NationStates Jolt Archive

No, that isn't what he said at all. What he said was that he should not be blamed for what other white people did, any more than every black person should be blamed for one black criminal, or all Muslims should be blamed for a terrorist attack, or all Christians should be blamed for one bombing a clinic.

If Jocabia were attacked for being white (which is rare, but not unheard of - wasn't rare at all when tensions were high in the '60s, depending on where you were), he should get the same hate-crime law protections as a minority.
Exactly. I despise prejudice in all of its many forms, and would like to extend this statement to include the eggshell argument that plaugues a lot of white people.

Yes, there was and still is a lot of bias from white people towards other ethnicities, however, I urge you not to blanket all white people with guilt for that. I take responsibility for my actions, not someone elses. I don't give a rats ass if they're the same colour as me, they still aren't me.

Furthermore, if you don't think that there is rascism towards white people, you need to go into areas where they are the minority. Rascism exists in most areas simply because one ethnic group outnumbers another and uses mob mentality to justify irrational thinking/actions/opinion - and thats a fact the world over.

I don't view a white rascist person any differently than a black, brown, yellow, purple or blue rascist. A bigot is a bigot, and thats that.

No, that isn't what he said at all. What he said was that he should not be blamed for what other white people did, any more than every black person should be blamed for one black criminal, or all Muslims should be blamed for a terrorist attack, or all Christians should be blamed for one bombing a clinic.

If Jocabia were attacked for being white (which is rare, but not unheard of - wasn't rare at all when tensions were high in the '60s, depending on where you were), he should get the same hate-crime law protections as a minority.

Which he does.

Slavery and segregation happened. The second only ended legally relatively recently. Within the lifetime of most of the population of the United States. De facto segregation still exists. Racial discrimination -- overwhelmingly against minorities -- still persists. Racial inequality -- overwhelmingly favoring whites -- still exists. Whiutes still have disproportionate power and privilege. These are facts.

It is not really a question of blame -- but of remedies. How do we remedy these problems?

Opposing neutral civil rights laws on the ground that "I am not to blame for racism" misses the point.

Moreover, who is to blame? Racist laws and policies existed -- within most American's lifetimes -- in most US states. They didn't just "happen."

reverse rascism is just rascism. nothing revervse about it.
Thats sort of the point I was trying to make - but including the term 'reverse' depicts the cyclic nature that it takes. Really, its little more than a cry-baby bitch fit 'but he hit me first' bullshit. Im sick and tired of people saying 'white people' this, 'white people' that, and never having to consider the statements rascist because they were made by or on behalf of a non-white person who perhaps not even personally, felt wronged by an act of attrocity performed by some other white person or group of white people.

If a muslim breaks into my house, and my neighbour is a muslim - I dont fear my neighbour to be a thief. So if some white person is a rascist, and he does something to prove it, dont consider your white neighbour to be one too.

The truth is, and I know this for a fact living where I do, non-rascist white people hav to walk on eggshells because every move they make or statement they give is scrutinized by so called 'minorites' for racial content. Well, I have news for you out there who think this is acceptable - thats rascism too.

To Cat Tribe: Your looking into this pro bono, right? Cause my nationstate is small and has no insurance, and if you send us a bill, we will cry and weep over our ruined credit. I seem to remember some States in the U.S. require client funds held in retainer to be stored in a separate bank account, the interest of which is turned over to the state to pay for legal services for the indigent. Can we get some of that action on this one? Please?

Meh. Anyone can be racist.

We almost all are to some degree (at least in the US).

But we can be aware of prejudices and seek to educate ourselves and overcome them.

The simple fact of the matter is that most discrimination in the US is against minorities by whites. (Not even considering it historical but just right now.)

But, every civil rights law and hate crime law protects whites just as much as minorities. And people are sued for discriminating against whites and prosecuted for committing hate crimes against whites.

In 2003, the FBI reports 4,574 hate crimes. 3,032 against blacks. 969 against whites. Blacks are approximately 12% of the population. So the amount of hate crimes against blacks is way disproportionate.

I can understand hostility to affirmative action.

And I know equality crusaders or zealots like myself can be over the top, but I honestly do not understand hostility towards neutral laws that protect everyone equally.

i know, lol. just felt like making a half-assed inflammatory remark. hehe

Which he does.

By law? Yes. But the person to whom he was replying stated pretty bluntly that he shouldn't.

Slavery and segregation happened. The second only ended legally relatively recently. Within the lifetime of most of the population of the United States. De facto segregation still exists. Racial discrimination -- overwhelmingly against minorities -- still persists. Racial inequality -- overwhelmingly favoring whites -- still exists. Whiutes still have disproportionate power and privilege. These are facts.

Many of them through no fault of their own, although some are asked to "make reparations" for it, though they are generations removed..

It is not really a question of blame -- but of remedies. How do we remedy these problems?

Good question. I've heard all sorts of opinions on it. My general feeling is that most with very strong opinions on the issue are ignoring a more middle ground approach. One way or another, we have to work for it somehow.

Opposing neutral civil rights laws on the ground that "I am not to blame for racism" misses the point.

Yeah, it does. Bringing racism in to argue against something that is not racist doesn't make much sense, does it?

Moreover, who is to blame? Racist laws and policies existed -- within most American's lifetimes -- in most US states. They didn't just "happen."

Most were (or are, in the case of some that are on the books but not enforced) holdovers from generations either gone or very near it.

To Cat Tribe: Your looking into this pro bono, right? Cause my nationstate is small and has no insurance, and if you send us a bill, we will cry and weep over our ruined credit. I seem to remember some States in the U.S. require client funds held in retainer to be stored in a separate bank account, the interest of which is turned over to the state to pay for legal services for the indigent. Can we get some of that action on this one? Please?

:D

Too late. The bill will be TG'd immediately.


(BTW, as this has happened before where someone else raises the fact I am a lawyer or ask if I am and then I get accused of arguing from authority, I am not claiming my opinions or statements have any extra validity because I am a lawyer. (I also get criticized for being a lawyer or have my arguments dismissed because I'm "lawyering," so I get attacked both ways ironically. At least that attack has some basis in fact.) Many lawyers are idiots. Also, you may choose to believe I am a lawyer, but you do not know it is true. Now, if I get accused of arguing from authority on this I'm going to go medieval on your ass. ;) )

I prefer the term racially aware.

are you racially aware that us whiteys do the same kind of shit?

:D

Too late. The bill will be TG'd immediately.


(BTW, as this has happened before where someone else raises the fact I am a lawyer or ask if I am and then I get accused of arguing from authority, I am not claiming my opinions or statements have any extra validity because I am a lawyer. (I also get criticized for being a lawyer or have my arguments dismissed because I'm "lawyering," so I get attacked both ways ironically. At least that attack has some basis in fact.) Many lawyers are idiots. Also, you may choose to believe I am a lawyer, but you do not know it is true. Now, if I get accused of arguing from authority on this I'm going to go medieval on your ass. ;) )

Its all good, I don't think anybody could credibly accuse you of waving your bar card around like its divine ratification. That said, there is a value to law library/courtroom experience, and Nexis/Lexis/Schmexis access would suggest at least the opportunity for relevant citations. If nothing else, you've spent more hours of your life exploring legal theory than a number cruncher like me.
EDIT: Also, the only place where "lawyering" is truly a scummy activity is around a D&D table.

I guess the validity of this article has already been called into question. But to add: I'm in NYC and I've seen nothing about this in the Times, the Post, or Newsday or on Fox 5 News [the latter three treat this kind of story as bread and butter]. Lexis-Nexis comes up with zilch-o, so it appears that the Brooklyn Skyline is the only source to report on this story.

And what do we get in the story? Hysterical quotes from some witnesses and dismissive quotes from the police. Does this mean that the police aren't doing their job, that blacks are getting away with bias crimes, or that "Debbie" is blowing the thing out of proportion? Given that Fox 5 didn't jump on the story and that, of all the sensational rags in NY, only the Skyline is far enough down the desperation ladder to run this, I'm inclined to go with the latter.

I guess the validity of this article has already been called into question. But to add: I'm in NYC and I've seen nothing about this in the Times, the Post, or Newsday or on Fox 5 News [the latter three treat this kind of story as bread and butter]. Lexis-Nexis comes up with zilch-o, so it appears that the Brooklyn Skyline is the only source to report on this story.

And what do we get in the story? Hysterical quotes from some witnesses and dismissive quotes from the police. Does this mean that the police aren't doing their job, that blacks are getting away with bias crimes, or that "Debbie" is blowing the thing out of proportion? Given that Fox 5 didn't jump on the story and that, of all the sensational rags in NY, only the Skyline is far enough down the desperation ladder to run this, I'm inclined to go with the latter.
I checked google (PBUH), and I got nothing as well.

artificial alien mummies ate my black baby and the police said it wasn't racially motivated! those white supremist bastards.

Its all good, I don't think anybody could credibly accuse you of waving your bar card around like its divine ratification.

LOL, but since when are most people on NS credible?

Pretty much any of us with some sort of expertise in a given field have been accused of being arrogant/etc. when we get involved in discussions that involve them. I know I have - although I think that is because people get the perception that any time you correct them, you are somehow degrading them.

I checked google (PBUH), and I got nothing as well.

Scuffle in the park + hysterical mom = "Worst pandemonium I've seen in my life" + panic-mongering by the Skyline + smug, justified Hammerskin

I guess the validity of this article has already been called into question. But to add: I'm in NYC and I've seen nothing about this in the Times, the Post, or Newsday or on Fox 5 News [the latter three treat this kind of story as bread and butter]. Lexis-Nexis comes up with zilch-o, so it appears that the Brooklyn Skyline is the only source to report on this story.

And what do we get in the story? Hysterical quotes from some witnesses and dismissive quotes from the police. Does this mean that the police aren't doing their job, that blacks are getting away with bias crimes, or that "Debbie" is blowing the thing out of proportion? Given that Fox 5 didn't jump on the story and that, of all the sensational rags in NY, only the Skyline is far enough down the desperation ladder to run this, I'm inclined to go with the latter.

Thanks for the further confirmation.

And I think your analysis of the article is accurate.

Interesting how relatively have been willing to admit that the article and/or "Debbie" have some serious prejudices.

LOL, but since when are most people on NS credible?

Pretty much any of us with some sort of expertise in a given field have been accused of being arrogant/etc. when we get involved in discussions that involve them. I know I have - although I think that is because people get the perception that any time you correct them, you are somehow degrading them.

Yeah, I ran into that once. A guy made some really emphatic statement about something I had a little experience with, and I tried to (gently) present contrary evidence. He accused me of arrogance. How do you respond to that.

I'm a white american straight male and proud of it. maybe i should start a club? or would that make me a bigoted racist?

I'm a white american straight male and proud of it. maybe i should start a club? or would that make be a bigoted racist?
Not as long as you let black gay Somali females join.

I'm a white american straight male and proud of it. maybe i should start a club? or would that make be a bigoted racist?
Way to be proud of being average :p

I'm not racist or a homophobe but I want to join a club that is only for white straight males

I prefer the term, "Misguided".

I prefer the term racist and proud of it.

By law? Yes. But the person to whom he was replying stated pretty bluntly that he shouldn't.

Not quite accurate, but fine.

Many of them through no fault of their own, although some are asked to "make reparations" for it, though they are generations removed..

Not many generations removed from legal segregation.

Not many generations removed from de facto segregation lingering from legal seperation.

Not many generations removed from current discrimination.

Not many generations removed from current racial inequality.

Not many generations removed from disproportionate white power and privilege.

And who was talking about "reparations"? Nice red herring.

Yeah, it does. Bringing racism in to argue against something that is not racist doesn't make much sense, does it?

Another red herring.

Pointing out racism inherent in statements makes perfect sense.

Most were (or are, in the case of some that are on the books but not enforced) holdovers from generations either gone or very near it.

Nice try.

Segregation laws were actively enforced in much of the United States within the lifetime of most Americans.

Racist policies have been actively pursued quite recently.

Racist policies have been actively pursued quite recently.
Explain your reasoning behind this. Don't even say affirmative action, because that is a double standard against people who are not minorities.

30/4 = 7.5 to 1 odds

Damn that was brutal.

And it raged on for 20 minutes? How the hell did four teenage girls take on 30 people for 20 minutes with only two of them getting seriously injured?? That should have been enough time for all four on them to be killed. Were they attacked by midgets or something?

That is what I said when I first saw it. Having been a veteran of quite a few uneven fights, I can tell you that unless the girls were Xena or some such, the results is not in only 2 getting seriously injured.


Also "Remember MLK" and "Black Power"? Unless those kids have been trapped in a That 70's Show/Good Times/Jeffersons time warp...If anything, being from New York, I imagine they would be more likely to say "Remember Malcolm" or "The Panthers."

I saw this posted at another forum that did focus on the "double standard" question rather than question the veracity of the story. I too assumed it was true but didn't really think about it critically, which is what we are supposed to do.

Not quite accurate, but fine.

Jocabia: What would a member of a minority have to do to be guilty of a hate crime?

Person: Wear a white mask and kill people for a couple hundred years.

The intent of that statement is pretty clear.

Not many generations removed from legal segregation.

Even if they are only one generation removed, are they responsible? I have never been an are that was legally segregated. I have never voted for any such measure. My mother has never voted for any such measure. Are either of us responsible for that simply because my grandmother was racist?

Not many generations removed from de facto segregation lingering from legal seperation.

Red Herring. The fact that it exists does not mean that members of a given group are personally contributing.

Not many generations removed from current discrimination.

If they do not discriminate, but their ancestors did, then they *are* generations removed from discrimination.

Not many generations removed from current racial inequality.

Again, red herring.

Not many generations removed from disproportionate white power and privilege.

Ditto.

And who was talking about "reparations"? Nice red herring.

There are those who talk about it. I read an artilce not that long ago about how happy a group in DC were that a white woman several generations removed from slavery got up and apologized for it as if she had anything at all to do with it. I am not guilty for the sins of my fathers - sorry.

Another red herring.

Pointing out racism inherent in statements makes perfect sense.

Note: I was agreeing with you here, darling. I don't know what you are trying to argue against, nor did I say that there was anything wrong with pointing out racism in a racist statement. I, instead, pointed out that it does *not* make sense to try and find racism in a neutral law.

Nice try.

Segregation laws were actively enforced in much of the United States within the lifetime of most Americans.

Yes, and someone who was 5 at the time the law was being enforced is really responsible for it. Those who were responsible for the laws are either dead, or very old by now.

Racist policies have been actively pursued quite recently.

Then blame the people pursuing the policies, not those who don't support them.

So, at the federal level, other than church arsons, hate crimes provisions:

(a) define hate crimes and provide for collection of statistical data about them and

(b) provide for enhanced sentencing when it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed "a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."

So this came up earlier - if I specifically choose someone to mug because of the fact that they are handicapped, let's say, and I consider them to be an easier target, by the (b) then I am guilty of a hate crime. And all rape is a hate crime.

Which he does.

Slavery and segregation happened. The second only ended legally relatively recently. Within the lifetime of most of the population of the United States. De facto segregation still exists. Racial discrimination -- overwhelmingly against minorities -- still persists. Racial inequality -- overwhelmingly favoring whites -- still exists. Whiutes still have disproportionate power and privilege. These are facts.

It is not really a question of blame -- but of remedies. How do we remedy these problems?

Opposing neutral civil rights laws on the ground that "I am not to blame for racism" misses the point.

Moreover, who is to blame? Racist laws and policies existed -- within most American's lifetimes -- in most US states. They didn't just "happen."

I agree with everything you said. I think we should concentrate on rectifying the problems that exist today. I cannot make up for what was done by people who looked like me for the first four hundred years that those people inhabited the area now known as the US. The original reply was to a person who suggested that we don't deserve justice until we've (white people) been victimized in the way we (white people) victimized others in the past.

I don't oppose neutral civil rights laws if I think those laws serve a purpose. I've changed my mind on hate legislation because of some of the arguments presented here.

I'd also like to point that the fact that people who look like me have families that have been passing wealth obtained from oppressing the poor and those in minority for centuries does not make me feel any better when I don't have food to eat. I know you weren't saying it does, but I wanted to point this out to the people who make the argument that UNFAIR practices make sense, for example denying me equal protection under the law because I'm white. As I said earlier my family was poor before the word poor was invented and had to change their name because of oppression. I'm hardly an example of one of those white males born with a disproportionate amount of money or power.

Come on people, before you reply to a questionable thread check the Nation of the poster.


He is a member of Aryan Nation and his motto is "White Power."


2+2=4


Mmmk?


If it dosen't come up in google news, it didn't happen.

Jocabia: What would a member of a minority have to do to be guilty of a hate crime?

Person: Wear a white mask and kill people for a couple hundred years.

The intent of that statement is pretty clear.

Woah, woah, woah... I didn't ask that question. Hammerskin did. I don't agree that it's a problem actually. I only said that the answer that Backwood gave was racist. It was. That's very clear.

Even if they are only one generation removed, are they responsible? I have never been an are that was legally segregated. I have never voted for any such measure. My mother has never voted for any such measure. Are either of us responsible for that simply because my grandmother was racist?

<Snip>

There are those who talk about it. I read an artilce not that long ago about how happy a group in DC were that a white woman several generations removed from slavery got up and apologized for it as if she had anything at all to do with it. I am not guilty for the sins of my fathers - sorry.


I think the one exception is disproportionate money and power. When you're born a Kennedy and you inherit money and power that came from bootlegging for example do I think the government and other people can be upset with you because you gained from that activity? Yes, to a degree, I do. In some cases, you wouldn't have that money or that power and would have to start from a lower caste in society if not for the illicit activities of your ancestors. In our country, you are permitted to gain from the activities of your ancestors. It only makes sense to have to deal with the consequences of that benefit.

I think the one exception is disproportionate money and power. When you're born a Kennedy and you inherit money and power that came from bootlegging for example do I think the government and other people can be upset with you because you gained from that activity? Yes, to a degree, I do. In some cases, you wouldn't have that money or that power and would have to start from a lower caste in society if not for the illicit activities of your ancestors. In our country, you are permitted to gain from the activities of your ancestors. It only makes sense to have to deal with the consequences of that benefit.

One of my grandfathers was Italian and for that his family was forced off of their land in the Galatin Valley (near Bozeman, Montana) and was turned away/beaten in school because when he came here he couldnt speak proper english. However, for some reason, he doesn't hold what happened against people living in Montana or Americans in general (he now has full Canadian citizenship), nor do I, nor does any of my family.

He made a living for himself, even if it was a scarce one, in spite of injustices imposed upon him and his family during the anti-Italianism that came about after the world wars, as did a lot of others in similar situations. This crap about 'dealing with the consequences of you ancestors' is garbage.

Its that exact attitude that had his fathers land taken from him. His family wasn't even in the goddamned war, but persecution of Italians based on the actions of those that were was taken to somehow rationalize that kind of predjudice.

Sometimes you have to be willing to cut the past loose. Its no different than people judging the actions of Germans today by the actions of their grandfathers that were Nazi's - times have changed, and so have people. I'm sure that most Germans would rather not have that part of their history branded to them, but just like the money and fame that was garnered by the Kennedy's - it sticks around.

There are two sides to your example unfortunately.

I think the one exception is disproportionate money and power. When you're born a Kennedy and you inherit money and power that came from bootlegging for example do I think the government and other people can be upset with you because you gained from that activity? Yes, to a degree, I do. In some cases, you wouldn't have that money or that power and would have to start from a lower caste in society if not for the illicit activities of your ancestors. In our country, you are permitted to gain from the activities of your ancestors. It only makes sense to have to deal with the consequences of that benefit.

Very few people of any ethnicity have much money or power, however. I certainly don't.

I still don't think that a person born into a rich person is responsible for their parents' actions, however. If they know that their money was gained through illicit activities or through oppression of others, they should certainly attempt to help correct the problem, as that would be putting money back where it rightfully belongs - but they shouldn't feel guilty about sometihng they had nothing to do with.

Woah, woah, woah... I didn't ask that question. Hammerskin did. I don't agree that it's a problem actually. I only said that the answer that Backwood gave was racist. It was. That's very clear.
It doesn't seem 'very clear' at all to me.
He said that if minorities did what the KKK did, it would be a hate crime. I don't see anywhere where he said "White men are KKK members!" or any such thing. I just don't see any racism there.

It's some of this "mob" mentality that was attemptedly demonstrated where I live, in Richmond...

There was massive campaigning by the general populace to make the mayor an elected position (before hand, the Mayor was a hired position by the City Council)... The council was opposed to the decision; though when two State senators, a black republican, and white democrat campaigned for it, they managed to get the bill through the state senate, and ammend the City Charter.... The Council's position (predominately black) was that making the mayor an elected position would somehow "dilute the 'black' vote"...

Luckily this mob-mentality brought about by the relatively corrupt city council did not work (I might add, there are presently 2 serving councilmen, who are presently serving time in federal prisons; one for embezling city funds, and the other for election fraud.... can't get much more corrupt than that....)...

Any way, after the charter was ammended, the elections insued... and who won? L. Douglas Wilder... former democratic black governor of Virginia... So much for the idea of 'diluting the black vote'.

The point is, it is becomming more and more common for this "reverse" (read racism anyway) racism to occur... And the simple fact is, we should be campainging against all forms of dicrimintation, and not discriminating upon the discriminate... Which is occuring too damn much IMHO... John and Jane Smith down the street, have nothing to do with whether or not your great-grandparents got reperations 150 years ago... And to attack them, based on some sick idea of justification based upon that, is blatant racism and bigotry, regardless of how much one wants to whine about it...

There is ABSOLUTELY no difference between a gang of angry black men assaulting a white person because of what his ancestors may or may-not have done; and that of a group of hooded white men lynching a black man for the color of their skin... Both acts are racially motivated, both acts are a demonstration of bigotry of the party in commission of the act, and both should be punished to the same extend of the law... THAT is equality...

I prefer the term racially aware.


HEAD EXPLODES

It doesn't seem 'very clear' at all to me.
He said that if minorities did what the KKK did, it would be a hate crime. I don't see anywhere where he said "White men are KKK members!" or any such thing. I just don't see any racism there.

You have to follow the context. The story in the beginning of this thread has been pretty thoroughly debunked, but we'll use it anyways - just to make the point.

One poster stated that, if we had this same story, but switched ethnicities, it *would* be a hate crime. Why wouldn't this story also be considered a hate crime? If this story isn't an example of a hate crime, what would a minority have to do for it to be considered a hate crime?

The answer: Wear a white hat and kill lots of whites!

In other words, the *exact* same action is a hate crime only based on what ethnicity commits it and a minority can only be considered to have committed a hate crime if they do something in KKK fashion.

I'm not racist or a homophobe but I want to join a club that is only for white straight males


run for President of the US. Its still pretty exclusive.

You have to follow the context. The story in the beginning of this thread has been pretty thoroughly debunked, but we'll use it anyways - just to make the point.

One poster stated that, if we had this same story, but switched ethnicities, it *would* be a hate crime. Why wouldn't this story also be considered a hate crime? If this story isn't an example of a hate crime, what would a minority have to do for it to be considered a hate crime?

The answer: Wear a white hat and kill lots of whites!

In other words, the *exact* same action is a hate crime only based on what ethnicity commits it and a minority can only be considered to have committed a hate crime if they do something in KKK fashion.
Meh, context is overrated.
:D

I think I get it now.

It's some of this "mob" mentality that was attemptedly demonstrated where I live, in Richmond...

<snip>

Exactly what I was attempting to get across, well written Tekania.

I'm tired of polar extremes. I give the example of pride parades (and this goes beyond race) - how is it, that a colored pride parade or a gay pride parade shows progressive behaviour, while a white parade or a heterosexual parade would incite a riot? Its bias, pure and simple - and another prime example of rascism. NAACP, Affimative Action, Equal Opportunity... all perpetuations of existing problems - I want equality, but this isn't the way to acheive it.

Exactly what I was attempting to get across, well written Tekania.

I'm tired of polar extremes. I give the example of pride parades (and this goes beyond race) - how is it, that a colored pride parade or a gay pride parade shows progressive behaviour, while a white parade or a heterosexual parade would incite a riot? Its bias, pure and simple - and another prime example of rascism. NAACP, Affimative Action, Equal Opportunity... all perpetuations of existing problems - I want equality, but this isn't the way to acheive it.

There is a reason for the parades. Basically, a pride parade is not "Hey, we're X and we're so proud of it. We're so cool! Look at us!!" Instead it is, "Hey, people say it is bad to be like us, but it isn't. We are just as good as anyone else!"

The idea of a white or homosexual pride parade doesn't make much sense, since it would be the former, rather than the latter.

One of my grandfathers was Italian and for that his family was forced off of their land in the Galatin Valley (near Bozeman, Montana) and was turned away/beaten in school because when he came here he couldnt speak proper english. However, for some reason, he doesn't hold what happened against people living in Montana or Americans in general (he now has full Canadian citizenship), nor do I, nor does any of my family.

He made a living for himself, even if it was a scarce one, in spite of injustices imposed upon him and his family during the anti-Italianism that came about after the world wars, as did a lot of others in similar situations. This crap about 'dealing with the consequences of you ancestors' is garbage.

Its that exact attitude that had his fathers land taken from him. His family wasn't even in the goddamned war, but persecution of Italians based on the actions of those that were was taken to somehow rationalize that kind of predjudice.

Sometimes you have to be willing to cut the past loose. Its no different than people judging the actions of Germans today by the actions of their grandfathers that were Nazi's - times have changed, and so have people. I'm sure that most Germans would rather not have that part of their history branded to them, but just like the money and fame that was garnered by the Kennedy's - it sticks around.

There are two sides to your example unfortunately.

This is also in response to similar statements by Dem.

I want to clarify. I was referring to the point if my father stole money from your father and I inheritted that money then you have very valid grounds for being angry with me for having that money. That is not the same as being angry with me because I'm Italian or white or black because of some wrong perpetrated by Italians or whites or blacks.

I would truly and honestly give away any money that money gave to me that was a result of slavery or oppression of people.

I think people have a very valid reason to be upset about the economic results that are still around from when slavery and oppression were the business of the day in this country.

I want to clarify. I was referring to the point if my father stole money from your father and I inheritted that money then you have very valid grounds for being angry with me for having that money. That is not the same as being angry with me because I'm Italian or white or black because of some wrong perpetrated by Italians or whites or blacks.

I would truly and honestly give away any money that money gave to me that was a result of slavery or oppression of people.

I think people have a very valid reason to be upset about the economic results that are still around from when slavery and oppression were the business of the day in this country.

And this is the part that I agreed with.

It doesn't seem 'very clear' at all to me.
He said that if minorities did what the KKK did, it would be a hate crime. I don't see anywhere where he said "White men are KKK members!" or any such thing. I just don't see any racism there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerskin Nation
I know i will probably get it for this, but what amazes me is a white can fight and not even shout crazy things like white power, and get a hate charge. What does a minority or a person of color have to do before it is labeled as a hate crime?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BackwoodsSquatches
Wear a sheet on his head, and murder innocent people for 200 years?

He just said that the only way someone of a minority can commit a hate crime is if they do it for 200 years. Clearly no individual can commit a crime for 200 years for one. Secondly, it specifically says that white people do not deserve to be protected under this law. It's clearly racist and I can't imagine what's confusing about that.

EDIT: Never mind. You conceded the point already.

Very few people of any ethnicity have much money or power, however. I certainly don't.

I still don't think that a person born into a rich person is responsible for their parents' actions, however. If they know that their money was gained through illicit activities or through oppression of others, they should certainly attempt to help correct the problem, as that would be putting money back where it rightfully belongs - but they shouldn't feel guilty about sometihng they had nothing to do with.

Here's a better response since my earlier one didn't specifically address what you said -

I wasn't addressing guilt, I was only referring to how people react to illicit gains.

Wear a sheet on his head, and murder innocent people for 200 years?

Do you think that's what all white people do? Or do you think that all white people now are guilty of what a few white people did before? You may well be a bigot and a fool.

Affimative Action, Equal Opportunity... all perpetuations of existing problems

gotta love the names though

kinda like "final solution" and "ethnic clensing"

all white people now are guilty of what a few white people did before?

according to the govenrment's and college's affirmitive action policies I sure am

according to the govenrment's and college's affirmitive action policies I sure am

Affirmative action is about attempting to give some poor minorities the same opportunities that rich, white people have always gotten, special treatment. Does it result in equality or even racial mixing? No. I don't think so. Does it help to spread around the wealth that fifty years ago was almost exclusively held by white people in this country? Yes. And that's the point. It sucks for people like us that aren't the rich, white and priveleged, but it does have some leveling effect and it was very necessary when it was first inceived.

...Anybody who would do that to anyone, on ANY basis, should be shot in the face.

Don't even need to add in the racist issue.

for some reason i kept reading the article straight into your post and for a second thought this was a quote from it...

My friend is black and calls just about every white guy he sees a cracker. It is part of the pop culture to use racist remarks. I don't think it was racially motivated, it was just a bunch of idiots being black.

They should still all be rounded up and thrashed soundly, that was rather brutal to get a few girls out of a park.

ny times search of the past 11 years didnt come up with anything...

So this came up earlier - if I specifically choose someone to mug because of the fact that they are handicapped, let's say, and I consider them to be an easier target, by the (b) then I am guilty of a hate crime. And all rape is a hate crime.

ARRGGG!

I created a lengthy reply and then lost it to JOLT!

I'll try again.

Basically, what I provided was a summary of the law. Not the law itself. The answer to your questions are (a) you are subject to an enhancement for victimizing someone who is physically vulnerable -- not for a hate crime and (b) a sentence for a sexual crime cannot be enhanced for a hate crime based on gender.

Here is the actual statutory provision:

SEC. 280003. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REGARDING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR HATE CRIMES.(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, ‘‘hate crime’’ means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.(b) SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT.—Pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate guidelines or amend existing guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels for offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate crimes. In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other guidelines, avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense, and take into account any mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions.

I don't want to have to explain the Guidelines. Basically the court -- using a putatively neutral report from the probation office in addition to whatever evidence each side presents -- determines a score for the defendant's convictions. Each crime has a set base number. There are a bunch of mandatory enhancements and a few mandatory reductions based on several variables. Then there are some discretionary grounds for departure upward or downward. Once a number is arrived at for the crime it is used in a grid with another number assigned to the defendant's criminal history. The grid sets a range for the defendant's sentence.

I couldn't find a simple explanation of this complicated system, but here (http://www.ussc.gov/TRAINING/WS_Ex_rob.pdf) and here (http://www.ussc.gov/TRAINING/sent_ex_rob.pdf) are two worksheets that illustrate how it works. The first sets some hypothetical facts. The second is an actual sentencing worksheet filled out using those facts. (Independent of this discussion, you may find them interesting.)

Anyway, here is the relevant Sentencing Guideline provision (http://www.ussc.gov/2001guid/3a1_1.htm) (with emphasis added):

3A1.1. Hate Crime Motivation or Vulnerable Victim

(a) If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person, increase by 3 levels.

(b) (1)If the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim, increase by 2 levels.

(2)If (A) subdivision (1) applies; and (B) the offense involved a large number of vulnerable victims, increase the offense level determined under subdivision (1) by 2 additional levels.

(c) Special Instruction

(1)Subsection (a) shall not apply if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1. Subsection (a) applies to offenses that are hate crimes. Note that special evidentiary requirements govern the application of this subsection.

Do not apply subsection (a) on the basis of gender in the case of a sexual offense. In such cases, this factor is taken into account by the offense level of the Chapter Two offense guideline. Moreover, do not apply subsection (a) if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

2. For purposes of subsection (b), "vulnerable victim" means a person (A) who is a victim of the offense of conviction and any conduct for which the defendant is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct); and (B) who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct.

Subsection (b) applies to offenses involving an unusually vulnerable victim in which the defendant knows or should have known of the victim’s unusual vulnerability. The adjustment would apply, for example, in a fraud case in which the defendant marketed an ineffective cancer cure or in a robbery in which the defendant selected a handicapped victim. But it would not apply in a case in which the defendant sold fraudulent securities by mail to the general public and one of the victims happened to be senile. Similarly, for example, a bank teller is not an unusually vulnerable victim solely by virtue of the teller’s position in a bank.

Do not apply subsection (b) if the factor that makes the person a vulnerable victim is incorporated in the offense guideline. For example, if the offense guideline provides an enhancement for the age of the victim, this subsection would not be applied unless the victim was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to age.

3. The adjustments from subsections (a) and (b) are to be applied cumulatively. Do not, however, apply subsection (b) in a case in which subsection (a) applies unless a victim of the offense was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

4. If an enhancement from subsection (b) applies and the defendant’s criminal history includes a prior sentence for an offense that involved the selection of a vulnerable victim, an upward departure may be warranted.

Background: Subsection (a) reflects the directive to the Commission, contained in Section 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, to provide an enhancement of not less than three levels for an offense when the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had a hate crime motivation (i.e., a primary motivation for the offense was the race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of the victim). To avoid unwarranted sentencing disparity based on the method of conviction, the Commission has broadened the application of this enhancement to include offenses that, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines are hate crimes.

Subsection (b)(2) implements, in a broader form, the instruction to the Commission in section 6(c)(3) of Public Law 105-184.

Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1989 (see Appendix C, amendment 245); November 1, 1990 (see Appendix C, amendment 344); November 1, 1992 (see Appendix C, amendment 454); November 1, 1995 (see Appendix C, amendment 521); November 1, 1997 (see Appendix C, amendment 564); November 1, 1998 (see Appendix C, amendment 587); November 1, 2000 (see Appendix C, amendment 595).

So, as I said, no enhancement for a hate crime against gender if the crime is rape.

Also, the vulnerable victim enhancement, which applies to your robbery of someone in a wheelchair, existed before the hate crimes legislation.

BTW, I looked into the state hate crime statutes. They are similiar to the federal statute and are for (a) statistical data gathering and (b) sentence enhancement.

The NCJRS/DOJ refers to this website (http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp), which appears to provide straight-forward and definitive information about hate crime legislation. It also provides this chart (http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/provisions.asp) summarizing state hate crime laws.

Where do I send the bill again?

ny times search of the past 11 years didnt come up with anything...
That doesn't really mean anything.

Where do I send the bill again?

Guidelines aside, whether or not they tack on "hate crime" is a matter for the DA. It's usually only applied in cases where the DA will get some political traction for it.

Or, as was so eloquently stated to me by a government official when I was trying to help a client get 8-A certification as a minority business owner, "regardless of the regulations, if you're not black, you're not a minority".

Prosecutors are notoriously political.

Thirty men attacking four girls is just terrible. Anyone attacking anyone is pretty terrible. I hope that justice is served and this does not happen again. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath.

Point of order: they were not men. The assailants, if you read the article, are junior high school students from the neighboring school.

It only makes it SLIGHTLY less disgusting.

Exactly what I was attempting to get across, well written Tekania.

I'm tired of polar extremes. I give the example of pride parades (and this goes beyond race) - how is it, that a colored pride parade or a gay pride parade shows progressive behaviour, while a white parade or a heterosexual parade would incite a riot? Its bias, pure and simple - and another prime example of rascism. NAACP, Affimative Action, Equal Opportunity... all perpetuations of existing problems - I want equality, but this isn't the way to acheive it.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a little sloppy in your language and your argument.

"colored people"? You didn't really mean to refer to blacks as "colored people," right?

"Equal Opportunity" = racism? perpetuation of existing problems?

Equal opportunity is just that equal opportunity for everyone -- regardles of race, creed, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

How is that possibly wrong?

How is that anything but the very antithesis of racism?

NAACP = racism? perpetuation of existing problems?

Study a little history. Almost every stride we've made forward against racism in the US since the Civil War has involved the NAACP.

They fought the legal fight against segregration and for voting rights for all.

This is why I tell people not to buy houses in Brooklyn....Plus, it always seems on the verge of a riot down there.

Thank you. All of Brooklyn is not as you describe it, and that neighborhood in particular is fairly quiet. Unfortunately, there is a lot of busing to that school from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

They fought the legal fight against segregration and for voting rights for all.

I applaud them for that. I do, however, condemn them for affirmative action, and for giving the government official license to permanently categorize people by one of five "races" for all eternity, in order to engage in a game of "equal outcome percentages is the true meaning of equal opportunity".

That, and I've seen how corrupt the government's 8-A contracting program has been, first hand. Although it was set up to help all minorities, it has been run largely by black administrators to create mostly black businesses - and I've been told this to my face too many times to count - they feel pride in engaging in racist actions against other minorities, and they know there is nothing that can be done about it.

Do you have any other information?

Anything that suggests this is even vaguelly accurate?

Can anyone confirm the reliability of this source?

Confirm the details?

I find this source -- which appears pretty amateur -- and supremicist copies of it. That's it.

The Brooklyn Skyline is an actual paper, but you're right, it is fairly amateurish. It's a local, neighborhood paper.

I would check the NY Daily News, the NY Post and the NY Times for other accounts.

I don't know if anyone noticed, but every single kid involved was under 16. If you're dumb enough to be using the name of Martin Luther King in a violent, pointless situation like this, you obviously aren't behaving like an adult and therefore should not be tried as an adult.

I believe that these kids are just a product of a culture that finds abuse of stuck-up white people to be acceptable and even condoned. I don't think this is the fault of the society, however. To quote a letter written in response to the original article, "When you oppress a people - when you oppress their mother, father, uncles, aunts, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents and you terrorize them for years upon years - you torture them and then you break every promise made - at some point in time those people will break - and the gentle, passive next door neighbor that you are accustomed to, has now become a monster - from snipers to riots to gangs - the desire for revenge often clouds true revolution - uncontrollable emotion is the bullet that dictates life or death on the former perpetrator of deplorable crimes - but now at the hand of someone who has not been trained on how the exact method to repay the multiple debts that are owed should be acted out."

If the white people who ran the country at the time of desegregation had seen fit to TRULY even things out, forcing reparations according to the ability of those whose families had kept slaves to those descended from them according to their need, none of these problems would be around today.

that's a ****** for you.....they always revert to their tribal ways hunting in packs seeking weak prey and of course weasling out of a bad situation :sniper:
It might be a bad idea to continue along those lines. I believe that falls under trolling. Perhaps it would be better to express your views without insulting ?
Just a thought.

EDIT:
thats a cracker for you... they insult those less fortunate than themselves and blame the uneducated and immature assailants rather than the system that created them from the safety of their home pc.
I don't think trolling in response is the best solution either. Might it be a better solution to be the bigger person and not stoop to the level of insulting another?
Again, just a thought.

You're both immature with your insults. You could have just let him look like an ass without doing it to yourself as well. No one needed to fire anything back at his idiotic comment. Congratulations.

*snip*

Meh.

It might be a bad idea to continue along those lines. I believe that falls under trolling. Perhaps it would be better to express your views without insulting ?
Just a thought.

EDIT:

I don't think trolling in response is the best solution either. Might it be a better solution to be the bigger person and not stoop to the level of insulting another?
Again, just a thought.

I find causing offense to be one of the most succesful and enjoyable ways of making people think about the shit they spew. If this guy looks carefully, he'll note that I'm just saying the exact same shit he is, but with a little intelligent analysis added in.

You're both immature with your insults. You could have just let him look like an ass without doing it to yourself as well. No one needed to fire anything back at his idiotic comment. Congratulations.

You're funny.

When supremacists (of whatever ilk) cannot cite genuine events to support their biased agenda, they resort to wholesale falsehoods. I wanted to confirm the source of this story, and sure enough it was reported in Brooklyn Skyline at the behest of local supremacist radicals. This story has not appeared in any major network newscast, nor any newspaper of genuine repute. The "story" has its origin and circulation thusly:

WWW.SKINHEADS.NET Forums - More details on the "non-bias attack"
Alien Soup - A Non-Bias Attack? This is NOT a HATE Crime?
David Duke's European American home page » “Non Bias Attack”
forums.therightsociety.com/ default.aspx?m=117150&f=12&p=1 - 29k
www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread. php?goto=lastpost&t=146786 - 132k
American Renaissance News: Non-Bias Attack

and so on, and so on, and so on. This story is an outright fabrication, and is further proof that the supremacist ideology---from whatever persuasion---is founded upon the insecurity and feelings of inferiority of its followers.

Cite to us one reputable---i.e., NOT involved in spreading hate ideology---source and we can begin a genuine discussion from there.

ok now that we've thoroughly discussed this

the article was in the equivalent of a neighborhood weekly shopping newspaper. its a local discussion of something that happened ON THE PLAYGROUND. it wasnt well written.

the reason that it wasnt in the NYTimes or daily news is that it was not news to anyone outside of that neighborhood.

it may have been racial, it may have been a turf thing since the girls were from a different school. it may have just been some kids pissed off because "their" court was being used by someone else when they wanted to use it.

the quotes of what the kids said came from the parents of the girls who were roughed up. maybe they said it, maybe they didnt.

all that happened was 4 girls got roughed up by a bunch of kids. they were all around 12 years old, it was JR HIGH SCHOOL. this is not something that anyone would want to turn into a major crime story. no one in their right minds would want a group of 12 year olds convicted of a hate crime because of something that happened on the playground

and only white supremacists would quote a local rag paper on this, trying to make a huge deal out of it. the only place youll find it discussed in a google search is the original paper and racist websites. the racists are using this little paper to make a huge racial thing out of a playground tussle.

yes black people can be assholes just the same as white people can.

Aryan Citizens - official warning for trolling.

Akkid - official warning for trolling. Whether you're a retaliator or an instigator, it's still trolling and you're still warned.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Aryan Citizens - official warning for trolling.

Akkid - official warning for trolling. Whether you're a retaliator or an instigator, it's still trolling and you're still warned.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Fair enough, though I was just trying to make a point. Out of curiosity, how do official warnings work? Like, do i get booted for two or three or something?

To Khudros: Don't dismiss the tremendous combat formidability of achondroplasiatics (midgets, as you call them). I once saw footage of a group of little people that had the power to combine, forming into a giant robot. It was animated, and I was drunk on Kirin, but it looked real. I remain terrified and would urge you not to antagonize short people. Remember, in the instance of an insurgency, it takes them half as long to dig a foxhole.

There, I've now proven that I am as bigoted (in my own way) as anybody else, and thus am tolerant of intolerance.

ROTFL!!!! This HAS my definite, DEFINITE vote for the funniest damn response EVER!!

To Hunt Master: Thank you, you're very kind. Before I get nasty flames from the Dwarven Anti-Defamation League, I do realize that dwarves don't have the power to form into giant robots. Its well known that only oriental midgets can do that.

There is a reason for the parades. Basically, a pride parade is not "Hey, we're X and we're so proud of it. We're so cool! Look at us!!" Instead it is, "Hey, people say it is bad to be like us, but it isn't. We are just as good as anyone else!"

The idea of a white or homosexual pride parade doesn't make much sense, since it would be the former, rather than the latter.
Well, for starters your wording it in such a biased way that I hardly even think it worthy of a response - but regardless... the point was, even if in theory the parades of 'minorites' (I do despise that term) were established only to promote acceptance - they fail miserably in reality. Any segregated act further perpetuates the problems of exclusivity. It throws backlash in the faces of those who try to promote acceptance when someone feels the need to demand it.

As another example, I can say that I work in the city of Surrey, the population in the area that I work is almost entirely Indo-Canadian (why can I not simply call them Canadian? Yet another example of self induced bias by some affecting the whole). Where I work, I have had Canadians of Indian descent tell me that they would rather deal with someone of that same descent - and for no other reason than that they want to employ other imigrants from India. It happens all the time.

We just hired a new saleswoman, and despite the fact that there were several more qualified non-Indian applicants, we hired a Canadian of Indo descent simply to appease the requests of community. Shes a dud, in any other situation she would be fired for lack of performance - but in this situation we are forced to keep her because of the 'socially acceptable' rascist attitudes of our clientelle.

I have no problems saying that as a white male, I am a minority in this community, and as such am not well accepted compared to people of the ethnic majority. Do I deserve to start a parade with the other members of this community to promote the acceptance of others like me in the Newton area? Can you think of the possible outcomes of having a caucasian pride parade if there was one to be held?

I want equality, and I long for acceptance just as I wish others would be more accepting of diversity. These parades and other socially, racially, or sexually exclusive events do not promote acceptance, they promote segregation - which is exactly the wall they claim to be breaking down.

ok now that we've thoroughly discussed this

the article was in the equivalent of a neighborhood weekly shopping newspaper. its a local discussion of something that happened ON THE PLAYGROUND. it wasnt well written.

the reason that it wasnt in the NYTimes or daily news is that it was not news to anyone outside of that neighborhood.

it may have been racial, it may have been a turf thing since the girls were from a different school. it may have just been some kids pissed off because "their" court was being used by someone else when they wanted to use it.

the quotes of what the kids said came from the parents of the girls who were roughed up. maybe they said it, maybe they didnt.

all that happened was 4 girls got roughed up by a bunch of kids. they were all around 12 years old, it was JR HIGH SCHOOL. this is not something that anyone would want to turn into a major crime story. no one in their right minds would want a group of 12 year olds convicted of a hate crime because of something that happened on the playground

and only white supremacists would quote a local rag paper on this, trying to make a huge deal out of it. the only place youll find it discussed in a google search is the original paper and racist websites. the racists are using this little paper to make a huge racial thing out of a playground tussle.

yes black people can be assholes just the same as white people can.

It wasn't reported in any major news outlet because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, not because of any alleged local nature. All events are local; it is the newsworthy nature of the event which promotes its circulation nationally (and even internationally.)

Which, of course, was the intent behind publishing the false story.

Keep in mind that reliable sources would NOT use the terms "black" and "white", so there's not use in searching google with those terms, as you're just going to get racist supremistist sites. Also, if anybody wants to spend money trying to prove this, back order the March 31st New York Post (if it happened, it would be in the "NYPD Daily Blotter" section).

Also, if anyone cares, this would be in the 63rd Precinct (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pct/pct063.html).

It's rather ironic, the current debate on the whole 'I'm not guilty of descrimination even if my parents (or realitive(s) of choice) were', reminds me strongly of the current spat between Japan and China, specificly on if or not Japan has truely apologized for its actions in WWII.

One thing I would like to add though is that in many cases; the majority is not aware of what it does. Most Americans do not leave the US, or when they do, do not stay outside the US for any real length of time. Right now I have been in a small town in Japan for almost 1 year. I am the only American, and white American at that, for miles (or km, this is Japan). My town is welcoming and open, but I can finally understand what many of my minority friends would complain about in the United States.

Being staired at all the time. Being treated as a child at times because I cannot fully understand the language, or speak it differently. People moving away from you when you sit down on the train. Weird ideas about your culture and country, and of course, being made a representitive of ALL your culture and race (currently my students are very interested in the election of the pope and are learning about Islam, they and my co-workers can't seem to understand that I might not know any more about those subjects than they do).

And no, I don't think the Japanese are particuarly racist.

I haven't run into active descrimination (except for a few startled 'Gaijin!' from people), but being different from everyone around me and under pressure of living in another country/culture, has made me a lot more aware of what it means to be an American and my own cultural background.

So where am I going with this rambling?

A. You might not have activily discriminated against anyone, but then again you don't have to. Being part of the majority means you might not be aware of what you and the majority culture is doing.

B. Complaining about pride movements and other miniority group behavores seems to me to be a little shallow, sometimes everyone needs to have a moment of pride in their own background. Being part of the majority though, you get that all the time. Again though, you might not be aware of that.

C. Americans really need to travel more.

D. The thing I miss the most is chocolatechip cookies. The one thing I would say Japan discriminates against is chocolatechip cookies. ;)

Here's another similar story that had a different result:

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=23467
http://www.news4jax.com/news/3687700/detail.html

Here's a website that actually isn't racial supremist that lists these things: http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/02.htm

snip

D. The thing I miss the most is chocolatechip cookies. The one thing I would say Japan discriminates against is chocolatechip cookies. ;)

Well, IMHO, its a fair trade for those Meiji Chocalate-covered Almonds...perhaps diplomatic channels could be used to negotiate an exchange.

Well, IMHO, its a fair trade for those Meiji Chocalate-covered Almonds...perhaps diplomatic channels could be used to negotiate an exchange.

Hmm, you do have a point there, I had forgotten about the wonders I can find in the snack section. ;)

B. Complaining about pride movements and other miniority group behavores seems to me to be a little shallow, sometimes everyone needs to have a moment of pride in their own background. Being part of the majority though, you get that all the time. Again though, you might not be aware of that.
It is not shallow to identify the fatal flaw of such parades, it is shallow to disguise predjudice as cultural pride. I have been witness to enough gay, feminist, black (even calling it black pride promotes rascism for crying out loud!!) parades -- there is no specific cultural background related distinctly to any one of those examples. A gay person, a feminist, or a colored person that partakes in any of such events may well be the cultural mirror of someone else who cannot have a similar parade. It's segregation, pure and simple, and it perpetuates the problems they are trying to fight. A noble cause, but a method that defeats the purpose.

Read the whole post before you make blanket statements like that. I am VERY aware of what I get all the time, usually it's the reverse politics, double standard - heavily favoured by self proclaimed crusaders who fight these problems by using the same methods of exclusion on another level themselves.

I have no issue with parades of a truly cultural or celebratory nature. I do have a problem with parades promoting exclusion and segregation. When marchers take up with signs that bear predjudiced remarks, in an attempt to gain political, social or economic acceptance/equality, they are no different than the predjudism that they stand against. Bigotry is bigotry no matter who doles it out - however, it seems to be somehow acceptable for certain factions of society to use these methods during their attempts to gain ground.

It wasn't reported in any major news outlet because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, not because of any alleged local nature. All events are local; it is the newsworthy nature of the event which promotes its circulation nationally (and even internationally.)

Which, of course, was the intent behind publishing the false story.
it wasnt reported in any major news outlet because it was insignificant. playground fights are only local news and then only if you can find a way to blow it out of proportion

http://www.brooklynskyline.com/news_article.asp?c=ne&na=1486


"Invoking the name “Martin Luther King” and screaming “Black Power!” a gang of up to 30 black teens attacked four white girls in Marine Park in what police are saying is not a bias crime.

The March 30 attack was a hot topic at state Senator Marty Golden’s recent public safety forum.

According to witnesses and parents of the victims, four young girls from St. Edmund’s had the day off from school due to Easter recess. They were playing basketball during dismissal from nearby Marine Park Junior High School, when several Marine Park students demanded to use the court.

After adults intervened and asked them to wait their turn, the teens left - but returned in a pack of up to 30, both boys and girls, and stormed into the park.

Witnesses say the attackers were all black and called their victims “white crackers” during the bloody melee, which raged for almost 20 minutes.

“This is not being looked at as a bias crime,” NYPD Deputy Inspector Kevin McGinn said at the meeting."



This I find extremely absurd. A perfect example of the racial double standard...
Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. On many, many levels.

1. The act itself. I don't think this needs more explanation as to why it is horrid.
2. "Not a bias crime"? Oh c'mon! What, is the police force down there "sampling" the crack cocaine they have in the evidence lockers?
3. Invoking the name of Martin Luther King Jr. while carrying on a vicious racist murder is absurd and sickening.

3. Invoking the name of Martin Luther King Jr. while carrying on a vicious racist murder is absurd and sickening.

Definitely like a game of telephone. There was no murder. No one died, and indeed, it seems the story was false.

Since we seem to have exhausted this convo...

iLock.