other than blacks with sickle cell are as rare as hens teeth


----------



## granfire (Sep 5, 2011)

elder999 said:


> So, rather than continue to spar with billi over on his "What isn't" thread, I thought a more cogentn and measured examination of the issue might be in order. We've been here before, of course, but it might be worthy of some attention again.
> 
> Firstly, from the Merriam-Webster _English Language Technical Manual _(that's engineerspeak for "dictionary" :lfao: ):
> 
> ...



Food for thought...

(and I realize I need to go out more. I certainly do not have colorful stories like that...yep, pun unavoidable! )


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 5, 2011)

It's also a useful tool to avoid frank discussion of real issues. And it's commonly used to avoid taking personal responsibility. "I didn't really do anything WRONG, I was just selected because of my race".

Of course the idiots out there who DO indeed do wrong to people simply because of their race make it difficult to have those frank discussions. Its the old snake eating its tail thing.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> by the definition you posted this is a racist statementsickle cell anemia almost 100% a back persons diseaseit is also 100% true, people other than blacks with sickle cell are as rare as hens teeth



Well, no John, on two levels. One, it's not a racist statement. If you were to say that the sickle cell trait made people stupid, or that you weren't going to associate/hire/allow any black people because they might carry the sickle cell trait, that would be racist. Or that they all had to be janitors because of it. Just stating the fact of it isn't racist, anymore than saying that black people have darker skin is. <BR><BR>Secondly, other people that carry the trait are far from "rarer than hen's teeth." It occurs infrequently in Italians, Arabs, Greeks, Indians (from India), Native Americans, Iranians, and Turks. It actually is prevalent in West Africans: 25% of the population carry the sickle cell trait-hence its prevalence among African Americans, who are mostly descended from people stolen from western Africa.<BR><BR><BR>I also gotta wonder about "almost all accusations of racism are not, I know that first hand." But, considering the source, I'll forget about it...



Archangel M said:


> It's also a useful tool to avoid frank discussion of real issues. And it's commonly used to avoid taking personal responsibility. "I didn't really do anything WRONG, I was just selected because of my race".Of course the idiots out there who DO indeed do wrong to people simply because of their race make it difficult to have those frank discussions. Its the old snake eating its tail thing.



So we have another post about what racism *isn't* which isn't what I asked at all.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 5, 2011)

elder999 said:


> <BR><BR>Just stating the fact of it isn't racist, anymore than saying that black people have darker skin is.



so saying "black people commit crimes at almost DOUBLE the RATE of whites but not because they are black" isnt racist............


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 5, 2011)

according to my nursing instructors, we will pretty much never see anyone with sickle cell that isnt black


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> according to my nursing instructors, we will pretty much never see anyone with sickle cell that isnt black



That's likely true,* in the U.S*. In Sicily and southern Italy, though, like Calabria, you'll likely see it in Italians before you even see a black person.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> so saying "black people commit crimes at almost DOUBLE the RATE of whites but not because they are black" isnt racist............



Not if it's a valid statistic-though I'd caution, again, that it's a lot like Maka's spanking thread-correlation doesn't equal causation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 5, 2011)

Bearing in mind that technically, there are no such things as 'races' when speaking of homo sapiens sapiens.  We are all members of the same race, species, and so on.  We are not different races.  But when we speak of racism, we refer primarily to skin color and geographic ancestry.

I am a racist, and I am a product of racists.  Racism runs in my family and it has for generations. I will explain that in more detail in a moment.

I am as white as the driven snow.  My father's family came from Wales and Ireland; my mother's from Germany, Prussia, and Pomerania.  To the best of my knowledge, and unlike many other multi-cultural families in the USA, I have no ancestry from anywhere other than Europe.  My DNA is haplotype R1b1a2, supposedly European Ice-Age survivors.

Growing up, I was aware of my grandfathers' mutual dislike of black people.  In central Illinois, it wasn't uncommon.  I lived in various small towns around the Peoria area; but my grandparents lived in Peoria itself; a racially-mixed small industrial city.  One worked at Caterpillar tractor company; the other at Bemis Bag.  One an engineer, one a shop foreman.  Both detested black people.  My uncles had all fought in WWII; they detested Japanese people and by extension, anyone 'Oriental'.  This was common where I lived.  One of the cities I lived in, Pekin, had a high school athletic team known as _"The Chinks,"_ with a mascot that was a cartoon Chinese man with slanted eyes, yellow skin, a sampan hat, buck teeth, and a pigtail.  Not kidding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekin,_Illinois

At the same time, I was living in a white man's world.  The only people I knew of who were not white were on TV. The Bill Cosby Show and Flip Wilson. Once my dad had a coworker who was Japanese; he brought him to dinner once and my mother served La Choy chinese food.  Pekin was, as I found out later, a 'Sundown City'.

http://sundown.afro.illinois.edu/sundowntowns.php

Our racism was casual.  We were, by family history and basic lifestyle, racist; but not actively.  My father didn't rant about black people or asian people or hispanic people (I didn't even know the word 'hispanic' or 'Mexican' growing up).  We weren't haters; but we were exclusive.

When we moved to Colorado, I found myself meeting people and kids my age who were minorities, but not many.  There was a black family on our block, but they were the only ones I knew of.  None in my school.  We had hispanic students in my school, but at the time, the preferred term was 'Chicano'.  I learned about different pronunciations for family names I recognized from Illinois, like Vigil and Mondragon.  If I was exposed to racism in Colorado, it was again casual.  There were schools and neighborhoods in Denver that were racially-mixed, but not out in the western suburbs.

After high school, when I joined the Marines, my world changed.  Suddenly I was not just exposed, but shoved in with people from every culture, every background.  Urban, rural, suburban.  Black, white, southern, asian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Filipino, you name it.  It exposed me to cultures, patois, slang, mannerisms, and racism; both racism that was for whites and that against whites.  I adopted racist attitudes based on what I saw, what I heard.

I noticed things that bothered me.  If a white Marine was jumped by blacks, he'd get no help.  If a black Marine was jumped by whites, every black Marine in the vicinity would come to help.  Black Marines were often friendly enough one-on-one, but in a group, the same Marine whom you thought was your friend suddenly hated your guts.  I noticed blacks and women being promoted more quickly than white men; even when their 'cutting scores' were lower and they had less time-in-grade. I was a racist, but I often felt it was more of a defensive posture than anything else.  I had no reason to hate black people (or any other race) specifically; but I was more than willing to believe stereotypes and to promote negative racial attitudes.  I didn't object to racist jokes, I didn't mind joining in myself.  I kept to my own race; we all pretty much did.

After the Marines, I went back and forth.  I had periods of time when I 'got' the idea that racism was bad; but other times I felt drawn to it.  I lived in many different cities, from Omaha to Denver to Milwaukee to well lots of places.  I dated women from every race; my father's overt racism appeared at that time.  He told me that if I _'gave him a black grandchild'_, he'd disown me.  It was that shock to the system that made me begin to pull away from my own racism; whether it was overt, covert, or casual.  I stopped telling racist jokes, stopped putting up from them in others, even my friends.  I stopped pretending that such things were OK.  That didn't mean I stopped being a racist.  It did mean that I became aware of my racism.

At age 50, I am still affected by racist attitudes, notions, fears, and misconceptions.  I live in a world in which I work with people of all races and cultures.  I do not hate anyone, and I especially reject racism in my world, in my life.  But it's in me; I have unreasonable fears and I have to fight them constantly.  I see things that make me reach for simple answers that are racist; it's easy to see such things in Detroit.  Fighting the tendency to assign easy answers to difficult situations requires conscious effort.  I can't say I always win, but I can say I always try.

When I lash out at people who are saying what I perceive as racist or bigoted or hateful things, consider that it's not because I don't understand your point of view; it's because I *do* understand it, and it would be all too easy for me to join you there.

Yeah, I'm a racist.  I don't know if everyone is, but I suspect we've all got some of it in us.  What I can do is try not to be racist.  Try not to be ruled by unreasonable fears and try not to reach for easy answers to complex problems.  Trust in the basic decency of all people and in my own, and don't perpetuate my own biased attitudes.  It's not easy.

What is racism? Believing in or perpetuating the myth that people whose skin color differs from one's own are different in the ways that really matter, in their humanity.


----------



## granfire (Sep 5, 2011)

elder999 said:


> That's likely true,* in the U.S*. In Sicily and southern Italy, though, like Calabria, you'll likely see it in Italians before you even see a black person.



part of that is caused by the simple fact that mankind has always shagged anything that didn't run fast enough....the trade routes around that puddle of ocean have been working well for millenia.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 5, 2011)

With regard to the question of crime rates amongst blacks in the USA versus crime rates amongst whites...

It is racist to demand that the question not be asked or to pretend that the statistics do not exist.

It is likewise racist to assume that the answer to the question is because of the criminal nature of blacks versus that of whites to the exclusion of all other possible reasons.

The problem with race is that one group would want us not to have the discussion because it might take us in uncomfortable directions.  Another group would use data as if they were proofs to support their own biases.  Both tend to silence discussion between those who seek the root causes of crime and have neither an ax to grind nor a fear of such people.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> so saying "black people commit crimes at almost DOUBLE the RATE of whites but not because they are black" isnt racist............


Ignorant but not racist.
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Bill, thanks again for a thoughtful and candid post.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Yeah, I'm a racist. I don't know if everyone is, but I suspect we've all got some of it in us. What I can do is try not to be racist. Try not to be ruled by unreasonable fears and try not to reach for easy answers to complex problems. Trust in the basic decency of all people and in my own, and don't perpetuate my own biased attitudes. It's not easy.



One of my martial arts teachers in college-a man who has long since retired, happily, I hope-told me during our initial interview that he was from Brooklyn, and he didn't like blacks, but that that was how he was raised and I wouldn't be his first black student, in spite of that. A lot of these things aren't easy for people to face, never mind say. There are some who can say the most racist things, and go right insisting that they're not.

On the other hand, there are people who don't even have a clue as to what it is to have a racist thought. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> What is racism? *Believing in or perpetuating the myth that people whose skin color differs from one's own are different in the ways that really matter, in their humanity*.



QFT. :asian:


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 5, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Ignorant but not racist.
> Sean




unless it is true,


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> unless it is true, which it is, (the actual numbers are pretty close to double, i checked) thanks for playing, you dont get to go to the next round.. sorry



Remember when I said it's not racist if it's a real statistic?

Which "actual numbers" did you check, exactly?

What you said was:



Twin Fist said:


> so saying "black people commit crimes at almost DOUBLE the RATE of whites but not because they are black" isnt racist............



And I don't know what "almost DOUBLE the RATE of whites" means. Certainly, if it's a per capita thing, then one could say something about crimes committed per capita. In any case, the arrest statistics for 2009 from the FBI show:


10,690,561
7,389,208
3,027,153


With the first  figure being total number of arrests that year, the second being the number of arrested white, and the third being the number of arrested blacks.

Percentage wise, as shown on the chart, this works out to 69.1% of all crimes being committed by "whites," and 28.3 by "blacks." Of course, if you look at the black populace of the U.S. being only 12.84% of the population, this is still a pretty staggering statistic, but all it really says it that a lot of blacks get arrested-though it does get even more interesting when broken down by crime.

In any case, what numbers were they that you checked, John?


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 5, 2011)

Might i jump in here, and say that Black Neighbourhoods are likely less Safe - Albeit that this is more a Result of it being a Slum, and that there is in fact Less Crime due to the reduced number of People who actually go through?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Might i jump in here, and say that Black Neighbourhoods are likely less Safe - Albeit that this is more a Result of it being a Slum, and that there is in fact Less Crime due to the reduced number of People who actually go through?



You'd be wrong on several counts. The vast majority of crimes blacks are arrested for are perpetrated against people of their own ethnicity. Crime rates are higher in slums.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 5, 2011)

dont play stupid Jeff.

that was just an example, and it is factual:

http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf


but that is besides the point, the point is, "what is racism"

and the problem is, it is different things to different people. For some, like those jackasses Jackson and Sharpton, EVERYTHING is racism.

for others, like me, not much is, and most claims of racism are BS.

eye of the beholder and all that


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> dont play stupid Jeff.
> 
> that was just an example, and it is factual:
> 
> ...



How can it be factual when the FBI stats directly refute it? At least, on the face they do-make those statistics _per capita_ and the discussion becomes far more interesting (and far more than "DOUBLE the RATE" )

Indeed, though, Irony, thy name is "_TwinFist_"

I tried to click your link. I'm at work. Guess what?



> This Websense category is filtered: Racism and Hate.
> URL:
> http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf


 Why am I not surprised.

Eye of the beholder, though, and all that.....


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 5, 2011)

so you dismiss it without even reading it?

lame dude.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> so you dismiss it without even reading it?
> 
> lame dude.



I'll get an eyeball on it later, even if I have to use my droid.

My _webfilter_ dismissed it, and *labeled* it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 5, 2011)

and i should give a **** exactly WHY?


like i said, i dont even care about that, that was just an example, and i knwo the truth anyway

what i DO care about is that you cant reach agreement till everyone is speakign the same language. and tanks to jackholes like duke, sharpton, jackson, etc, a lot fo people aint even listening.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> and i should give a **** exactly WHY?



Here's why:



> The *New Century Foundation* is nonprofit organization founded in 1994 to study immigration and race relations. From 1994 to 1999 its activities received considerable funding by the Pioneer Fund.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP], and has been described as a white supremacist group.[SUP][4][/SUP]
> The organization is headed by founder Jared Taylor and is known primarily for publishing _American Renaissance_. Taylor advocates voluntary segregation as a natural expression of racial solidarity while denying that his views constitute white supremacism. Viewing societal problems as racial and religious in nature, Taylor upholds racial homogeneity as the key to peaceful coexistence.



And here's the wiki on "The Color of Crime":



> *The Color of Crime* is a publication by the New Century Foundation, authored by Jared Taylor, describing race differences in criminal offending in the United States.[SUP][1][/SUP]
> The study finds that African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately overrepresented among criminal offenders, while Asian Americans are underrepresented.
> There is also a study in the publication showing a correlation between the proportion of Black residents in a community and the community's crime rate. According to the publication, the proportion of residents that are African American or Hispanic better predicts a community's crime rate than do other variables.



Heere's what the SPLC has to say about "The Color of Crime":



> Based on a cursory examination of 1994 data about interracial crimes between whites and blacks &#8212; less than a sixth of all crimes committed that year &#8212; Taylor comes to a series of what he describes as "startling conclusions" about black criminality. Blacks, he claims, are vastly more likely to attack whites than vice versa and, in fact, are far more prone to criminality in general. The reason, *Taylor suggests amidst a blizzard of misleading statistics, is their blackness &#8212; something about black genes, or perhaps black culture, that endows African-Americans with a natural proclivity to criminality*.



Now. please look back to Bill's excellent definition of racism.




Twin Fist said:


> what i DO care about is that you cant reach agreement till everyone is speakign the same language. and tanks to jackholes like duke, sharpton, jackson, etc, a lot fo people aint even listening.



You could add Jared Taylor to that list of jackholes, and consider just who it is that isn't listening......


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 5, 2011)

wiki? for all I know, YOU just went and edited it........./eyeroll

here is the kicker though


what if he is right?

the numbers are the numbers, so what if he is right?

weather the guy is a clod or not is irrelevant IF HE IS RIGHT

and AGAIN< NOT THE ****ING POINT JEFF

the point is, you cannot have a discussion, much less an agreement of anything till you have an agreement on terms.

For example:

cant get a cab in New York City? to you that might be racism, to somone else it might not be.


----------



## David43515 (Sep 5, 2011)

No one is as blind as those who refuse to see. Twin, I`ve stood up for you in the past when you`ve made good points, but you refuse to even acknowledge when Elder is right. You call him out for being skeptical of a sight he can`t access from work, a site with a bad reputation for skewing facts and figures to make their point. But then you turn around and say you trust their figures more than the FBI`s, and that you can`t even discuss the issue until you agree on terms. Well, okay. Meet him halfway in trying to define terms. I`ll bet the two of you actually agree on a whole lot more than you disagree on, but you`ll never know if you don`t take the time to look for that common ground. (That means listening and being willing to admit at least the possability that you might be wrong.)

I apologize for calling you on this infront of everyone, but I`ve seen it from alot of folks here lately and I thought they could use the same advice. And that`s all it is, opinion and advice.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> wiki? for all I know, YOU just went and edited it........./eyeroll
> 
> here is the kicker though
> 
> ...



I'll field this last, and then I'll stay out of this part of the discussion. 

"The numbers," per that particular document, are not *the numbers*. While you can find any number of appalling statistics about black crime (if you look at the FBI page I posted, blacks simply commit more violent crime), in _The Color of Crime_ Jared Taylor is guilty of faulty analysis. He's guilty of selection bias, something everyone who has taken statistics (I've had to endure it with every degree-same book three times!) recognizes as, well, wrong, an error, verboten, forbidden,_ dumpkopfism_. By using a sample that represented only a sixth of the crimes committed in 1994, and focusong on, well, *the wrong things*-he ignored the *fact* that the majority of crime is intra-racial. Blacks are most often victimized by blacks, and whites by whites. He had (just as in Maka's spanking stories, as I warned) a preconceived outcome that he needed to tailor his data to, and that's what he did.

SO, when it comes to "the numbers"-_if that's what you meant_-he isn't right. He didn't even have to do this, though, the raw data is bad enough.



Twin Fist said:


> weather the guy is a clod or not is irrelevant IF HE IS RIGHT
> 
> and AGAIN< NOT THE ****ING POINT JEFF
> 
> the point is, you cannot have a discussion, much less an agreement of anything till you have an agreement on terms.



Well, do you mean that he was right about the numbers, or right in implying that there is something biologically or genetically inherent in being black that leads to a predisposition towards violence and crime?



Twin Fist said:


> For example:
> 
> cant get a cab in New York City? to you that might be racism, to somone else it might not be.



Well, yeah-I'm standing at the corner in my suit trying to hail a cab, and they keep passing me and picking up other fares just down the road, and I'm going to have some thoughts. To be honest, though, I've never had a problem getting a cab in New York City-or anywhere else-even as scary as I can look.

And now, I'll leave you with the words of Jared Taylor, author of _The Color of Crime_, founder and head of the New Century Foundation, segregationist, white supremacist, and racist(is that overly redundant? :lfao: ) at the 2008 American Renaissance conference:



> If white people are to survive, they have to stop to stop playing lip service to this notion of equal outcomes. We* have to be able to say to other groups, 'We wish you well, but you will have to seek your destiny in your own places. You will have to fashion your future in your own hands.' In that process of course, we will be denying to them the benefits of the societies our ancestors built. However, our ancestors built them for us, and we only hold them in trust for succeeding generations, and our societies are not ours to give away to strangers
> 
> *


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> by the definition you posted this is a racist statement:
> 
> sickle cell anemia almost 100% a back persons disease.
> 
> *it is also 100% true, people other than blacks with sickle cell are as rare as hens teeth*



Actually that's not true either, it's quite common in Mediterrean countries such as Cyprus, Turkey and Greece as well as the Middle East and latin America.

_"Sickle cell anemia affects millions throughout the world. It is particularly common among people whose ancestors come from sub-Saharan Africa; Spanish-speaking regions (South America, Cuba, Central America); Saudi Arabia; India; and Mediterranean countries such as Turkey, Greece, and Italy. In the Unites States, it affects around 72,000 people, most of whose ancestors come from Africa. The disease occurs in about 1 in every 500 African-American births and 1 in every 1000 to 1400 Hispanic-American births. About 2 million Americans, or 1 in 12 African Americans, carry the sickle cell trait."

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/sca.shtml
_


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 6, 2011)

uh, i didnt do that



David43515 said:


> But then you turn around and say you trust their figures more than the FBI`s


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 6, 2011)

i actually read the report unlike you Jeff, and the author didnt claim that at all. So you are either mistaken or making things up.



elder999 said:


> Well, do you mean that he was right about the numbers, or right in implying that there is something biologically or genetically inherent in being black that leads to a predisposition towards violence and crime?



and i dont know if he is right or not, cuz here is another kicker, no one want s to report the numbers accuratly for fear of even sounding racist.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i actually read the report unlike you Jeff, and the author didnt claim that at all. So you are either mistaken or making things up.and i dont know if he is right or not, cuz here is another kicker, no one want s to report the numbers accuratly for fear of even sounding racist.


Didn't say what, John? I've made nothing up.And you won't get more accurate statistics than those of the FBI, which I posted here. I'll get to the report in a bit.......


----------



## elder999 (Sep 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i actually read the report unlike you Jeff, and the author didnt claim that at all. So you are either mistaken or making things up.
> .



From the conclusion of the report, pgs. 19&20:



> This report takes no position on causes of groupdifferences in crime rates,* except to point out that**the ones that are most commonly proposed&#8212;poverty,**unemployment, lack of education&#8212;are not satisfactory*.As for the reality of those differences, theevidence is overwhelming: Blacks are considerably​more likely than any other group to commit crimes
> of virtually all kinds, while Asians are least likely.Whites and Hispanics have intermediate crime rates.There can be debate about the exact extent of thedifferences&#8212;the data do not make these calculationseasy&#8212;but differences are a fact.These differences are far greater than some thathave given rise to significant public initiatives.Blacks are more than twice as likely as whites to beunemployed, and white household income is 60 percenthigher than black household income. Blacksare twice as likely as whites to drop out of highschool. Race differences of this kind have led toeverything from affirmative action preferences to​No Child Left Behind legislation.




It's clear-since it's not poverty, unemployment or lack of education that the author finds as "satisfactory" causes (though he both fails to demonstrate why they are unsatisfactory, and somewhat contradicts himself in the very next paragraph?) that the implied cause for these "differences" must be racial in nature.

The report is skewed and inflammatory from the very beginning:



> O​​​​n March 11, 2005, Brian Nichols, who wason trial for rape, went on a murderous rampageat an Atlanta courthouse, shooting ajudge, a court reporter, and a deputy. After his arrest,he explained that he was a &#8220;soldier on a mission&#8221;against a racially biased legal system. In jailawaiting his rape trial, he had been angry to find somany other black inmates, and he wondered howmany were innocent. For him, the large number ofblacks meant the legal system was &#8220;systematic slavery.&#8221;​1​*Mr. Nichols&#8217;s views were only an extreme version**of what a majority of black Americans believe.**A 2003 national poll found that only 28 percent of**blacks, as opposed to 66 percent of whites, thought*​*whites and blacks receive *
> *equal treatment at the**hands of the police*.




While it may be the perception of blacks that we don't receive equal treatment at the hands of the_ police_, there is a difference between that perception and the results of "the criminal justice system," which includes the courts. Frankly, I don't think blacks receive equal treatment from the police-I've been subject to suspicion on the basis of my skin color alone  on numerous occasions since my teenage years, and I have no reason to believe that I was the only one, in spite of my  *always* being polite and compliant with the police.

Likewise, to equate that perception, and the results of the poll, as only a milder version of the homicidal actions and expressions of one individual is reckless and inflammatory, and manipulative as hell....I'd no more shoot up a courthouse than I would a schoolhouse or even a litter of kittens-and we all know how I feel about cats: a lot worse than I do about white people,black people, judges or police. :lfao:



> Most Americans at least suspect that blacks andHispanics are more likely to commit crimes thanwhites or Asians. The data support this view. However,the crime statistics published by the federalgovernment and reported in the press are incompleteand often confusing. It takes real digging to get aclear picture of racial differences in crime rates&#8212;​and they can be great


Here, he's simply *lying*. I had no difficulty at all going directly to the FBI table that breaks down crime stats by race, and linking it here. If he isn't lying, then he's yet another moron with a Harvard degree....:lfao:


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 6, 2011)

Considering that "whites" are about 80% of the population, common sense would tell you that they would also commit the most crimes.  To try and make it seem otherwise is a HUGE skew of the data.  Here are some examples from the FBI report from 2009  (  http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_43.html  )

Total Crime:  69% Whites vs. 28% Blacks
Murder/Manslaughter:  48.7% Whites vs. 49.3% Blacks
Robbery: 45% Whites vs. 55% Blacks
Suspicion of a crime: 45% Whites vs. 55% Blacks

So, out of 30 reportable crimes, only 2 categories have black people committing more types of crime and one of those is almost 50/50.  In fact, almost 60% of ALL violent crime is done by white people.  Now, you can very easily twist the data and only point out murder and robbery and make an incomplete statement that would be true in a certain way, but also misleading and false overall.

As Mark Twain once said, "There are lies, damed lies, and statistics"


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 6, 2011)

Just to add in the statistical point (without knowing the methodology used in the data collection of the stats that Punisher posted).  

If there is an 80/20 split in the population demography and the crime stats do not follow that split then one side or the other is under or over represented in the categories.  The robbery category particularly grabs my attention with 55% of the crimes being perpetrated by a demographic that is only 20% of the population!

I'll have to dig into the source data to see if they are adjusted for population proportion but if they are not then it speaks volumes about the failure of culture to ensure that people pursue equality of outcomes rather than just turn to crime as a means of making a living.

Have to agree with the Twain quote, especially as I had to do an awful lot of statistics in my educational 'path'.  That's why you have to be so clear about how the stats are gathered and how they have been collated.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 6, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> Considering that "whites" are about 80% of the population, common sense would tell you that they would also commit the most crimes.  To try and make it seem otherwise is a HUGE skew of the data.



Common sense would tell you that it should rain the same amount everywhere.  But we recognize that it seems to rain more in Oregon than it does in Arizona.  Ah, we say, but there are reasons why this is so.  The US is not the same everyplace.  Yes indeed. There are reasons why 'common sense' would be mistaken.  It might also be true that all parts of the USA are not the same with regard to crime, and that the races are not evenly distributed across the nation.  So again, we have reasons, valid reasons, that might explain why the numbers are different which do NOT point at simple conclusions.

All data has to be taken in context, or the conclusions drawn are unlikely to be accurate.

It is one thing to state that crime rates are higher on a per capita basis for one racial group than another for a given type of crime in a given time period and quite another to attempt to explain why that is so.

We are not evenly distributed across the USA with regard to race, so one has to ask if the crime rates for white versus black crime have similar disproportionate numbers in every area of the country.  If they are higher in one place than they are in another, then that is data that must also be considered; it's hardly skewing the numbers to do so; it's considered the correct scientific process.

We are not evenly distributed with regard to income and poverty rates, so one has to ask if the crime rates for white crime versus black crime have similar disproportionate numbers when grouped by income.  If they are higher in one economic class than another, then that data too must be considered.

Differences in education?  This must also be taken into account when attempting to attach a reason to the raw data.

I am not a statistician but I believe this is what is known as 'normalizing' the data.

In the end, and speaking hypothetically only, if it were possible to control for every known variable and still come up with a conclusion that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites, it is at least theoretically possible to arrive at a scientifically-sound conclusion that it is because blacks are simply more inclined to violate the law than whites.  I tend to doubt that any such conclusion could ever be drawn, for many reasons, including fear of being labeled racist, but also including the notion that there are simply too many variables that affect crime rates to ever come to such a conclusion legitimately.

We have the data, but we do not have the cause of the data, and to simply take it at face value is misleading and scientifically unsound.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 6, 2011)

I would be more interested to see the stats on crime rate between different income levels.  I think that might be more honest stats to reflect causation than race. 

 Blacks have a higher crime rate per capita than whites.  On the surface it is easy to equate that to blacks are more prone to being a criminal, especially if you already have a racist bent to your thinking.  However, it is also true that blacks are far more likely to be poor, be less educated, and suffer violence than whites.  So the issue of blacks and crime becomes way more complex than an issue of race.

I know this isn't very scientific, but my nieghborhood is a mix of white and black, with some hispanic and asian people too.  In my experience of my nieghborhood, race has nothing to do with who will be a criminal or troublemaker.  Most of the time it is the parents and who a young person decides to associate themselves with that will make the biggest difference.

As far as racism, it is not racism to point out that blacks have a higher crime rate.  It is simple minded racism to believe that they have a higher crime rate because of the color of thier skin.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> *Common sense would tell you that it should rain the same amount everywhere. But we recognize that it seems to rain more in Oregon than it does in Arizona.* Ah, we say, but there are reasons why this is so. The US is not the same everyplace. Yes indeed. There are reasons why 'common sense' would be mistaken. It might also be true that all parts of the USA are not the same with regard to crime, and that the races are not evenly distributed across the nation. So again, we have reasons, valid reasons, that might explain why the numbers are different which do NOT point at simple conclusions.
> 
> All data has to be taken in context, or the conclusions drawn are unlikely to be accurate.
> 
> ...



To me, common sense would tell me that it would rain more in a forest type area (Oregon) than in a desert type area (Arizonia).  

All the rest I am in complete agreement with, that was why I stated that the data shows overall that white people commit more crimes and more violent crimes and ended with the Twain quote about statistics.

Originally, I had in my post about the data not telling you "who" is committing the crimes etc. but I was in a hurry and didn't finish that thought.  In it, I was going to compare one of the stats that was out of whack with percentages and talk about murder.  How many of the "murders" are gang related vs. heat of the moment vs. other crime gone mad vs. drunk driving deaths etc. 

In the end, as you already stated better than me.  The data gives a broad brush stroke and doesn't really tell us much more than that.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 6, 2011)

Just for refrence:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...iolence-in-America.-quot&highlight=race+crime


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 6, 2011)

For some reason, this other post of mine didn't go through.


As to what is racism.  When I had Sociology in college, I remember this discussion and what was the difference between racism and prejudice.  The textbook we used (can't remember quite honestly for giving it as a source) defined 'racism' as the ACTIONS against someone based on color and prejudicism.  Prejudice was the attitude and beliefs aspect of it.

I believe that ALL people are prejudice.  That is how we are as humans.  ALL of us pre-judge based on personal experience or beliefs given to us from parents, teachers, society, peers etc.  But, not all people act on those beliefs. We can all think of examples of all races and ages where they did something and we thought to ourself and were surprised that they acted that way.  It is because we had "pre-judged" them on factors that in our experience would have led to a different set of behaviors.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 6, 2011)

Let me state that I don't post this with any personal agenda or racial agenda. It's just a video with some info on this topic. It's pretty controversial and illustrates the issue of if we can discuss stats based on race w/o descending into "racism".

[yt]g872PIgG3KU[/yt]

if you are not willing to listen to the whole thing skip to 7:29 it addresses arrest stats, a topic I have seen mentioned here already.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 6, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> To me, common sense would tell me that it would rain more in a forest type area (Oregon) than in a desert type area (Arizonia).



I misunderstood you. I thought you were encouraging us to accept the raw data as significant without parsing it; seeing such attempts as some kind of tomfoolery.



> All the rest I am in complete agreement with, that was why I stated that the data shows overall that white people commit more crimes and more violent crimes and ended with the Twain quote about statistics.
> 
> Originally, I had in my post about the data not telling you "who" is committing the crimes etc. but I was in a hurry and didn't finish that thought.  In it, I was going to compare one of the stats that was out of whack with percentages and talk about murder.  How many of the "murders" are gang related vs. heat of the moment vs. other crime gone mad vs. drunk driving deaths etc.
> 
> In the end, as you already stated better than me.  The data gives a broad brush stroke and doesn't really tell us much more than that.



Then we are in agreement; my apologies for not understanding that.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I misunderstood you. I thought you were encouraging us to accept the raw data as significant without parsing it; seeing such attempts as some kind of tomfoolery.
> 
> 
> 
> Then we are in agreement; my apologies for not understanding that.



No problems, academic laziness on my part for not fleshing out my statement more.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 6, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> As to what is racism.  When I had Sociology in college, I remember this discussion and what was the difference between racism and prejudice.  The textbook we used (can't remember quite honestly for giving it as a source) defined 'racism' as the ACTIONS against someone based on color and prejudicism.  Prejudice was the attitude and beliefs aspect of it.
> 
> I believe that ALL people are prejudice.  That is how we are as humans.  ALL of us pre-judge based on personal experience or beliefs given to us from parents, teachers, society, peers etc.  But, not all people act on those beliefs. We can all think of examples of all races and ages where they did something and we thought to ourself and were surprised that they acted that way.  It is because we had "pre-judged" them on factors that in our experience would have led to a different set of behaviors.



I don't think a person is or is not a racist or a bigot or prejudiced based simply upon how they act.  I think how they feel matters too.  One must also consider that there are private actions and public ones.  A racist might shake a person's hand and wish they did not have to do it.  They might attempt to apply anti-discrimination laws evenly at work, but tell racist jokes to their friends at home.  They don't stop being what they are because of the public face they present.  In some cases (and I am thinking of my own father here), it simply makes them a liar and a racist.

From my point of view, all racists are bigots.  All bigots are prejudiced.  But the reverse is not true.

Prejudice is simply what it seems - pre-judging.  For example, I am prejudiced against drug dealers.  I do not know their circumstances, nor do I want to.  I dislike them with no other reasoning than that I dislike them.  That's a prejudice.  And yes, we all do it, to one extent or another.  Not all prejudices are wrong.

Bigots are those who are prejudiced against others for reasons based on race, religion, culture, language, national origin, and ethnicity.  Archie Bunker was a bigot; he disliked Polish people among others.  All racists are bigots, but not all bigots are racists.

Racists are bigots who restrict their prejudice to a dislike based on race, as the term says.

The term 'racist' is often misused; people say it when they mean 'bigot'.  There are also areas of gray; a person who is Jewish is a member of a religion (presumably), a culture, an ethnicity, and perhaps (depending on definition) a race.  Dislike of Jewish people has often been considered racism; perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it bigotry, but that is perhaps splitting hairs.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 6, 2011)

One of the more racist things I actually have come across working in LE and now as a School Liaison is the mentality among many inner city blacks is that if you get an education and do well in school that you are "acting white" or are an "Uncle Tom" or "sellout".  

Can this attitude be one of the main obstacles to reducing crime rates and increasing academic achievements?

I have spoken with different kids and a common theme was that they had to hide when they studied or they would be beat up by their peers and harrassed.  Some would even act out in class just to fit in and throw away their chances to go to a good college to fit in with their classmates.  I have no study or data on this, just personal experience and other teachers and people telling me their anecdotal stories.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't think a person is or is not a racist or a bigot or prejudiced based simply upon how they act. I think how they feel matters too. One must also consider that there are private actions and public ones. A racist might shake a person's hand and wish they did not have to do it. They might attempt to apply anti-discrimination laws evenly at work, but tell racist jokes to their friends at home. They don't stop being what they are because of the public face they present. In some cases (and I am thinking of my own father here), it simply makes them a liar and a racist.
> 
> From my point of view, all racists are bigots. All bigots are prejudiced. But the reverse is not true.
> 
> ...



I like those working definitions better.  Thanks.

As a complete aside that I thought of reading your post.  While working in the jail, I had this white supremicist that would always sit with the same three black guys playing cards and chess during their free time.  I asked him one time how he could spout off on how he hated black people yet enjoyed spending time and hanging out with black people and not the white guys in the unit.  In his brilliance (cough...ignorance...cough), he said that he was only racist when he was on the outside because it was "ok" to associate with black people when in jail because everyone was mixed in.  Huh?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 6, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> I like those working definitions better.  Thanks.
> 
> As a complete aside that I thought of reading your post.  While working in the jail, I had this white supremicist that would always sit with the same three black guys playing cards and chess during their free time.  I asked him one time how he could spout off on how he hated black people yet enjoyed spending time and hanging out with black people and not the white guys in the unit.  In his brilliance (cough...ignorance...cough), he said that he was only racist when he was on the outside because it was "ok" to associate with black people when in jail because everyone was mixed in.  Huh?



I would presume this is the same sort of logic that enables homosexual behavior when in prison and heterosexual behavior when not incarcerated.  However, I could be wrong, that's just a guess.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would presume this is the same sort of logic that enables homosexual behavior when in prison and heterosexual behavior when not incarcerated.  However, I could be wrong, that's just a guess.


Plus you live a lot longer if, the African Americans don't fear you.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 6, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> One of the more racist things I actually have come across working in LE and now as a School Liaison is the mentality among many inner city blacks is that if you get an education and do well in school that you are "acting white" or are an "Uncle Tom" or "sellout".
> 
> Can this attitude be one of the main obstacles to reducing crime rates and increasing academic achievements?
> 
> I have spoken with different kids and a common theme was that they had to hide when they studied or they would be beat up by their peers and harrassed. Some would even act out in class just to fit in and throw away their chances to go to a good college to fit in with their classmates. I have no study or data on this, just personal experience and other teachers and people telling me their anecdotal stories.



I've experienced this through middle school, and a little bit through college and adulthood. If you can imagine a radio newscaster, that's pretty much what I sound like when I speak, with a little less volume, and maybe a little more culture, like your newscaster went to a New England prep school.....which I did......:lfao: 

Interestingly, this is probably the form of prejudice I've encountered most in New Mexico, from all sides of the racial divide: all my life, white people have complemented me on how well-spoken I am, and how I don't _talk all that *jive*_, and black people have accused me of "trying to sound white." I just sound like myself....and my parents, maybe......


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 6, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I've experienced this through middle school, and a little bit through college and adulthood. If you can imagine a radio newscaster, that's pretty much what I sound like when I speak, with a little less volume, and maybe a little more culture, like your newscaster went to a New England prep school.....which I did......:lfao:
> 
> Interestingly, this is probably the form of prejudice I've encountered most in New Mexico, from all sides of the racial divide: all my life, white people have complemented me on how well-spoken I am, and how I don't _talk all that *jive*_, and black people have accused me of "trying to sound white." I just sound like myself....and my parents, maybe......


In Spokane Washington, all the African Americans have, "white pipes" when need be. I just had this discussion a few days ago with a woman from New York. She just can't get over it. LOL
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Sep 6, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> Considering that "whites" are about 80% of the population, common sense would tell you that they would also commit the most crimes. To try and make it seem otherwise is a HUGE skew of the data. Here are some examples from the FBI report from 2009 ( http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_43.html )
> 
> Total Crime: 69% Whites vs. 28% Blacks
> Murder/Manslaughter: 48.7% Whites vs. 49.3% Blacks
> ...



And, as I tried pointing out, that that percentage of arrests takes place for less than 13% of the population says _something,_ but to infer that it is because of _being_ in that percentage (discounting people like my parents, grandparents and myself, who, like the majority of black people,whether wealthy, middle class or poor, do not commit crimes) is simply what we've been trying all along to talk about: racist.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 6, 2011)

elder999 said:


> , and how I don't _talk all that *jive*_, .



You mean that's not you testifying?


----------



## Jenna (Sep 6, 2011)

Like many, I have had ample experience of racist exchanges and been on the end of too many unpleasantries to catalogue. Though I was born in London, my ethnicity is enough for plenty to take umbrage against me.  Whatever.. In my time trying to analyse racial antagonism as I see it, I figure that the root of racism while forming out of "honest" hatred at perhaps the level of two disuptants, branches out in three steps -and I mean here racism that is not purely ignorantly and naively inherited.

Firstly, I believe one must be predisposed to racially prejudging thought and practice - or at the very least one must not be *inwardly* repelled by such. (What we do outwardly can be facade).  As has been suggested in previous posts, perhaps we are all so predisposed.  I think that is likely.  Though forgive me for generalising.

Secondly - assuming this inward condoning of racially prejudging behaviour, is inherent in us all, then the next step in developing racism is a single corroborating piece of evidence for the validation of one's racist predisposition. That can come in the form of a disagreement between you and a member of another ethnic group or perhaps you may perceive favouritism towards me as a member of a different ethnic group.  There are myriad variants all with the same end: you have in some way been wronged by a member of another ethnic group.  These are the borderline dispositions between internal and externalised racial prejudices I think.

Thirdly - now that you have simple corroboration, all that is needed to allow your racism to flourish outwardly is one or more pieces of reinforcing evidence to enable you to extrapolate what is "honest" hatred or disliking of an individual belonging to another ethnic group into card-carrying racism.  This process is expedited because you are already warm to prejudice from -as before- having perhaps perceived favouritism towards me (a member of another ethnic group to you), and so you will be even more accutely aware of similar favouritism, even if it is picked up second- or third-hand, or on TV or on some internet forum where people gather to discuss their own incidents of perceived favouritism. From here, erroneous extrapolation is easy.

So what is racism?  I think it is indeed the process of how good ol fashioned "honest" hatred can be misled and go awry. Aww.

Anyway, congratulations, you are now fully fledged in your racism.  Continue connecting with others online.  Form a sect, religion or political party.  Express yourself


----------



## elder999 (Sep 6, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> In Spokane Washington, all the African Americans have, "white pipes" when need be. I just had this discussion a few days ago with a woman from New York. She just can't get over it. LOL
> Sean



And "speaking jive" is one of the few things I couldn't do to save my life-literally.


[yt]Qa1rjCZxtxo[/yt]

:lfao: Every time!

Which brings up another question: is it racist to make jokes about perceived differences, or to laugh at them?


----------



## Big Don (Sep 6, 2011)

Simply defined, racism is believing you can differentiate between a good person and a bad one at first sight. 
You can't.


----------



## granfire (Sep 6, 2011)

elder999 said:


> And "speaking jive" is one of the few things I couldn't do to save my life-literally.
> 
> 
> [yt]Qa1rjCZxtxo[/yt]
> ...



LOL, first time I saw that scene my English had not yet caught up with reality....It could have been Martian for all I knew! 
:lol:


----------



## Big Don (Sep 6, 2011)

elder999 said:


> And "speaking jive" is one of the few things I couldn't do to save my life-literally.
> 
> 
> [yt]Qa1rjCZxtxo[/yt]
> ...


You gotta love the classics...


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 6, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> it was "ok" to associate with black people when in jail because everyone was mixed in.  Huh?



Aye, that's how it should be all the time!  

Sadly, the damnable untrue cliche that only white people can be racist has far too much currency and seems to be gaining more all the time; which aggrivatingly means that this simple state of affairs is getting further away rather than closer.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 6, 2011)

this is exactly true, IMO




Big Don said:


> Simply defined, racism is believing you can differentiate between a good person and a bad one at first sight.
> You can't.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> this is exactly true, IMO


Or if a company downsizes and you favor your race over another.
Sean


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 6, 2011)

With regard to Uncle Tom and sell-outs...

Imagine a purely hypothetical country.

In this country are two peoples of distinctly different colors.  One group is the majority, and controls everything.  The majority group has all the money, all the property, and all the political power.  In fact, the majority group enslaves the minority group and treats them essentially as domestic animals, property.

Over time, the majority group changes their attitudes to some extent, and decide that slavery is wrong.  They free the minority group, but they do not relinquish their grip on power, money, and property.  The minority group is not allowed to assimilate into the larger society and are forced to live in groups of their own kind, and they earn much smaller wages, subsist on much less, and cannot play any role in the running of society.  They are free, but not equal.

More time passes, and society continues to change.  Now it is accepted that all men are equal, without regard to their color.  But this does not mean that the majority group welcomes the minority group with open arms as long-lost brothers, or that the minority group is willing to forgive and forget all that has happened.  Distrust and animosity remain on both sides.  Each group is suspicious of the other, doubt their motives, and are reluctant to take anything at face value.

The failure to understand each other's culture, which have never been identical in the first place, leads to more problems.  As the members of the minority group who wish to take their place as equals in the society still run by the majority, they find resistance not based on their color any longer, but on their mannerisms, their habits, and their manner of speech.  The members of the majority, even those who consciously embrace equality, still find it difficult to make themselves understood and to understand when the language itself is used differently between the two groups.  

There is resistance by some majority members who dig their heels in and insist that if the minority wishes to join the main branch of society, that is fine, but the members of the minority must give up everything that identifies them as members of the minority group except their color (which they obviously can't change).  In other words, if the minority wishes to act like the majority, they will find acceptance in the majority group.  If they refuse to 'assimilate' in this way, they will find it much more difficult to fit in and be accepted by the majority.

At the same time, there are members of the minority who find it offensive to be asked to 'assimilate' into the larger society in order to find success and acceptance.  Their culture is essentially artificial in the first place; they were forced to create it when they were enslaved and later when they were ostracized and pushed to the margins of society.  Now that they are supposedly 'equal', they are being told to abandon this culture they built themselves and adopt the culture of the group that formerly enslaved them.

Inside the minority group, some choose to assimilate into the larger culture and leave their own behind.  Some of those see success; some fail to assimilate; some assimilate and fail to succeed anyway.  Others resent the success of those who have assimilated, point to failures as examples that 'prove' that assimilation doesn't work anyway, and continue to find reasons to distrust the demand that the larger society makes on the minority for those reasons.

There are no 'good' people and no 'bad' people in this theoretical country.  Each wants to part of the success of the country itself, and everyone wants to succeed and to be accepted into society.  But due to the history of this mythical country, and due to the distrust that each group has of the other's motives, change is slow, resentment is high, and equality remains an elusive goal, even if both groups want it; and there are always going to be some people in both groups who don't want it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 6, 2011)

if you downsize and consider race AT ALL in who to keep, it's racist



Touch Of Death said:


> Or if a company downsizes and you favor your race over another.
> Sean


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 7, 2011)

This is racist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-14820797

And I don't mean putting a golliwog in your window.  What kind of future are we setting ourselves up for if we don't curb this PC BS soon.  Even if the old lady did mean it in a racist fashion I do not care - people need to stop being so frikking precious about their 'ethnic' roots.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2011)

What EXACTLY is this "culture" that people are so unwilling to change? Is it "culture" or is it just the desire to be "different"?


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Sep 7, 2011)

racism or prejudice its all stupid. at the same time i would bet money that every person on the planet is guilty of it whether knowingly or not. Doing it by accident because you are 5 years old and live in a part of my state where you have never seen a person of a different race and openly asking a black man "whats wrong with your face mister?" is ok. Also, truthfully its funny and every person who might find that statement appalling can GTFO in my opinion. If you find yourself in that situation and dont laugh then you have no sense of humor.

My problem with racism and prejudice actually reverse racism. That companies are now required to hire people not based on their experience or credentials but because of the color of their skin. Not hiring someone because they are one race or another is wrong i agree but to force someone to hire someone because they ARE of another race is ALSO wrong. 

In short to answer the question of the OP i think its stupid. Plain and simple. 

B


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> What EXACTLY is this "culture" that people are so unwilling to change? Is it "culture" or is it just the desire to be "different"?



Is it for you or for me to ask?  However...

If a group of people are isolated by accident or intention, over a period of time, they develop their own traditions, their own dialects (over longer terms, even different language), and their own manner of dress and behavior.  This is 'culture'.

In my imaginary nation, one group was intentionally segregated by another, larger, group.  First as slaves, then as second-class citizens. Finally, the smaller group was told they were now equal and encouraged to participate in the society that once belonged exclusively to the larger group.  The problem from *both sides* would appear to be that each group had a different culture.  

Some (but not all) members of the smaller group chose to adopt the culture of the larger group, and most of these were assimilated and accepted as equals.  Some adopted the culture but still did not thrive for reasons undefined.  Some (but also not all) members of the smaller group complained that equality is hardly equality if there are conditions put on it; conditions that required them to essentially abandon the culture that they had essentially been forced to create for themselves in the first place.  Some resented the members of their own group that did change their culture and assimilated and were successful, and pointed to those who tried and failed as proof that assimilation was not going to be permitted, that equality was a word, but not a practice.

At the same time, some (but not all) of the larger group demanded that if the smaller group wanted 'equality', they would have to assimilate and become the same as the larger group in all but skin color.  Others refused to accept the smaller group no matter what changes they made.  Some demanded that the members of the smaller group be given full privileges and access to jobs and education without regard to their ability to communicate well or even to read and write in a manner that the members of the larger group could easily understand.

In directly answer to your question, I sincerely doubt that it is a _'desire to be different'_ that drives people to speak non-standard English or to dress differently or act differently than the mainstream of society in most cases.  I'm sure it happens, though.  In the end, the question that should be asked, IMHO, is whether or not it is acceptable to say that a member of a given group can be allowed to become part of the mainstream society if they refuse to give up what they consider to be their culture?

Unlike joining a private club, society is supposedly open to all citizens and legal residents of a country.  Placing requirements on it that one must first become like all the other members of that society with the exception of skin color, which they can't change, seems a bit arbitrary, doesn't it?  Especially since unlike my hypothetical country, there are literally hundreds of 'cultures' in our country that are members of the larger society, and a few which are to one degree or another excluded.


----------



## granfire (Sep 7, 2011)

part of 'racism' is probably nature. It seems to be beneficial for a group - any group - to congregate with like individuals. Consider the chances of a white born animal...they don't live long in the open.

However we are no longer animals...
But this has really provided some excess, a thinking person has to wonder.

I know you guys read it, it was linked, but I am too lazy to dig it out: A town puts a promotion freeze on the fire department, because the minorities didn't do well in the test...and not all minorities, but _the _minority.
So everybody else who scored well is screwed because a handful of individuals did not perform well enough to reach the higher level.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2011)

What..specifically is this culture we are talking about though Bill? The right to speak Ebonics in the work place? Baggy jeans and sideways ball caps at the bank window? What? What are the THINGS that would be an insult or a problem to give up?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> What..specifically is this culture we are talking about though Bill? The right to speak Ebonics in the work place? Baggy jeans and sideways ball caps at the bank window? What? What are the THINGS that would be an insult or a problem to give up?



I'm intentionally speaking in the abstract to avoid just what you're getting to.  I've pointed out that portions of the majority group take your point of view.  A portion of the smaller group take the point of view that giving equality should not be based on qualifiers, people are either equal or they are not, no matter how they speak or dress.  I did not take a side or argue that one group is right and the other wrong.  The point is that there are two sides of the question (if not more) and the questions are asked even if one does not agree with the answers.  All points of view may not be correct; but all points of view have validity.  They *exist* whether we wish to agree with them or not.

If I were to speak in specifics, you could say "Well, I don't think that it would be an insult or damaging to them to give up that."  And of course, 'them' would argue that yes, it would be.  And the answer would be what it already is; neither side agrees with the other, and both insist the other does not understand them.  Let's just point out the issues, and leave the arguing over which point of view is correct to another day.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2011)

I think that specifics and the hesitation to discuss them are part of the problem......should an employer be forced to hire someone who refuses to speak "correct English"? Should dress codes be illegal?


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 7, 2011)

anemployer should be able to hire anyone he wants to


or not


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I think that specifics and the hesitation to discuss them are part of the problem......



I'm sure you do.  But I am not attempting to solve the problem, I am outlining how different groups come to have grievances that they feel are valid, regardless of whether or not we agree with their point of view.  You appear to want to go past that right to the part where you dismiss the grievances of others as unreasonable and conclude that they in the wrong.  I understand you already hold that point of view, so I don't know what is to be gained by going there.



> should an employer be forced to hire someone who refuses to speak "correct English"? Should dress codes be illegal?



Valid questions.  I'm not going to answer you.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I understand you already hold that point of view, so I don't know what is to be gained by going there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Jumping to a lot of conclusions tonight Bill? I think this goes to illustrate the diffulcties of having any sort of frank discussion regarding race that I mentioned previously. Already you are trying to pigeonhole me...based on what? Questions?



Yes, based on your questions.  It's not like this path has not been trodden.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 7, 2011)

Thanks for another thoughtful post, Bill. I&#8217;m going to run with it, and try to explain mhy viewpoint on a few things. In fact, I might offer some "hypothetical" answers to some of Archangel&#8217;s questions.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Imagine a purely hypothetical country.
> 
> In this country are two peoples of distinctly different colors. One group is the majority, and controls everything. The majority group has all the money, all the property, and all the political power. In fact, the majority group enslaves the minority group and treats them essentially as domestic animals, property.



Imagine what that means" "treated essentially as domestic animals, property." Hold  onto that thought, and understand that it wasn&#8217;t entirely that way. In the early colonial phase of this "purely hypothetical country,' there were mechanisms in place for the minority group to learn a trade, raise a family, have property, earn money, and, sometimes, buy their freedom. There were always elements within the majority group that found the enslavement of the minority wrong, and fought to abolish it, and made efforts to uplift the quality of life of the minority group. In spite of all this, even those of the minority that were free were not true citizens and were denied quite a few basic rights. In some areas, where a minority family was free, their majority neighbors could legally take their children for "apprenticeship." Gradually, slavery in some areas of this country were done away with, and all of the minority in those areas were free, but something else had taken place in another part of the country, that had long been dependent upon slavery-something that was a direct consequence of the gradual ending of trade of the minority group, which really consisted of kidnapping and shipping large numbers of them from their native land.

 In this other part of our hypothetical country, the majority group owners had determined that they didn&#8217;t have to purchase or trade in the minority if they viewed them as livestock, or a commodity-and, that if they kept them for life, and made their offspring their property as well, they had a large and ready labor force that would also serve as a commodity with other owners. This minority group, then, was treated as _livestock._ Already stripped of most of their native culture, these people were raised in bondage with the expectation of nothing more than a lifetime of bondage-they might learn a trade, in order to practice that trade for their owner, but it was still bondage, and for most it was a bondage of lifelong almost endless, hard labor. Not owning themselves, they weren&#8217;t even really permitted to marry-not with the expectation of a lifetime together, when their "owners" could sell either party involved. Families could be split up on a whim-though children were usually kept with their mothers until such time as the children were able to begin their own labors, or became tradeable commodities-and, because the owner could and would have sexual congress with his "property," a man in the minority might not even know with any certainty that his mate&#8217;s children were his own-*or might know for certain that they were not.* And, being livestock, a male in the minority might literally be put out to stud, loaned to a neighboring owner for breeding with his females, or forced to breed with females other than his mate.In such an environment, fatherhood as an institution died within less than three generations, and became, like other elements of the developing slave minority culture, a joke-a reference to the ephemerality of all that they might hold dear, the certainty of a lifetime of servitude, the downright _worthlessness_ of their very lives-a theme that would resonate through the development of their music, food, and , especially, religion-along with the notion of, and desire for_ freedom,  _there was a resignation to the way things were. Additionally, such a group was, by the very nature of their lifestyle, placed in a position of constant deception, of saying one thing to their owners, and wearing one face, when their feelings and desires might have been entirely different. Just as the discarded scraps they were fed by their owners became delicacies of their developing culture, living a life that was encoded and deceptive, and built around occasionally stealing, and the ultimate desire: to steal _ themselves._ 
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;


Bill Mattocks said:


> Over time, the majority group changes their attitudes to some extent, and decide that slavery is wrong. They free the minority group, but they do not relinquish their grip on power, money, and property. The minority group is not allowed to assimilate into the larger society and are forced to live in groups of their own kind, and they earn much smaller wages, subsist on much less, and cannot play any role in the running of society. They are free, but not equal.



And a kind of de facto slavery developed in some areas, and took place for the nearly a hundred years. And, in spite of any level of wealth or education or status attained by members of the minority group, they are constantly excluded and segregated, far more effectively than any yellow star of David, by the color of their skin, to the point of absurdity at times. On another level, though, the dominant culture embraces a great deal of what the minority culture offers, in music, in cuisine, and, sometimes, in fashion, taking over things that the minority culture developed, and making them their own, to the point where it&#8217;s often forgotten where those things came from. (Here, Archangel, I have to depart from hypotheticals and say offer that sagging pants and exposed boxers come, as you probably know, from having belts removed in jail, and add that, here in New Mexico, I see far, far more white kids dressed this way than I do black or hispanic-even with hispanics being nearly a majority:there just aren&#8217;t that many black people here.)

So we have two cultures-one of which is based, in part, on ephemeral or non-existent fatherhood, enforced feelings of worthlessness, deception and theft.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

elder999 said:


> So we have two cultures-one of which is based, in part, on ephemeral or non-existent fatherhood, enforced feelings of worthlessness, deception and theft.



If I may add; one can say _"Well, *I* did not own slaves, nor did any of my family.  I had no part in slavery and I detest it and am sorry it happened.  Because of this, I cannot be held responsible, nor should anyone living today hold a grudge against me or the larger culture."_  All true, but is it then so hard to understand that the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of those who were enslaved have a part of that history embedded in the culture that they invented when they were taken from their native lands while being at the same time denied the right to partake in the culture of the majority?  Yes, this is a culture; invented in the way that all cultures are invented, albeit due to artificial constraints and requirements.  

And at long last, freedom comes; or appears to come, after several false starts.  With it, though, comes a caveat.  That culture the majority group refused to let the minority group partake of?  Well, now the minority have to adopt it and leave their own behind, or the minority can't join in.  Equality, but only on the majority's terms.  Is it not valid to ask _"Is this really equality?"_

Again, I am not taking a point of view or saying that one group's concerns are correct and the other's wrong.  This goes to walking a mile in the moccasins of another when possible.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 7, 2011)

Whilst the picture painted above is a terrible one, it's not that much more terrible than the conditions and abject poverty of the Victorian working classes (the disgraceful and dehumanising 'stud' aspects being left aside).  Plus, as I've said many times, almost everyone over here on Blighty, who is not a member of the aristocracy, is descended from slaves at some point in their family tree.

That background buys no special privileges in my eyes.  But I do understand how, as it is not all that long ago, the underlying values of personal worthlessness have a part in shaping the life choices of some who elect to choose to take that mantle of victim and use it to excuse all that they do.

Sadly, making such choices just perpetuates the problems we've been discussing.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 7, 2011)

So, today's craziness from my life. I went to the gym today-today was what I call a "mini brick" day: I had a light weight workout and a brief stint on the treadmill, and swim for the majority of my workout. I swam about two miles-that's 70 times back and forth in a 25 meter pool, the essence of drudgery for some, but quite relaxing for me. At the end of my miles, I finished by swimming three lengths of the pool underwater, on (for clarification, not bragging) one breath. I finished up with a steam and a soak in the jacuzzi.....where I got into a rather long conversation with a couple of other people, marveling at my underwater swimming and asking for tips on swimming in general. We talked a little about stroke efficiency, and  then the subject came to race-and how one person there thought black people couldn't swim well because of their higher muscle-density,and  typically didn't swim because they didn't live near pools-the conversation remained pleasant and convivial,with my usual joke:_Yeah, they were all out of "run fast" the day I was born, so I got "swims like a fish"_ :lfao: It  raised another point, though: TwinFist mentioned sickle cell, and I've mentioned Jimmy the Greek, who famously got fired from television for his drunken-but truthful!-assessment of black athletecism (see above).

*Is* it "racist" to discuss racial differences like these? One can certainly see how the sickle-cell discussion, especially in the U.S. (12% of "African-*Americans*" carry the trait) really isn't, any more than a discussion of lactose intolerance, or Tibetan's adaptation to high altitude, though such discussions are _racial._  What about Jimmy the Greek, though, and his observations about slave history including selective breeding? Some find it offensive to mention *any* inheritance, genetic or otherwise, from slavery. And black athleticism is pretty much an unspoken of given, in some quarters. Some things, like that whole "run fast" thing, are explained by science, and can pretty much come down to phenotypic differences-I don't think the world record for the 100m has been held by anyone but black men for all of my life. Others, though, are clearly cultural, stereotypical, or mythical.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

elder999 said:


> So, today's craziness from my life. I went to the gym today-today was what I call a "mini brick" day: I had a light weight workout and a brief stint on the treadmill, and swim for the majority of my workout. I swam about two miles-that's 70 times back and forth in a 25 meter pool, the essence of drudgery for some, but quite relaxing for me. At the end of my miles, I finished by swimming three lengths of the pool underwater, on (for clarification, not bragging) one breath. I finished up with a steam and a soak in the jacuzzi.....where I got into a rather long conversation with a couple of other people, marveling at my underwater swimming and asking for tips on swimming in general. We talked a little about stroke efficiency, and  then the subject came to race-and how one person there thought black people couldn't swim well because of their higher muscle-density,and  typically didn't swim because they didn't live near pools-the conversation remained pleasant and convivial,with my usual joke:_Yeah, they were all out of "run fast" the day I was born, so I got "swims like a fish"_ :lfao: It  raised another point, though: TwinFist mentioned sickle cell, and I've mentioned Jimmy the Greek, who famously got fired from television for his drunken-but truthful!-assessment of black athletecism (see above).
> 
> *Is* it "racist" to discuss racial differences like these? One can certainly see how the sickle-cell discussion, especially in the U.S. (12% of "African-*Americans*" carry the trait) really isn't, any more than a discussion of lactose intolerance, or Tibetan's adaptation to high altitude, though such discussions are _racial._  What about Jimmy the Greek, though, and his observations about slave history including selective breeding? Some find it offensive to mention *any* inheritance, genetic or otherwise, from slavery. And black athleticism is pretty much an unspoken of given, in some quarters. Some things, like that whole "run fast" thing, are explained by science, and can pretty much come down to phenotypic differences-I don't think the world record for the 100m has been held by anyone but black men for all of my life. Others, though, are clearly cultural, stereotypical, or mythical.



I think such discussions can be had.  But as with many such questions, because they are on a borderland that is inhabited by those who have, shall we say, 'issues', one can begin with a clear conscience and a forthright attitude and quickly finding oneself either attacking or defending against accusations that include such things as _"The Bell Curve,"_ and the validity or lack thereof of Ebonics or Kwanzaa.  In other words, the air gets mighty polluted mighty quickly.  Almost impossible to have outside of an academic environment, and even then, things are dicey.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 7, 2011)

elder999 said:


> *Is* it "racist" to discuss racial differences like these?



As a discussion of group distributions, no.  That just isn't how people work though.  People look at an individual, and even though the intra-group variability is greater than the inter-group variability, conclude that the individual represents the group.  An individual black person must be more athletic.  Or more criminal.  Or an individual asian must have greater scholastic achievement.  Or whatever.  Ignoring the character of the individual and assigning them characteristics of the group, even if that group *is *more athletic (or whatever), *is *racist.

Plus, while the topic may not be racist isolated in and of itself, clear and obvious racists seem inexorably drawn to these discussions and conclusions, no matter how weak the data is.  That should give us pause.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 7, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Whilst the picture painted above is a terrible one, it's not that much more terrible than the conditions and abject poverty of the Victorian working classes (the disgraceful and dehumanising 'stud' aspects being left aside). Plus, as I've said many times, almost everyone over here on Blighty, who is not a member of the aristocracy, is descended from slaves at some point in their family tree.



Oh. I didn't know that there were no class divisions in England, and that you never make assumptions or inferences about people and their socioeconomic level, parentage or education based on their accents. 



Sukerkin said:


> That background buys no special privileges in my eyes. But I do understand how, as it is not all that long ago, the underlying values of personal worthlessness have a part in shaping the life choices of some who elect to choose to take that mantle of victim and use it to excuse all that they do.
> 
> Sadly, making such choices just perpetuates the problems we've been discussing.



It's important to point out that the while black unemployment over here is higher than it is for the rest of the country, the majority of blacks are still employed. And, that while poverty and crime rates are proportionally higher, the majority are not at or below the poverty level, and are not engaged in criminal activity. Indeed, most of black America is working pretty hard-extra hard, along with the burden of misperceptions.

Which leads to a whole "_which _problems that we've been discussing?" question...:lfao:



Empty Hands said:


> Or an individual asian must have greater scholastic achievement. .



1981. Had to take a challenge exam to get a spot in a computer science class. 12 spots, with about 15 Asians and me in the room early. Watched a whole parade of white guys walk in, scope out who was there to take the test, and walk out without even bothering to take it-talking to some of them later, they figured the Asians had a lock on the spots.

Dumbasses. :lfao:


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 7, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Whilst the picture painted above is a terrible one, it's not that much more terrible than the conditions and abject poverty of the Victorian working classes (the disgraceful and dehumanising 'stud' aspects being left aside).



Victorian workers were not _property_.  They couldn't be raped, whipped, castrated, amputated or otherwise mutilated at their owner's whim.  Their children could not be sold away from them.  If they left their job, it was not a national law that they must be captured and brought back to work.  Really, there is no comparison.

What is the point of even saying it?  You think some people today use slavery as an excuse, so your response is to minimize the magnitude of this historic crime?  Don't go down this road.  It can lead good people to ugly places.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 8, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> This is racist:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-14820797
> 
> And I don't mean putting a golliwog in your window.



So, I had to look up "golliwog":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwogg 
_Seriously?????!!!_ A little black Sambo doll, and she's surprised people are upset?



> The "*Golliwogg*" (later "*Golliwog*", "*golly doll*") was a character in children's books in the late 19th century and depicted as a type of rag doll. It was reproduced, both by commercial and hobby toy-makers as a children's toy called the "golliwog", and had great popularity in North America, the United Kingdom, Europe and Australia, into the 1960s. The doll has black skin, eyes rimmed in white, clown lips, and frizzy hair, and it has been described as the least known of the major anti-black caricatures in the United States.[SUP][1][/SUP] While home-made golliwogs were sometimes female, the golliwog was generally male. For this reason, in the period following World War II, the golliwog was seen, along with the teddy bear, as a suitable soft toy for a young boy.
> The image of the doll has become the subject of heated debate. One aspect of the debate in its favour argues that it should be preserved and passed on as a cherished cultural artifact and childhood tradition. At the same time, many argue that the golliwog is a destructive instance of racism against people of African descent, along with pickaninnies, minstrels, mammy figures, and other caricatures
> What kind of future are we setting ourselves up for if we don't curb this PC BS soon. Even if the old lady did mean it in a racist fashion I do not care - people need to stop being so frikking precious about their 'ethnic' roots.



On the one hand, I live in a country where people have the right to have a golliwog on display in their home, or a Confederate flag, or a burning cross. 

Odds are good you'll find all three at the same place sometimes. 

And, I live in a country where-no matter what you think of our current wars, politically-young men and women of all "races,creeds and colors" have volunteered and sworn to defend "the Constitution, against all enemies-foreign and domestic," and are dying so that people can fly their Confederate flag or burn their cross.

That lady, though, doesn't live under the Constitution. She lives in your land, a land of its own laws, and she can be prosecuted under those laws, _and so she should.

_Whether such laws should exist in the first place, or exist in the form they are in, in a free society, is another story.

As for the doll, it's some seriously offensive, 19th century ********. To think otherwise is to miss the point: it's got nothing to do with people "being precious over their freakin ethnic heritage." In fact, it has nothing to do with anyone's ethnic heritage at all, and everything to do with centuries' long insult and ridicule.


----------



## granfire (Sep 8, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Victorian workers were not _property_.  They couldn't be raped, whipped, castrated, amputated or otherwise mutilated at their owner's whim.  Their children could not be sold away from them.  If they left their job, it was not a national law that they must be captured and brought back to work.  Really, there is no comparison.
> 
> What is the point of even saying it?  You think some people today use slavery as an excuse, so your response is to minimize the magnitude of this historic crime?  Don't go down this road.  It can lead good people to ugly places.



Ah, darling, they might not have been property....

but at that time it was certainly custom for the gents of the house hold to require 'after hour services' from the maids. matter of fact, at one time I remember reading about troops being housed in private homes during times of manuvers, etc, that the ladies of the family, wife and daughters, were not to be bothered, but the servants were fair game...yiekes.
Can't sell'em, but certainly to the other things with them...naturally the matter of law, o rather justice being that it seemed to have been slanted in favor of the haves.

Certainly the poor in Victorian times had a crappy life. Not sure how much it mattered being 'free'...


----------



## granfire (Sep 8, 2011)

elder999 said:


> So, I had to look up "golliwog":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwogg
> _Seriously?????!!!_ A little black Sambo doll, and she's surprised people are upset?
> 
> 
> ...










Quick, your thoughts.


----------



## cdunn (Sep 8, 2011)

elder999 said:


> So, today's craziness from my life. I went to the gym today-today was what I call a "mini brick" day: I had a light weight workout and a brief stint on the treadmill, and swim for the majority of my workout. I swam about two miles-that's 70 times back and forth in a 25 meter pool, the essence of drudgery for some, but quite relaxing for me. At the end of my miles, I finished by swimming three lengths of the pool underwater, on (for clarification, not bragging) one breath. I finished up with a steam and a soak in the jacuzzi.....where I got into a rather long conversation with a couple of other people, marveling at my underwater swimming and asking for tips on swimming in general. We talked a little about stroke efficiency, and  then the subject came to race-and how one person there thought black people couldn't swim well because of their higher muscle-density,and  typically didn't swim because they didn't live near pools-the conversation remained pleasant and convivial,with my usual joke:_Yeah, they were all out of "run fast" the day I was born, so I got "swims like a fish"_ :lfao: It  raised another point, though: TwinFist mentioned sickle cell, and I've mentioned Jimmy the Greek, who famously got fired from television for his drunken-but truthful!-assessment of black athletecism (see above).
> 
> *Is* it "racist" to discuss racial differences like these? One can certainly see how the sickle-cell discussion, especially in the U.S. (12% of "African-*Americans*" carry the trait) really isn't, any more than a discussion of lactose intolerance, or Tibetan's adaptation to high altitude, though such discussions are _racial._  What about Jimmy the Greek, though, and his observations about slave history including selective breeding? Some find it offensive to mention *any* inheritance, genetic or otherwise, from slavery. And black athleticism is pretty much an unspoken of given, in some quarters. Some things, like that whole "run fast" thing, are explained by science, and can pretty much come down to phenotypic differences-I don't think the world record for the 100m has been held by anyone but black men for all of my life. Others, though, are clearly cultural, stereotypical, or mythical.



Another issue here is that 'race' is a very, very, _very_ poor substitute for the true lines of heredity and phenotype. Because of the particulars of human evolution and migration, it is not incorrect to state that the potential for genetic diversity between two lines of Africans may be greater than the entire genetic difference across the entirety of 'native' Europe, despite the fact that both have dark skin. By and large, though, when it comes to daily life, a lot of human genetic diversity is neutral - it doesn't matter.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 8, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Whether such laws should exist in the first place, or exist in the form they are in, in a free society, is another story.



Exactly.



elder999 said:


> As for the doll, it's some seriously offensive, 19th century ********. To think otherwise is to miss the point: it's got nothing to do with people "being precious over their freakin ethnic heritage." In fact, it has nothing to do with anyone's ethnic heritage at all, and everything to do with centuries' long insult and ridicule.



Can't say as I agree but I'm clearly an evil Nazi not fit to live in the modern world, where the only people whose views don't matter to the "Right On" brigade are wicked citizens of ex-Colonial powers (well the poor ones at least, the rich ones still do alright). 

Raging about Golliwogs is much more about the appropriation and misappropriation of symbols than anything else but not wanting a slanging match over a medium as ephemeral as this, to keep the peace I'll shush. 

With that I shall have to say "Bye" as this is straying into territory that makes me shake my head and makes me wonder if the race will ever grow beyond using 'race' to lash each other with (or ourselves in some cases when self-loathing/guilt overcomes common sense). 

Speaking of which, I'm off to find out if I still have any Robertsons Jam Golliwog Musician miniatures to sell to the BNP for use in racial harassment campaigns .


P.S. 

Just to end on an explanatory note, rather than one that sounds all too grumpy {}, it is my opinion that everybody is racist; we're genetically predisposed to be so. 

How we handle it in our dealings with each other is what matters - social evolution over-powering biological evolution is the way for us to go. That is the road that leads us to stable diversity where, over time, people note each others 'roots' but those roots don't impinge on anyones interactions. I think I've said before in similar threads that a society is a rope woven from the different races and cultures that are available. If the rope is to be useful and long-lived then the strands must bind together well or it will all unravel, with predictably poor consequences.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 8, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Victorian workers were not _property_. They couldn't be raped, whipped, castrated, amputated or otherwise mutilated at their owner's whim. Their children could not be sold away from them. If they left their job, it was not a national law that they must be captured and brought back to work. Really, there is no comparison.



EH, conditions in Victorian Britain for the poor were much worse than the Dickensian depictions that most people bear in the backs of their minds.  Regardless, the point I was making was not that there was an equivalence but that the differences in conditions were less gargantuan than you might imagine.



Empty Hands said:


> What is the point of even saying it? You think some people today use slavery as an excuse, so your response is to minimize the magnitude of this historic crime? Don't go down this road. It can lead good people to ugly places.



Not quite the point I was making.  Aye, people do use it as an excuse but, nay, I was not attempting to minimise it.  It is noteworthy to just point out that it was not unique to Black Americans to have such a period in their history.  The difference, such as it is, is that that period is much, much closer in generational terms than for the rest of us.  

If I attempted to use multi-generational enslavement of my ancestors for millenia to excuse some behaviour or chip-on-the-shoulder attitude, how much sympathy do you think I would get?

Anyhow, enough of this malarkey.  As expected the thread has headed in a specific direction, despite best efforts not to.

Time to leave it be.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 8, 2011)

Missed this one ... apologies for one last post when I said I was off due to my utterly failing to make my point without sounding like a complete xenophobic fascist {:blush:}



elder999 said:


> Oh. I didn't know that there were no class divisions in England, and that you never make assumptions or inferences about people and their socioeconomic level, parentage or education based on their accents.




:chuckles: Guilty as charged ... ALL the time ... I even tell my missus off when she slips into her 'Common Fishwife' mode of speach  and  some more. I'm from a dirt poor working class scum background so I have ideas above my station .



elder999 said:


> It's important to point out that the while black unemployment over here is higher than it is for the rest of the country, the majority of blacks are still employed. And, that while poverty and crime rates are proportionally higher, the majority are not at or below the poverty level, and are not engaged in criminal activity. Indeed, most of black America is working pretty hard-extra hard, along with the burden of misperceptions.
> 
> Which leads to a whole "_which _problems that we've been discussing?" question...:lfao:



Very important point and one that we all too frequently forget no matter how many times it is injected into the stream of conversation. The 'problems' I referred to were to do with a sense of cultural entitlement that *Angel* brought up a question about rather than anything else.





elder999 said:


> 1981. Had to take a challenge exam to get a spot in a computer science class. 12 spots, with about 15 Asians and me in the room early. Watched a whole parade of white guys walk in, scope out who was there to take the test, and walk out without even bothering to take it-talking to some of them later, they figured the Asians had a lock on the spots.
> 
> Dumbasses. :lfao:



Indeed :nods:.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 9, 2011)

A recent racist episode...

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-06/...katt-williams-pledge-allegiance?_s=PM:OPINION



> Williams started a riff about what he tells his "Mexican friends" and singled out as his foil a Hispanic-looking man in the audience. He asked the man, "Are you Mexican?" He was. Then Williams zeroed in for the kill, scolding the man in an expletive-laden barrage that included "This ain't Mexico" and people can't "live in this country and pledge allegiance to another country" and "If you love Mexico (expletive), get the (expletive) over there."
> 
> The crowd cheered.
> 
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Whilst the picture painted above is a terrible one, it's not that much more terrible than the conditions and abject poverty of the Victorian working classes (the disgraceful and dehumanising 'stud' aspects being left aside). Plus, as I've said many times, almost everyone over here on Blighty, who is not a member of the aristocracy, is descended from slaves at some point in their family tree.
> 
> That background buys no special privileges in my eyes. But I do understand how, as it is not all that long ago, the underlying values of personal worthlessness have a part in shaping the life choices of some who elect to choose to take that mantle of victim and* use it to excuse all that they do.
> 
> *Sadly, making such choices just perpetuates the problems we've been discussing.



I don't offer it as an "excuse." Some things are inexcusable-others not so much.

The history of American slavery-a somewhat unique and recent institution, and not one to be poo-poohed away with comparisons to suffering poor or slave ancestors of more than 40 generations ago-isn't being offered as an _excuse_, but as a *reason.* 

Hell, most people are completely unaware of the historic roots of much of their behavior. Others had ancestors who _chose to behave otherwise_, and so passed on more positive behavior traits-the child of slaves who didn't know his father, and was separated from his mother, and was freed to raise the family he'd always desired, and pass on the importance of that to his own children, is just one example of this.



Sukerkin said:


> Can't say as I agree but I'm clearly an evil Nazi not fit to live in the modern world, where the only people whose views don't matter to the "Right On" brigade are wicked citizens of ex-Colonial powers (well the poor ones at least, the rich ones still do alright).
> 
> *Raging about Golliwogs is much more about the appropriation and misappropriation of symbols than anything else but not wanting a slanging match over a medium as ephemeral as this, to keep the peace I'll shush.
> 
> ...



Well, no,sorry, it's not. 

Marc, with all due respect,I enjoy your posts and share many of your opinions, but on this we disagree-and I *don't* think your a fascist or BNP member. I do think that you have a kind of cultural blindness to how harmful and hurtful racial imagery like this has been.

I get that. When I was a kid, my dad and I loved to watch the _Little Rascals_ and _Our Gang_ shorts , which, in their early years especially, were full of racial imagery-though, to be fair, the black kids got just as much screen time, their characters were viewed as equals by the other characters, and they were often depicted as being rather clever. Mostly, I'd have to say that for their time, 1924-1944, the Little Rascals were the very opposite of racist. Some of the ways that blacks were portrayed in media at the time, though, followed stereotypes that can only be viewed as extremely racist. Consequently, when I last saw them on television (and, when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's, they were on TV all the time) in th 80's, a lot of "racist content" was edited out. To me, the idea that I'd be offended by that content and needed to be protected by its removal was far more offensive and insulting than the actual content ever was.

I can also remember my mother lamenting the removal of _Little Black Sambo_ from school shelves. It was a good story, and Sambo wasn't "black"-unless, of course, you were a British woman writing it, or a someone from Britain _reading_ it in 1899.

And while I'll rail against the American Indian imagery still used by some sports teams here-I really think the Washington _Redskins_ need to change their name, but that's me-I dated a Jicarilla Apache woman who almost never took off her Cleveland Indians ball cap, with Chief Wahoo....

Of course, I've posted about these things before (though I can't seem to find it) as well as the Confederate Flag. If someone wants to display a Confederate Flag, I am going to think about why, and wonder what it means to them, but I'm not going to be offended by the object itself. Likewise, I get it, if someone wants their kid to have a "golly," because they had one, and their grandparents had one, who am I to object? In this country, at least, they still have that right, if they can find one.

Consider this, though, Marc: All of my grandparents went to college;how many white people of my generation can say that? My branch of the family have been free men in this country since-well, since the mid 1740s, well before it *was* this country. I started and sold my own company on a lark. I have degrees in religious studies and education, and advanced degrees in engineering and physics. I've published poems, and short stories, written and performed my own songs. I can play about a half-dozen musical instruments, and get around in about as many languages. I studied martial arts in Japan.I've traveled around the world. I nearly summitted Mt. Everest. I've been called a world class sailor, and was once considered as helmsman for the America's Cup. I've raised two wonderful capable children to responsible adulthood. 

In spite of all that, your innocent symbol serves as a reminder that there are some people out there who will reduce me to nothing more than that "symbol." To them, I'm none of those things-author, engineer, singer and father.

I'm just a golliwog.



Bill Mattocks said:


> A recent racist episode...
> 
> http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-06/...katt-williams-pledge-allegiance?_s=PM:OPINION




Indeed.

Katt Williams-with his "pimpin'" _schtick_ (see what I did there? :lfao-is exemplary of some of the things that are just wrong with black culture, no matter how many positive messages he may have-I really don't know, because I don't find him funny.

In fact, he and most of his ilk just make me miss Richard Pryor.....


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Consider this, though, Marc: All of my grandparents went to college;how many white people of my generation can say that? My branch of the family have been free men in this country since-well, since the mid 1740s, well before it *was* this country. I started and sold my own company on a lark. I have degrees in religious studies and education, and advanced degrees in engineering and physics. I've published poems, and short stories, written and performed my own songs. I can play about a half-dozen musical instruments, and get around in about as many languages. I studied martial arts in Japan.I've traveled around the world. I nearly summitted Mt. Everest. I've been called a world class sailor, and was once considered as helmsman for the America's Cup. I've raised two wonderful capable children to responsible adulthood.



Sheesh, thanks for making me feel like a failure!


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2011)

wasnt there a sambo's restaurant in the US in the 70's? if i recall, the kid was from india

oh, Jeff?

your last post was good reading, i enjoyed it.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Sheesh, thanks for making me feel like a failure!



Sorry, that wasn't my intention. 

It's funny when you consider all the things I can't talk about, though......:lfao:



Twin Fist said:


> wasnt there a sambo's restaurant in the US in the 70's? if i recall, the kid was from india
> 
> oh, Jeff?
> 
> your last post was good reading, i enjoyed it.



THe name was taken from the names of the owners, but it used imagery from the story as a motif. The chain ultimately failed for a variety of decisions, including pressure from people offended by the name.

The original Sambo's is still open, and owned by one of the original owners grandsons.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2011)

it was like adenny's or somethig wasnt it?

too many people think they have the right to never be offended...


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> it was like adenny's or somethig wasnt it?
> 
> too many people think they have the right to never be offended...



Nah, I don't think it was anything like Denny's at all.:lfao:

I _*like*_ Denny's for breakfast, on occasion (as in, there's nothing else available). Nice T-Bone 'n eggs plate, for the price.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2011)

i am on denny's side on that one, sorry


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i am on denny's side on that one, sorry



Well, and based on the facts, that's pretty racist right there. 

no need to apologize.
EDIT: though I'd like to know how it isn't racist.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2011)

what are you referring to? denny's alleged policy? or my support of it?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> what are you referring to? denny's alleged policy?



I don't think it was a "Denny's policy," so much as systemic behavior by various franchisees. 

I don't think they had any problems with Denny's  in NY.

But if there was a "policy" it was racist, so yeah.




Twin Fist said:


> or my support of it?



I wonder how one can support a racist policy and not be racist themselves. Just sayin'.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 10, 2011)

again, i am not one to support government trying to regulate fairness. I say let businesses be as stupid as they want, the market will teach them the errors of thier ways.

it isnt so much support of the policy (though i support thier right to make a policy in response to dozens of dine and dashers) but a lack of support on excessive regulation.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> again, i am not one to support government trying to regulate fairness. I say let businesses be as stupid as they want, the market will teach them the errors of thier ways.



Not so sure that "market solutions" ever really work, especially in instances like this, but that's almost an entirely different thread This, though:




Twin Fist said:


> it isnt so much support of the policy (though i* support thier right to make a policy in response to dozens of dine and dashers*) but a lack of support on excessive regulation.



Is interesting. Sure, if, in response to dozens of dine and dashers, they'd made it policy that *all* patrons had to prepay, that would be one thing, but having black patrons prepay, and black patrons only, was wrong.

And racist.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 11, 2011)

And if all the dine and dashers were black? 

if you get mugged by a chinese guy, you want the cops wasting thier time on blacks? 

just like every warning label is there cuz some moron tried to do that...that policy was in place for a REASON

like i said, i dont agree with the policy, BUT i disagree with the government getting involved when bad publicity can be even more effective.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> And if all the dine and dashers were black?
> 
> if you get mugged by a chinese guy, you want the cops wasting thier time on blacks?
> 
> ...



But there was nothing reasonable about it. Why should I be punished for others' misbehavior? If the policy was across the board, though, that would be fine-*everybody* has to prepay: inconvenient, not particularly traditional, but understandable, under the circumstances-_We've been hit with a lot of dine-and-dashers, so *everyone* has to prepay._
As opposed to _We've been hit with a lot of *black* dine-and dashers, so *all  black guys* have to prepay_
Likewise, the unequal treatment as far as seating and pricing. The final straw in the instance of Dennny's, though-what really did them in-was not seating a party of black Secret Service agents! Of course, six hard-looking guys in suits come in, who knows whats going on?:lfao:

Oh, by the way-



Twin Fist said:


> And if all the dine and dashers were black?
> 
> if you get mugged by a chinese guy, you want the cops wasting thier time on blacks?



That's a pretty much a by definition pretty racist viewpoint.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 11, 2011)

not only do i disagree, i cant even see HOW you think it is.

If i am a police officer, and i get a report of a robbery comitted by an asian male, i am not gonna waste time doing stop and frisks on white females....there is nothing racist about saying "the suspect was white, so i wont be stopping any blacks...."

if you really think that is a racist viewpoint, please explain HOW it is, cuz i aint seeing it


----------



## elder999 (Sep 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> not only do i disagree, i cant even see HOW you think it is.
> 
> If i am a police officer, and i get a report of a robbery comitted by an asian male, i am not gonna waste time doing stop and frisks on white females....there is nothing racist about saying "the suspect was white, so i wont be stopping any blacks...."
> 
> if you really think that is a racist viewpoint, please explain HOW it is, cuz i aint seeing it



The one doesn't apply-in the case of the police officers, they are searching for an identified suspect, and, you're right, searching for the anything else would be a waste of time.

In the case of Denny's, they made all black patrons de facto suspects by virtue of their race, and nothing else. That is racism, and endorsing the "policy" is nothing but a textbook racist viewpoint.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 11, 2011)

good thing i said i didnt support the policy but i supported thier right to have one.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> good thing i said i didnt support the policy but i supported thier right to have one.



Yeah, they just had the *wrong* policy-should have made_ everyone _pay up front.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 11, 2011)

that would have been fine with me. if you are having a problem with dine and dash, have everyone put up a deposit with a credit debit card. I would support THAT policy, but i support the right of a business to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY reason, or no reason at all. NO ONE is entitled to the goods or services I produce anymore than I am entitled to thier patronage.

they dont want to serve white boys from Oak Cliff? thats cool, i will find somewhere that will serve me.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Sep 12, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The one doesn't apply-in the case of the police officers, they are searching for an identified suspect, and, you're right, searching for the anything else would be a waste of time.
> 
> In the case of Denny's, they made all black patrons de facto suspects by virtue of their race, and nothing else. That is racism, and endorsing the "policy" is nothing but a textbook racist viewpoint.



I can take that a step further. In Oceanside CA I went to the Denny's on College Drive. They had no problems feeding my White and Mexican students and since I happened to be with 2 of my friends when I was down there on this particular occassion (1 White and 1 Mexican) who'd been to this specific establishment,we decided to roll. What ensued was EXACTLY what elder999 spoke of; and I took them directly to task for it. I collared their manager (who tried to dodge me for 20 minutes) and gave him an ear full. The Oceanside P.D. were called,and I never raised my voice or threatened...I merely insistently pointed out the rampant racism of their policy.

I left and never came back.


----------

