hardheadjarhead said:
Perceptions?
Then you're suggesting we've come quite far since I was a child. In the 60's it wasn't merely a perception. I suggest it isn't merely a perception now.
The claim that because it was true in the 1960's, it's true now, is a false argument. We have come quite far. Further, many of the ties that bind are of the african american communities own making now. It's the belief that, because it once was, it always will be, is ultimately self-destructive.
hardheadjarhead said:
Four years ago or so we had a young man here in Bloomington, Benjamin Smith, shoot a Korean student to death outside his church. Smith, a white supremacist, then went on a shooting spree up in Illinois, killing Ricky Birdsong and wounding nine others. I was a block or so from the shooting and missed seeing it by one minute. Or did I imagine that?
What does that have to do with racism in America? This thread started with a similar incident where a black man murdered a white woman because she was right? What does that prove? That all blacks are racists? Of course not. Wide spread institutional racism does not exist in this country, and to the extent that any of it lingers, that is by and far extremely exaggerated. You anecdotal story does nothing to prove that this country has not moved on since the 1960's.
hardheadjarhead said:
An isolated incident? Perhaps. Four weeks later as I was coming back from a tournament I stopped off at a restaurant in Richmond, Indiana. There, next to the Shoney's, sat one of the "World Church of the Creator," "churches" founded by Matthew Hale, Smith's mentor. In the restaurant parking lot two families in their Sunday finest were saying goodbye to each other...and I swear on my father's sword...they gave each other Fascist salutes (and the women giggled at that) before departing. I wish I was making that up.
Again, that has anything to do with what? These anecdotal stories aren't really adding anything to your statement that racism is wide-spread and institutionalized. Again, my earlier statement stands, and that is that the perception of racism is as damaging to the black community as any real racism. Many black leaders are coming to that conclusion as well. It's the victimhood that the black community needs to get beyond to move in to the role in society that they deserve. The key to the chains that bind them is in their own hands.
hardheadjarhead said:
Racism isn't perceived in this country because of the "power of the frown." It has been justly demonized and it has gone underground. Here in southern Indiana it is very much alive...you just need to scrape down a bit to find it...and not far at that.
Institutionalized racism has ended. Racism to the extent that you refer to it, i.e. individual racism, however, is endemic and widespread. Much researchs suggest that racism may, itself, be a nearly universal phenomenon. Out-group descrimination is present in every single society on this planet. So, to the extent that you use a lack of racism as the benchmark, it is an impossible goal to achieve. We have achieved, however, and end to institutionalized racism.
hardheadjarhead said:
I'd love to have a dollar (used to be a nickel, but I'm adjusting for inflation) for every time I've heard, "There are black men, and there are ******s." How generous. They've been so nice as to recognize there are black men.
See my above comment. This is hardly the benchmark of our society, as every society, culture, group of people, and nearly every individual has their ...isms. For example, racial descrimination and demonization is present in every culture. But those that don't utilize race to make their decision on who the out-group is use other standards....politics, religion, ethnicity, sex, language, nationality, etc...if you've every made a decision about persons character based on one of the above described, congradulations...you too have descriminated. It means you're a human being, with all the flaws. Our brains are designed to descriminate against outgroups. We have to guard against it, and try not to institutionalize it.
hardheadjarhead said:
Not long ago I was talking to a man about Bush's Hispanic cabinet appointments (Gonzales to DOJ, Martinez to HUD), and he snorted...asking if Bush had appointed any "Americans" to his cabinet. A similar story--some years ago one of my black belts was having coffee with his friend at the McDonald's across the street. A man heard them speaking Spanish and yelled at them to "speak American!" They told him they were...and went on with their conversation in Spanish, the only European language spoken on this continent for almost 150 years.
Again, more anecdotal evidence, hardly evidence of wide-spread institutionalized racism. As I pointed out, the benchmark you propose to use is hardly reasonable. I could also give you a list of people that hate "whitey", but would that prove that all blacks are racists? I hardly think so.
hardheadjarhead said:
Two weeks ago here in Bloomington we had our mosque firebombed. When I was an undergrad here they burned the synagogue.
That's pretty ironic.
hardheadjarhead said:
When I was a child living in Lafayette, Indiana, my father (a journalist...and a Republican) published an editorial decrying racial injustice in America. My sister received a phone call soon after threatening each of the family's children. They knew our first names...including my baby brother's. Late one night they blew the front door of our house off its hinges with a bomb.
Again, another example of a lot of anecdotal evidence about nothing.
hardheadjarhead said:
What you have listed is the work a few nuts. Again, I point out to you that the perception of racism is far in excess to any actual reality. How many black american's have even seen a klansman marching in person? I'd venture to guess a very small percentage. It's the perception that they are there that is powerful beyond their actual numbers. Again, racists of all races exists. The problem is that many black american's believe that a racist lives behind every tree, and it is that false belief that creates more problem than any actual racists.
hardheadjarhead said:
Are you asking a question here or making a statement?
What I was attempting to say is that whenever a child molester rapes a child of the same sex, homosexuals who prefer sex with adults are then very often demonized themselves as being child molesters. Heterosexuals who prefer sex with adults are not demonized when a child molester rapes a child of the opposite sex. Is that more clear?
You'll never hear me make that statement. Again, as I pointed out, pedophilia is an entirely different sexual issue than homosexuality.
hardheadjarhead said:
The majority of child molesters cross over lines of gender and age when they rape. There is an increasing body of research supporting this. DOJ reports indicate that a large number of sex offenders who have been jailed for sexually assaulting adults report themselves as having had a young victim at one time or another--for which they were not currently incarcerated.
A point I made. Most sexual predators are opportunistic in their behavior and choice of victims.
hardheadjarhead said:
Something to note here: Pedophilia is a psychological term. It isn't indicative of behavior. It indicates a paraphilic fetishistic attraction to children who are pre-adolescents, contrasted to ephebophilia, which is an unnatural attraction to adolescents.
It's a distinction that I am very aware of, having both studied the behavior and having dealt with many pedophiles first hand. A person that engages in pedophilic behavior is a pedophile. Again, it is a seperate sexual orientation than heterosexual or homosexual.
hardheadjarhead said:
Child molestation is a legal term, and an act prosecutable by law.
hardheadjarhead said:
A pedophile might never in his life ever harm a child. He might be fully aware of his inclination, recognizes it as dangerous, and he then "stays in the closet" as it were. He might not break any law or act on his fantasies in any way.
Just as any sexual orientation might choose not to engage in that behavior. However, sexual drives are extremely powerful. The danger always exists that a person will act out those fantasies. Their power is evident to anyone who understands that it's akin to telling a hetersexual person never to engage in sexual activity again. The drives are extremly powerful and dangerous in a pedophile. A person who has acted on those fantasies once, WILL do it again.
hardheadjarhead said:
A child molester might not be pedophilic, but merely sociopathic...crossing over age and gender lines.
A child molestor who engages in sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child has engaged in pedophilic behavior, though they may not primarily and solely be pedophilic.
hardheadjarhead said:
Then too he might be neither sociopathic or a pedophile or ephebophile, yet comes under the hammer of the law--such as the nineteen year old who has a fourteen year old girlfriend. Often the law allows for some leeway here.
Which is not a crime in the state of Missouri. However, sexual relations with post-pubescent but underage teens is a can of worms seperate from this issue.
hardheadjarhead said:
Over 95% of child molesters report themselves as heterosexual and state they're attracted to adults. I suspect that true pedophiles are likely in the minority of total child molesters that we incarcerate...but they get an awful lot of press because of the behaviors of the non-pedophilic sociopath. The latter may well be doing the majority of the raping and then incorrectly labeled "pedophilic." Crimes against children get the headlines, as they ought...but sometimes the news can mislead us.
Or the other possibility is that reporting is flawed. Many pedophiles may list themselves as primarily hetersexual as a way of describing themselves as more normal than they are. This is very likely the case in some circumstances, and maybe many. That's the problem with research that is based on reporting, as this topic necessarily is. Self-reporting is full of all sorts of built in error producing problems.
hardheadjarhead said:
Recently Jack McCafferty (spelling?) on CNN reported (in his typical curmudgeonly outrage) that there were 30,000 sex offenders walking the streets of Florida. What people assume is that there are that many convicted child molesters in the population. That isn't necessarily the case. A sex offender--depending upon state law and definition--might be a rapist, an exhibitionist, a homosexual convicted under the old sodomy laws of his state, a peeping tom, a person who had sex with an animal (lock up your dogs, Jack), a froetturist, a prostitute.
I'm looking at my states sex offender list, and none of the minor offenses you listed are on any of these. In Missouri, for example, being a peeping tom is not an offense, it is criminal trespass, and as such is not a sex offense. Ditto prostitution, a prostitute is not considered a sex offender per the reporting statute. Also, Missouri doesn't charge adults with violation of sodomy laws, and they will likely be completely removed from any statute soon.
A note on peeping toms, however. They aren't harmless. Many sexual predators start out as peeping toms, until they gain the courage to engage in more serious activities.
I'll link you to it. http://www.mshp.state.mo.us/cgi-bin/ibi_cgi/ibiweb.exe
Regards,
Steve [/QUOTE]
