NationStates Jolt Archive

That's something I wonder about quite a bit.

As soon as someone dares to utter "I really don't like black people." or "Jews are swindlers.", everyone immediately labels them an evil racist.

Of course, they are racist, but is this always necessarily wrong?

Can it really be called "horrible" or "evil" if some white kid grew up in the ghetto and was constantly harassed by blacks, and then grew up to become a neo-Nazi?

I know that I have some racist views against certain groups, but no one ever knows that I feel this way until I voice it. This is because I always treat people the way they treat me, regardless of their race. If they show me respect, I show them the same respect and consider them a friend. If they're rude and ignorant to me, I give the same attitude back (or, more often, I just ignore them).

Sure, if I'm walking to my car at night after work and see a man lurking nearby, of course I'm going to be more on my guard if he is black than if he is Asian or white.
But if I were to meet someone of any ethnicity or color in a normal setting, I would treat them with the same respect they showed me.

My point is this: Everyone is a little bit prejudiced against some group. Some people have preconceived notions about poor people, others assume things about gays, other people stereotype teenagers, etc.
People can not control their thoughts about certain groups, whether they be negative or positive. What they can control is their behavior, by striving to treat people the way they should be treated.

This is why it bothers me when I see people being criticized for admitting that they have racist thoughts that they can't control.

What do you think?

i think youre right that everyone is prejudiced about some group or other. sometimes its upbringing, sometimes its experiences, some times its LACK of experiences. making judgements is very human. its not inherently morally wrong but it sure can be factually wrong.

you walk to your car avoiding the black man but assuming that the white guy is just fine. you might find yourself killed by the white guy. people who shy away from well dressed middle aged black men in the elevator are just NUTZ. (i hear that it happens but it doesnt make any sense to me)

its seeing a person of another race as "the other" that causes you to remember bad things that they do and assume that all of these "others" will behave the same way. you have been treated badly by members of your own race but you know they are just people, some are good some are bad.

to become an active (as opposed to passive) racist because some black kids were mean to you is just wrong. wrong wrong. wrong. it denies the general truths about humanity (some people are good, some people are bad) and wastes your time with hateful activities. the aryan nation is a waste of your life as well as being wrong.

so yes its quite natural to make assumptions about people based on a variety of things, including race. its human. a wise person thinks it through and treats people as individuals so as to get the maximum benefits from every person they meet.

No-they arent always wrong.

you walk to your car avoiding the black man but assuming that the white guy is just fine. you might find yourself killed by the white guy.


I wouldn't assume the white guy is safe. I'd just be less frightened if the guy was white.

I would be terrified if he was black, though, and would definitely have a can of mace ready if he tried anything.

No, being racist isn't inherently evil. In fact, most people are racists, we all tend to believe the racial superiority of humanity over all other animals and plants. It's behavior that counts more than words in the end.

...we all tend to believe the racial superiority of humanity over all other animals and plants.


Plants and animals count as races?

Plants and animals count as races?
Race is used usually to say a species, so I think referring to white, Asia, black, etc. as races is misleading.

I don't like racism, but I like even less the idea of people policing others' toughts to make sure they aren't racist *shudder*

Racism is always wrong. It is wrong of you to fear the black man more than the white one.

You should fear them equally.

Racsism is so stupid, I find it more productive to hate people on an individual basis.

Race is used usually to say a species, so I think referring to white, Asia, black, etc. as races is misleading.

Just as a nitpicky comment, actually race is a division inside species, like black, white, etc. It only refers to species in RPGs.

Racsism is so stupid, I find it more productive to hate people on an individual basis.
Or in the case of hate, destructive

base your feelings on experience.
dont listen to other people.

Learn to get back in touch with instinct. You were born with it and parents and school stripped it away. If you learn to use it, its like a sixth sense.

I wouldn't assume the white guy is safe. I'd just be less frightened if the guy was white.

I would be terrified if he was black, though, and would definitely have a can of mace ready if he tried anything.
hmmm i find that im more scared if the person looks "gangish" no matter what his race.

although i am getting better at seeing past the gangbanger look to have a better judgement of the person behind the loose fitting clothing.

Any time... and I do mean ANY TIME anyone makes some sort of generalization about a group of people based on what they believe, what they look like, or who they support in government, without taking into account what every person of that group might be like, (varying degree of belief, color of skin ect.) then your assumption falls under discrimination, which by today's standards, usually shows a lack of understanding or education on a certain topic, which would suggest that the person is wrong.


The reason I would be more wary of a black man than a man of any other race is not because of his skin color, but because black men are more violent than men of other races.

Look at crime statistics.
Take a trip to a major prison in any state (given that the state has a substantial amount of blacks).

How many violent criminals are black?
Given what percentage of Americans are black males, they certainly make up a disproportionate number of violent criminals.

Racism has primal roots.

It goes back to the time when anything that didn't look like you was either food, or predator.

base your feelings on experience...

Learn to get back in touch with instinct.

My feelings do come from experience. About every black person I've ever met was a narrow-minded fool who made fun of me because I am more intelligent than they are.

I'm also very in touch with instinct.
When I see a black man coming toward me on a dark street, my instinct is to run.

Really, you should sit down and have a discussion with the guy standing near you're car and get to know him so that you may judge him on an individual level instead of making a decision based on statistical information in order to save you're ass.

That or don't be so cheap and park you're car in a garage :)

My feelings do come from experience. About every black person I've ever met was a narrow-minded fool who made fun of me because I am more intelligent than they are.

I'm also very in touch with instinct.
When I see a black man coming toward me on a dark street, my instinct is to run.
and you started out so nicely. sigh. next time ill know better than to give you a serious answer.

Really, you should sit down and have a discussion with the guy standing near you're car...

That would be a really kind thing to do, actually.

If it were daylight, or I had someone with me, I probably would turn to the black guy and say hello or strike up a conversation.

But if it's on a deserted street at 11:00 at night, and I am a young female all by myself, I'm not worried about being nice. I'm worried about avoiding being raped or mugged.

My feelings do come from experience. About every black person I've ever met was a narrow-minded fool who made fun of me because I am more intelligent than they are.

I'm also very in touch with instinct.
When I see a black man coming toward me on a dark street, my instinct is to run.

So based on your experience with a very small and I mean very small amount of the African American comunity you judge the rest. Fan fucking tastic

My feelings do come from experience. About every black person I've ever met was a narrow-minded fool who made fun of me because I am more intelligent than they are.

I'm also very in touch with instinct.
When I see a black man coming toward me on a dark street, my instinct is to run.

You need help.

I wouldn't assume the white guy is safe. I'd just be less frightened if the guy was white.

I would be terrified if he was black, though, and would definitely have a can of mace ready if he tried anything.
"In case he tried anything"? What, are black people criminals? You're assuming that a black man walking along at night is a criminal...

"In case he tried anything." That is a disgusting thing to say. To you, I ask: "Why would you be terrified?" Because he's black? What is there about being black that makes someone dangerous?

Yes, racism is always bad, because it is the assumption that all members of a group are the same.

I find it appalling that the poll could currently be leading in the "Racism is sometimes okay" side, after a century which showcased the problems of racism and during which so many people fought against it.

How many of you have learned twentieth-century history? I strongly hope that few of you have (which would be bad anyway, but better than the thought of believing racism can be positive with history education...)

You need help.

I second this statement.

My feelings do come from experience. About every black person I've ever met was a narrow-minded fool who made fun of me because I am more intelligent than they are.


That's really just a specific american culture, not a racial situation. Half of the black people I know are from africa, and they are by far more intelligent, polite people than the other half.

So based on your experience with a very small and I mean very small amount of the African American comunity you judge the rest. Fan fucking tastic


Yes, I do.

I'm sorry, but I happen to be excessively leery of black men due to traumatic experiences I've had. I can't control those feelings, it's just how I am.

When I meet black men in normal settings, I feel no fear at all and I'm able to have a conversation.

But if I see a black man lurking near me after dark or in a deserted area, I would be a lot more frightened than if he were white.
Many women feel the same way, but do not want to admit it.

Yeah, it's easy to be racist when a serious of bad events happen to involve certain groups whether or not it's coincidence. I live in Richmond, VA, and over the past several months...

A group of black people threatened to shoot at me and my friends while we were riding in a truck through a neighborhood.

My roommate got mugged by three black guys and got his check card stolen, before he cancelled it, they spent $600 dollars on shoes at Foot Action.

A week later, a black person attempted to mug me while I was walking home drunk, I ran to a porch full of white people and he stopped trying to grab me.

Two or so months later, two people were found murdered 3 blocks from my apartment at the gas station I usually use, close to a black neighborhood.

There were quite a few robberies at gun point on my campus that involved black males within a few months of these events as well. Several sexual assaults as well.

Because of these events, I get scared if I'm on the street at night coming back from a class, and I see a group of black males coming my way. As you can see, whether or not it's justified, it's pretty easy to have a string of events color your view and influence your decisions.

Racism is always wrong. Why? Genetically, the differences between races are miniscule. A black man is simply a white man with different skin, 'tis all. Don't fear black men; fear "gangsta" punks who feel they have something to prove.

Yes, I do.

I'm sorry, but I happen to be excessively leery of black men due to traumatic experiences I've had. I can't control those feelings, it's just how I am.

When I meet black men in normal settings, I feel no fear at all and I'm able to have a conversation.

But if I see a black man lurking near me after dark or in a deserted area, I would be a lot more frightened than if he were white.
Many women feel the same way, but do not want to admit it.

Choice 1. Get over the traumatic experiences and become a better person. Put the painfull parts behind you and grow as a person from it.
Choice 2. Let the experience get the best of you. Become paranoid and lose control of your life to irrational feelings caused by the experience.

Yes, racism is always bad, because it is the assumption that all members of a group are the same.


You do realize that's the only thing that keeps the human brain from disintegrating to putty, right?

People say generalization and assumption like they're bad things, but really they're what make humans able to function in a way no other species on earth can approach. Viewing every circumstance and person as individually relevant makes it almost impossible to accomplish anything. Read some info about AI research.

What is there about being black that makes someone dangerous?

Look at crime stats.

It's not all blacks that I'm wary of, either. It's just young black men.

Look at crime stats.

It's not all blacks that I'm wary of, either. It's just young black men.

O god if I followed every statistic i saw i would never be driving a car again and thanks to the NRA i would own as many weapons as I could.

I live in Richmond, VA


You do realize that explains the entire rest of what you said, right? The reason that you're seeing more black people commit various crimes is because almost all of the poor people in your city are black. If you lived somewhere like here where we have to have white poor people because there aren't enough blacks you would realize violence is a function of poverty, not race. I think you might even already understand this but just haven't met enough white poor people yet. You're most likely really afraid of poor people, not blacks.

Yeah, it's easy to be racist when a serious of bad events happen to involve certain groups whether or not it's coincidence. I live in Richmond, VA, and over the past several months...

A group of black people threatened to shoot at me and my friends while we were riding in a truck through a neighborhood.

My roommate got mugged by three black guys and got his check card stolen, before he cancelled it, they spent $600 dollars on shoes at Foot Action.

A week later, a black person attempted to mug me while I was walking home drunk, I ran to a porch full of white people and he stopped trying to grab me.

Two or so months later, two people were found murdered 3 blocks from my apartment at the gas station I usually use, close to a black neighborhood.

There were quite a few robberies at gun point on my campus that involved black males within a few months of these events as well. Several sexual assaults as well.

Because of these events, I get scared if I'm on the street at night coming back from a class, and I see a group of black males coming my way. As you can see, whether or not it's justified, it's pretty easy to have a string of events color your view and influence your decisions.

Whoa.. That's a lot to deal with at once, and my heart goes out to you.

Your situation is also similar to what has happened to me.
In addition to other bad experiences, I was also sexually abused by two black men as a child, and I think it contributes to my uneasiness.

Look at crime stats.

It's not all blacks that I'm wary of, either. It's just young black men.

You do know that when you account for poverty and police bias the statistical bias disappears?

Look at crime stats.

It's not all blacks that I'm wary of, either. It's just young black men.

Obviously you've had a serious traumatic experience, I wont comment on what it might be because it might be embarassing for you. It seems like you trying to justify you fear but I think this is the wrong way to go about it.

You do know that when you account for poverty and police bias the statistical bias disappears?

Where did you see this?
If you can find an unbiased website that would show me this, I would like to read it through.

I know that poverty breeds crime, some police have a racial bias, etc., but it still doesn't change my feelings. Nothing can.

I honestly wish that I could look at a black man and see the same thing as I would if I looked at a white man (I'd be much happier that way), but I can't.

I honestly wish that I could look at a black man and see the same thing as I would if I looked at a white man (I'd be much happier that way), but I can't.

Just a theory, but maybe you would if the black man was a doctor or something. The thing you really care about is more likely to be the stupid cultural trappings rather than the race. But I might be wrong. I know that's how I work with gays, anyway.

And yes, that claim of stats was total BS, but I seriously think if someone checked it out that would be the situation, especially now that the "gangsta" culture is multiracial.

Where did you see this?
If you can find an unbiased website that would show me this, I would like to read it through.

I know that poverty breeds crime, some police have a racial bias, etc., but it still doesn't change my feelings. Nothing can.

I honestly wish that I could look at a black man and see the same thing as I would if I looked at a white man (I'd be much happier that way), but I can't.

did you ever go to a psychologist to deal with the effects of the incident.

Where did you see this?
If you can find an unbiased website that would show me this, I would like to read it through.

I know that poverty breeds crime, some police have a racial bias, etc., but it still doesn't change my feelings. Nothing can.

I honestly wish that I could look at a black man and see the same thing as I would if I looked at a white man (I'd be much happier that way), but I can't.

Well try and realise what it is you really see when you look at a black man. Really the only difference between the black guy and the white guy is skin pigment and you're not afraid of pigment. What is going on in your mind when you see a black man. My guess? It's not the black strangers you see in particular that you are scared of but that you are projecting those who've hurt you in the past as these strangers though their commonality [in this case, skin colour].

Whoa.. That's a lot to deal with at once, and my heart goes out to you.

In the long run I received no real harm, unlike you...it can be very hard to overcome such traumatic experiences, and your feelings are understandable.

did you ever go to a psychologist to deal with the effects of the incident.


No, I haven't.

I've managed to block most of the abuse out, and I think it's best if it stays that way (a psychologist would try to dig deeper into the past, and I don't want to do that).

No, I haven't.

I've managed to block most of the abuse out, and I think it's best if it stays that way (a psychologist would try to dig deeper into the past, and I don't want to do that).

:rolleyes: But you need to do that in order to get to the heart of the trauma and get past it. By burrying the memories, feelings, etc. you are just hurting yourself more. Proffesional help is always a plus when dealing with traumatic incident.

Well try and realise what it is you really see when you look at a black man.

It depends.
If it's an elderly black man, a little black boy, or a well-dressed black man who works in my office, I usually see them the same way as I would a white man or child because they're no threat to me.

It's young black men with the "gangsta" look that I see as a threat sometimes. I see them as violent rapists.

It's young black men with the "gangsta" look that I see as a threat sometimes. I see them as violent rapists.

And you don't see white and latino "ganstas" the same way?

By burrying the memories, feelings, etc. you are just hurting yourself more.

Not really.
The less I remember, the less I'm bothered by.
The more bits and pieces I remember, the more upset I get.

I think it's okay to be more afraid of a black guy then a white guy, but it's fact, not racism. Here's why:

1. Poor people are more likely to turn to crime.
2. Blacks have only recently recieved fair treatment economically (and of course socially, but that's not important for this), so most black families are still poor.
3. Therefore more blacks are likely to be criminals.

And it's true, more blacks are criminals. It's not really a race divide, but rather an economic divide. It just so happens that blacks are at the lower end of it.

And you don't see white and latino "ganstas" the same way?

No, I don't.

I think of the white gangstas as unthreatening wannabes, and Latinos (male and female) don't make me uncomfortable most of the time, either.

It depends.
If it's an elderly black man, a little black boy, or a well-dressed black man who works in my office, I usually see them the same way as I would a white man or child because they're no threat to me.

It's young black men with the "gangsta" look that I see as a threat sometimes. I see them as violent rapists.

Did the people who abused you have that 'gangsta' look?

I think it's okay to be more afraid of a black guy then a white guy, but it's fact, not racism. Here's why:

1. Poor people are more likely to turn to crime.
2. Blacks have only recently recieved equal treatment economically, so most black families are still poor.
3. Therefore more blacks are likely to be criminals.

And it's true, more blacks are criminals. It's not really a race divide, but rather an economic divide. It just so happens that blacks are at the lower end of it.

:rolleyes:

1.A chair can be sat on.
2.Socrates can be sat on.
3.Therefore Socrates is a chair.
:rolleyes:

Ermm, except mine made sense.

Racism comes from fear and misunderstanding, and the need to expound racist veiws gets stronger the smaller a persons self-esteem is.
.
....Um...yeah I thinks its WRONG

Ermm, except mine made sense.

:rolleyes:

1.People who get picked on are more likely to be killers
2.Nerdy white kids get picked on more then others
3.Therefore nerdy white kids are more likely to be killers.

How about that one. :rolleyes:

I think it's okay to be more afraid of a black guy then a white guy, but it's fact, not racism. Here's why:

1. Poor people are more likely to turn to crime.
2. Blacks have only recently recieved fair treatment economically (and of course socially, but that's not important for this), so most black families are still poor.
3. Therefore more blacks are likely to be criminals.

And it's true, more blacks are criminals. It's not really a race divide, but rather an economic divide. It just so happens that blacks are at the lower end of it.


Everyone keeps saying "it's economics, not color."

But why are poor black ghettoes more crime-ridden than white areas who are just as poor (the Appalachians, for example)? (That really was a valid question, and not a "racist statement.")

Yeah, heard of Columbine?

There are more people in ghettos so there are less job oppurtunities. Plus blacks are likely to be discriminated against, so they have a hard time getting a job in the first place.

:rolleyes:

1.People who get picked on are more likely to be killers
2.Nerdy white kids get picked on more then others
3.Therefore nerdy white kids are more likely to be killers.

How about that one. :rolleyes:


Nerdy white kids actually are more likely to show up at school with a gun, or become serial killers.

Yeah, heard of Columbine?

Does Columbine mean white kids are more likely to be murderers?

No, because the majority of white kids do not get picked on. You're obviously missing my point.

Nerdy white kids actually are more likely to show up at school with a gun, or become serial killers.

So are you afraid of nerdy white kids?

No, because only a few nerdy white kids get picked on.

Can it really be called "horrible" or "evil" if some white kid grew up in the ghetto and was constantly harassed by blacks, and then grew up to become a neo-Nazi?

I wouldn't say "evil," since I don't think such a moral absolute really exists outside the abstract.

But yes, I think it would be wrong. It would be understandable if the white kid haboured some latent racist feelings towards blacks because of his experiences. But acting upon those feelings and advocating others do the same is just as bad as what he had experienced at the hands of the black kids.


Sure, if I'm walking to my car at night after work and see a man lurking nearby, of course I'm going to be more on my guard if he is black than if he is Asian or white.
But if I were to meet someone of any ethnicity or color in a normal setting, I would treat them with the same respect they showed me.

This is completely irrational. Personally, if I was in the same position. I wouldn't really care if a black man in a suit was 'lurking' nearby. I would feel differently if I saw white brick shithouse in a vest covered in tattoos though. Moreso if he was weilding a lead pipe.

My point is this: Everyone is a little bit prejudiced against some group. Some people have preconceived notions about poor people, others assume things about gays, other people stereotype teenagers, etc.
People can not control their thoughts about certain groups, whether they be negative or positive. What they can control is their behavior, by striving to treat people the way they should be treated.

This is why it bothers me when I see people being criticized for admitting that they have racist thoughts that they can't control.

What do you think?

I understand what you are getting at though (nitpicking aside). We seem to almost be conditioned to be distrustful of a certain group (depending on the culture). Which is of course a form of cultural brainwashing, even if it is accidental.

Though for me to be like you and your car is irrational. Since only white kids have tried to mug me (once in broad daylight, on a reasonably busy mainroad. I wonder if that tactic has ever worked for them)

No, because the majority of white kids do not get picked on. You're obviously missing my point.

Because you provided actual statistics with links to a reputable site? Obviously I was wrong in not trusting your data. :rolleyes:

Racism comes from fear and misunderstanding, and the need to expound racist veiws gets stronger the smaller a persons self-esteem is.
.
....Um...yeah I thinks its WRONG

So anything coming from fear and misunderstanding is immoral? So lets say you see a rattlesnake and scream. That's immoral? It fits your second explanation too.

My general view: racism is one way that we classify people, something that humans need to do. Most of the time what's involved is not really racism anyway but fear of big, poor, "gangsta" young men, so the debate is really unimportant anyway.

So are you afraid of nerdy white kids?


Obviously not. :)
But if my friends (99.9% of which are nerdy white kids) start showing up to school with Uzis, then I might be.

No, because only a few nerdy white kids get picked on.


What high school did you attend? :confused:

Everyone keeps saying "it's economics, not color."

But why are poor black ghettoes more crime-ridden than white areas who are just as poor (the Appalachians, for example)? (That really was a valid question, and not a "racist statement.")

I think its because in the Appalachians people are more widespaced and more power is held by older peopleas opposed to younger. Also, there isn't much opportunity for crime in the Appalachians.

No, because prejudiced is something everyone is towards something or other. It makes people unique and who they are.

i grew up in the back woods of america and ill tell yall what me grandpappy told me at a very young age...your not racist if you hate everyone equally, because by being racist you favor one race over another but if you hate everyone your not technically racist

What high school did you attend? :confused:

Actually this explains the whole thing: the high schools with more wealthy, liberal people (things most blacks aren't able to be) both are more tolerant of nerds and have white people doing the things black people stereotypically do.

The reason I would be more wary of a black man than a man of any other race is not because of his skin color, but because black men are more violent than men of other races.

Look at crime statistics.
Take a trip to a major prison in any state (given that the state has a substantial amount of blacks).

How many violent criminals are black?
Given what percentage of Americans are black males, they certainly make up a disproportionate number of violent criminals.


Also, only 20% of coons will enter college (not pass) and more than 60% will go to prison! White pride world wide

I do indeed think Racism is just. No oe can judge you on what you believe. Here in Amerika, we have freedom of speech, belief, press, etc...

If you wish to express yourself in your ways of thinking you are superior to another group, you run into laws prohibiting it. I think that there really is no choice and you reall cannot be free to Beleve what you want publicly, wich is why groups like the KKK exist. If we were more free, I believe these groups would not need to fear these un-constitutional laws.

i grew up in the back woods of america and ill tell yall what me grandpappy told me at a very young age...your not racist if you hate everyone equally, because by being racist you favor one race over another but if you hate everyone your not technically racist

Right. That makes you a misanthrope.

So anything coming from fear and misunderstanding is immoral? So lets say you see a rattlesnake and scream. That's immoral? It fits your second explanation too.

My general view: racism is one way that we classify people, something that humans need to do. Most of the time what's involved is not really racism anyway but fear of big, poor, "gangsta" young men, so the debate is really unimportant anyway.


Don't be such a tosser. A) I said no such thing. Things that come from fear and misunderstanding do have a tendency to end in tears. Getting scared by a rattlesnake is instinct, not judgement. Jumping back from a poisonous snake is hardly so preposterous as advocting harm upon anyone on any basis, much less one so flimsy and pointless as racism.


Otherwise, I agree, it comes from a survival instinct used to make it easier to stay alive and enjoy that life. And why is the debate unimportant? Because its about young, poor, black males.? WTF :rolleyes:

Also, only 20% of coons will enter college (not pass) and more than 60% will go to prison! White pride world wide


Okay, perhaps I can believe the college statistic. Perhaps.

But that 60% of blacks will go to prison in their lives? Even I think that number is unrealistically high.

The reason I would be more wary of a black man than a man of any other race is not because of his skin color, but because black men are more violent than men of other races.

Look at crime statistics.
Take a trip to a major prison in any state (given that the state has a substantial amount of blacks).

How many violent criminals are black?
Given what percentage of Americans are black males, they certainly make up a disproportionate number of violent criminals.

1) To which crime statistics are you referring? Please provide site links (and not to avowed racist organization websites, please.)

2) Why limit your prison trips to states with a "substantial amount" of blacks? Doesn't including the predominately white states make your evaluation more accurate (meaning, of course, that you are not attempting to examine only those states where you would anticipate finding a "substantial amount" of blacks in the general population.)

3) What is the "disproportionate percentage" to which you refer? Again, please provide site links to support this statement.

Don't be such a tosser. A) I said no such thing. Things that come from fear and misunderstanding do have a tendency to end in tears. Getting scared by a rattlesnake is instinct, not judgement. Jumpinmg back from a poisonous snake is hardly so preposterous as advocting harm upon anyone on any basis, much less one so flimsy and pointless as racism.


Otherwise, I agree, it comes from a survival instinct used to make it easier to stay alive and enjoy that life. Andy why is the debate unimportant? Because its about young, poor, black males.? WTF :rolleyes:

Look, if anyone here is actually advocating taking action against anybody, may they please step forward.

Now that that's over with, what I'm trying to say is that for many of these people they are making legitamate use of fear and misunderstanding in grand human tradition.

As for the debate thing, the point is that the reasons that people think they're racist are more tied to factors other than race, so they really aren't relevant examples if you're actually talking about racism.

Okay, perhaps I can believe the college statistic. Perhaps.

But that 60% of blacks will go to prison in their lives? Even I think that number is unrealistically high.

And you have to factor in how many of those african americans are put there by racist cops or by harsh drug laws which have high prison sentences.

And you have to factor in how many of those african americans are put there .... by harsh drug laws which have high prison sentences.

Just being nitpicky, I'm not sure why that part would have a specific race divide besides the socio-economic factors we already discussed.

I do indeed think Racism is just. No oe can judge you on what you believe. Here in Amerika, we have freedom of speech, belief, press, etc...

If you wish to express yourself in your ways of thinking you are superior to another group, you run into laws prohibiting it. I think that there really is no choice and you reall cannot be free to Beleve what you want publicly, wich is why groups like the KKK exist. If we were more free, I believe these groups would not need to fear these un-constitutional laws.

It is true that we enjoy these freedoms in the United States. It is equally true that men and women of all races died protecting those rights. Better that you judge the man next to you on individual merit than make blanket proclamations which have little basis in objective fact.

Also, the KKK did not come into existence as a result of what has loosely been labelled "political correctness." This organization preceded by many decades the general social movement away from thoughtless comment and pointless insult. You have to understand the political and social dynamics of the pre-Civil War states (North and South) to appreciate how the KKK came to be.

And why its existence today is as ridiculous as it was at its inception.

Just being nitpicky, I'm not sure why that part would have a specific race divide besides the socio-economic factors we already discussed.

Because cops incarcerating people with planted evidence isnt the same as being poor and doing a crime.

Because cops incarcerating people with planted evidence isnt the same as being poor and doing a crime.

Of course that was covered under your first point, but I'll shut up about this now.

1) To which crime statistics are you referring? Please provide site links (and not to avowed racist organization websites, please.)

2) Why limit your prison trips to states with a "substantial amount" of blacks? Doesn't including the predominately white states make your evaluation more accurate (meaning, of course, that you are not attempting to examine only those states where you would anticipate finding a "substantial amount" of blacks in the general population.)

3) What is the "disproportionate percentage" to which you refer? Again, please provide site links to support this statement.


Wow..Do you have any idea how hard it is to find some non-WP websites about black crime on Google?


This is from the FBI. Take a look at the offenders section to see the fact that blacks obviously commit more crimes than whites. The fact that you would even ask for proof of this is laughable.

Look at this. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html)

Looking at the stats makes it obvious that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Blacks make up less than 15% of the U.S. population, yet they account for almost half the crime?
You can't explain all of it away by police bias and poverty, either.

Everyone keeps saying "it's economics, not color."
But why are poor black ghettoes more crime-ridden than white areas who are just as poor (the Appalachians, for example)? (That really was a valid question, and not a "racist statement.")


I think its because in the Appalachians people are more widespaced and more power is held by older peopleas opposed to younger. Also, there isn't much opportunity for crime in the Appalachians.

I am not sure where you two are from, but I actually represent criminal defendants in Kentucky (part of which is Appalachian country.) You---especially The Bauhas---have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

You are making blanket generalizations on what you have been told by other equally-uninformed people. The fact is that any generalization based on race is a "racist" statement.

If it weren't, you would not spend nearly this much time attempting to stress the point of your message and somehow justify it as logical or even valid.

What you are really saying is that Blacks are predisposed to be criminals, and are using these vacuous examples as tacit "proof."

Provide a link (not to a avowed racist organization) which objectively supports these conclusions. Then a real dialogue can take place.

Wow..Do you have any idea how hard it is to find some non-WP websites about black crime on Google?


This is from the FBI. Take a look at the offenders section to see the fact that blacks obviously commit more crimes than whites. The fact that you would even ask for proof of this is laughable.

Look at this. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html)

Looking at the stats makes it obvious that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Blacks make up less than 15% of the U.S. population, yet they account for almost half the crime?
You can't explain all of it away by police bias and poverty, either.

I stand by post earlier saying you should get psychological help. I am not saying this in an insulting way, I think you really should consider the benefits of addressing the irrational fear you have presented here.

You are making blanket generalizations on what you have been told by other equally-uninformed people.

Not at all.
If I based my opinions about race from what I've been told all my life, I'd be more accepting than most folks, as my parents are the most liberal people you can imagine.
My opinions about blacks are based on experience. Sure, that experience is somewhat limited, and maybe my views would change if I met more respectable blacks. But I haven't. And, until I do, I'll probably continue to feel this way.


If it weren't, you would not spend nearly this much time attempting to stress the point of your message and somehow justify it as logical or even valid.

If you read my first post, you would see that "my point" is not to try and prove blacks inferior or inherently violent. My point is that people who are racist shouldn't always be labeled evil bastards, because their views are sometimes understandable.

I am not sure where you two are from, but I actually represent criminal defendants in Kentucky (part of which is Appalachian country.) You---especially The Bauhas---have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

You are making blanket generalizations on what you have been told by other equally-uninformed people. The fact is that any generalization based on race is a "racist" statement.

If it weren't, you would not spend nearly this much time attempting to stress the point of your message and somehow justify it as logical or even valid.

What you are really saying is that Blacks are predisposed to be criminals, and are using these vacuous examples as tacit "proof."

Provide a link (not to a avowed racist organization) which objectively supports these conclusions. Then a real dialogue can take place.

So why are you quoting me when I agreed with you? (or The-Bahuas when they said they weren't trying to prove a point, for that matter). The fact that said statistics are wrong would be another great point if you can back it up. I just gave an explanation of what could be making the statistics if they are actually true besides race.

If you read my first post, you would see that "my point" is not to try and prove blacks inferior or inherently violent. My point is that people who are racist shouldn't always be labeled evil bastards, because their views are sometimes understandable.

Are you kidding me. How is labeling a whole group of people based on hate, ignorance, small personal experiences, or from parents at all understandable. Its ignorant and hateful period. I don't supose you think its understandable for people to go around fantasizing about killing people?

Are you kidding me. How is labeling a whole group of people based on hate, ignorance, small personal experiences, or from parents at all understandable?

It is sometimes understandable if based on experience.

If someone has had numereous horrible experiences at the hands of a certain group, it's understandable that they would harbor fear or animosity toward that group.

It's just like the way some black people experience racism from white people, and assume all white people are prejudiced.

Look, if anyone here is actually advocating taking action against anybody, may they please step forward.

Now that that's over with, what I'm trying to say is that for many of these people they are making legitamate use of fear and misunderstanding in grand human tradition.

As for the debate thing, the point is that the reasons that people think they're racist are more tied to factors other than race, so they really aren't relevant examples if you're actually talking about racism.


Let me get this straight: If racism isn't about racism, what is it about? Shopping? Dental surgery. Perhaps instead Racism is about other equally meaningless things?

It is sometimes understandable if based on experience.

If someone has had numereous horrible experiences at the hands of a certain group, it's understandable that they would harbor fear or animosity toward that group.

It's just like the way some black people experience racism from white people, and assume all white people are prejudiced.

I had an African American man who was high off drugs threaten to kill me on a subway in DC. So you are saying it is now okay for me to label all African Americans based off this experience?

It is sometimes understandable if based on experience.

If someone has had numereous horrible experiences at the hands of a certain group, it's understandable that they would harbor fear or animosity toward that group.

It's just like the way some black people experience racism from white people, and assume all white people are prejudiced.

It may be understandable, and even seem rational to the person who's experiencing the feelings, but irrational fears are still irrational.

And I agree with the others who've said you should seek professional help.

I had an African American man who was high off drugs threaten to kill me on a subway in DC. So you are saying it is now okay for me to label all African Americans based off this experience?


I believe I specified that "numerous" experiences can make prejudicial feelings understandable.

Imagine if you had been raped, abused, and generally harrassed by blacks all your life. It would be natural if you carried some fear toward them.

Wow..Do you have any idea how hard it is to find some non-WP websites about black crime on Google?


This is from the FBI. Take a look at the offenders section to see the fact that blacks obviously commit more crimes than whites. The fact that you would even ask for proof of this is laughable.

Look at this. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html)

Looking at the stats makes it obvious that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Blacks make up less than 15% of the U.S. population, yet they account for almost half the crime?
You can't explain all of it away by police bias and poverty, either.

Yes, I do realize how difficult it is to find a reputable sites regarding crimes statistics as correlated with Black population. This is because all---ALL---reputable reporting agencies realize the classification is irrelevant as a factor when analyzing the CAUSE of crime (which is really your point in citing the FBI's website.)

I did examine this site, by the way. You should pay close attention to the demographic breakdown.

Just looking at the statistics on homicides committed in 2002, and factoring in "cross-race" murders, it appears that white victims have far more to fear from white perpetrators. This is because 3000 whites were killed by white perps, as opposed to just 483 by black perps. This is from the site which YOU referred us to, incidentally.

Doubt what I've said. Here's the chart:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html#t206

But that's just statistics, right? Your real point is that you are fearful of young black men, and no amount of logic to the contrary is going to change that. You can rely on all the skewed and improperly-analyzed statistics you like as a salve to sooth you feelings of guilt in this regard. Still wondering why I asked for proof of the statistics you quote----erroneously, as it turns out.

Stop attempting to legitimize your fear and simply accept that it is personal to you---and should remain so. It does not and cannot apply to people who have not had the experiences you've described.

I think racism is based on fear


Everyones skin is white when you remove the pigment under the skin FACT

It may be understandable, and even seem rational to the person who's experiencing the feelings, but irrational fears are still irrational.

What is irrational about fearing a black man more than a white man when black males are obviously the more violent group?

I believe I specified that "numerous" experiences can make prejudicial feelings understandable.

Imagine if you had been raped, abused, and generally harrassed by blacks all your life. It would be natural if you carried some fear toward them.

Yet that percentage of african americans you have had incidents with is incredible small when compaired to the amount of african americans who are alive. Face it you are making blanket generalizations on a group of people because you had a traumatic experience. As i said before get some professional help to address these feelings.

What is irrational about fearing a black man more than a white man when black males are obviously the more violent group?

Read the FBI statistics you quoted. Again, please. Then repeat the statement you just made.

If you are going to draw conclusions, at LEAST have the statistics you cite actually SUPPORT the position you offer.

Judge for yourself:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html#t206

By the way, you also have to account for recidivism rates as a function of crime statistics. As a criminal defense lawyer, I understand how important accuracy in statistical analysis can be when attempting to assert a conclusion as true.

...3000 whites were killed by white perps, as opposed to just 483 by black perps.

The only white people who have more to fear from other whites than from blacks are whites who live in predominately-white areas (and many whites do. The U.S. is still pretty color-segregated).

The fact remains that black people are more violent than whites, and if blacks from the ghetto started moving into the suburbs, I guarantee you the number of black-on-white violent crimes would sky-rocket.

The only white people who have more to fear from other whites than from blacks are whites who live in predominately-white areas (and many whites do. The U.S. is still pretty color-segregated).

The fact remains that black people are more violent than whites, and if blacks from the ghetto started moving into the suburbs, I guarantee you the number of black-on-white violent crimes would sky-rocket.

I dont know whats worse the ignorance shown in this post or the poster's knowledge that they have a problem and refuse to get any help with it. I pity you.

In America, poor people commit more crime. Most African-Americans are poor, hence it stands to reason that African-Americans commit more crimes. The presence of criminality inducing substances like crack-cocaine, along with abysmal property ownership among blacks, only intensifies this trend.

As for Africans, you can't make a cogent argument about criminal activity on that continent without taking into account the state-sponsored crimes that have occurred throughout the rest of the world over the last century. Germans, Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, Japanese, etc have all at some time adopted practices of mass murder that would put any African nation to shame. Only the Rwandan genocide could even remotely approach such butchery, and even then only on a per capita basis.

If you are going to draw conclusions, at LEAST have the statistics you cite actually SUPPORT the position you offer.


I think you should take a second look at that chart.

The number of black murder offenders (5,579) is higher than the number of white offenders (5,356), and blacks make up less than 15% of the population. Just think about that.

What is irrational about fearing a black man more than a white man when black males are obviously the more violent group?

The root assumptions are irrational:

1) Race among humans does not exist.

2) Black males are simply not obviously more violent.

Racism is always wrong.
It may have a solid basis to an individual, but to judge people on their race because of others in that race is wrong
Are whites all evil because Hitler, Stalin, the KKK, the Nazis and Ed Gein were white?

I dont know whats worse the ignorance shown in this post or the poster's knowledge that they have a problem and refuse to get any help with it. I pity you.

What's ignorant is when people ignore the facts.

The fact remains that blacks are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime (as compared to whites).

It would logically follow that -as a group- they are more violent than whites.

Of course, some of their imprisonments are the result of racism and poverty, but that doesn't explain away all of them.

The only white people who have more to fear from other whites than from blacks are whites who live in predominately-white areas (and many whites do. The U.S. is still pretty color-segregated).

------The statistics are categorized geographically, as well. The highest percentage of gun-related crime occurs in the Northeast section of the United States. The largest section of the black population resides in the American South. Your analysis missed the fact that these statistics are weighted to establish a calculated mean.

Try again, but with more analysis first, please.


The fact remains that black people are more violent than whites, and if blacks from the ghetto started moving into the suburbs, I guarantee you the number of black-on-white violent crimes would sky-rocket.

-------Let's see....if lower-income people move from the poor areas into more affluent areas, the amount of crime committed by the lower-income group against the higher-income group would sky-rocket.

I can agree with this. Crime and poverty are statistically---and demonstrably----related.

If Blacks move next to Whites, the amount of black-on-white crime would skyrocket because blacks are more violent than whites.

Well, that whole Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nation, skin-heads thing aside, you may be right. Not likely, but possibly (can anyone say "Rosewood" or "Bedford-Stuyvessant?")

Anyway, still waiting for the statistical proof that dark skin correlates with violent propensities. You're drawing the comparison, and the stats you cite don't reflect this.

What's ignorant is when people ignore the facts.

The fact remains that blacks are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime (as compared to whites).

It would logically follow that -as a group- they are more violent than whites.

Of course, some of their imprisonments are the result of racism and poverty, but that doesn't explain away all of them.

Seriously get some mental help and I will bet you that this point of view of yours will go away. You have been traumatized at a young age and then proceded to repress the incident. That is not healthy and you should go see a professional doctor to help you get over the incident seeing as it still influences you.

Anyway, still waiting for the statistical proof that dark skin correlates with violent propensities.

I never said that it did (having dark skin isn't what makes someone black, anyway).

I don't know why blacks are more violent than whites. I'm sure poverty has a lot to do with it, and it could also be the fact that urban American black kids are fed this "gangsta" garbage that glorifies violence.
I don't know why, and frankly I don't care. The fact of the matter is that they are.

You're drawing the comparison, and the stats you cite don't reflect this.

The chart you posted shows that blacks commit more violent crimes than whites.
Please, look at it.

The root assumptions are irrational:

1) Race among humans does not exist.

2) Black males are simply not obviously more violent.

I don't get point 1). It's probably true that "race" as it is defined is arbitrary lines draw along physical characteristics, and is not in any case a very useful concept. That said, almost everyone acknowledges the existence of "race". So you can't in fairness say it doesn't exist.

I think you should take a second look at that chart.

The number of black murder offenders (5,579) is higher than the number of white offenders (5,356), and blacks make up less than 15% of the population. Just think about that.

Au contraire, mon frair. Your point was that your fear of the "risk" young Black men pose to you as a young White woman is justified given the more "violent" nature of young Black men.

But the statistics you quote prove just the opposite as far as YOU are concerned. As a Black man, I HAVE MORE TO FEAR FROM YOUNG BLACK MEN THAN YOU DO. This is clear when you examine the section of the chart which cross-references the race of the perpetrator and the race of the victim. Gross statistics are MEANINGLESS in terms of establishing individual risk to a victim. This is the point of the geographic and racial breakdown of the statistics.

Read the statistics, and understand this very simple and obvious point. You're arguing that your fear is rational. I am arguing that you are magnifying the risk posed to you by the group you fear, and the statistics YOU cite support the argument I am making.

If you locate the FBI statistics from ALL violent crimes---and particularly sex crimes---you will find the same trend. Limit it to geographic proximity if you like, but the person most likely to offend you look just like you. That is true for people of ALL races.

Read the statistics, and understand them. Please.

...go see a professional doctor to help you get over the incident seeing as it still influences you.


It's not just a single incident that influences me (If I hated every race based on a "single incident", I'd hate them all), but many.

In addition to the incident, I have been harrassed and mistreated by blacks for my whole life. What I'm saying is that I shouldn't be called "evil" for feeling uncomfortable around some blacks, because my feelings are natural and uncontrollable.

...the person most likely to offend you look just like you. That is true for people of ALL races.

I will never be able to look at a mirror the same way again...

It's not just a single incident that influences me (If I hated every race based on a "single incident", I'd hate them all), but many.

In addition to the incident, I have been harrassed and mistreated by blacks for my whole life. What I'm saying is that I shouldn't be called "evil" for feeling uncomfortable around some blacks, because my feelings are natural and uncontrollable.

But thats the problem they are controlable and not really healthy feelings. You can go to a professional doctor and talk about the problems. You can chose to go beyond the hate and be a better person rather then sinking down to others levels. But instead you choose to repress the incident and lable all blacks because of the actions of a few. YOU choose to let the people who abused you win when you act like this.

What's ignorant is when people ignore the facts.

The fact remains that blacks are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime (as compared to whites).

It would logically follow that -as a group- they are more violent than whites.

Of course, some of their imprisonments are the result of racism and poverty, but that doesn't explain away all of them.

I agree that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of the total violent crime than population statistics would sugeest, but "Blacks are more violent than whites" is an gross simplification, and massively inaccurate.

What makes the difference is that there is more whites that do not commit crimes, and do not need to commit crimes, due to education, jobs and social factors.

White people have not really picked up the gang culture yet, and do not have the same problems with familial culture in crime. What I mean by that is that not many white people go into crime as a result of family, except the various Mafias.

Let's face it, the amount of young blacks raised by single mothers in ghettos with male family in jail, dead, or in crime is far greater than young whites.

...you as a young White woman


I don't have a drop of white blood in me, actually. :)

As a Black man, I HAVE MORE TO FEAR FROM YOUNG BLACK MEN THAN YOU DO.


Obviously so, because I now live in a 95% white area where I rarely come into contact with blacks.

Assuming you live in a more diverse area, of course you're more likely to be attacked by a black man.

And if I lived in a more diverse area, I -as a young woman- would be even more at risk than you are.

Black man aren't less likely to attack me simply because I'm a non-black female, but because I rarely come into contact with them.

It's not just a single incident that influences me (If I hated every race based on a "single incident", I'd hate them all), but many.

In addition to the incident, I have been harrassed and mistreated by blacks for my whole life. What I'm saying is that I shouldn't be called "evil" for feeling uncomfortable around some blacks, because my feelings are natural and uncontrollable.

And there it is, finally. I mentioned that you are attempting to legitimize your fear---and this is the proof of my conclusion. If your cited statistics mean anything to you, you would feel far more uncomfortable with the White man seated next to you in class, or on the busstop or in the parking garage.

Which, of course, is equally irrational. I won't attempt to account for why, as you state, Blacks have mistreated you all your life. Do you think it might have something to do with your unflinching belief that Blacks are more violently-inclined? Something about subconscious reflection and silent communication. Hmmm.....

But you did state earlier that you were NOT linking dark skin and crime, right? If pigmentation does not determine what is "Black" (or presumably "White") for you, on what criteria are you relying?

To all the Europeaners and Internationals in this thread, allow me to apologize on behalf of my countrymen.

As you undoubtedly have gathered, America has serious problems in race-relations. On top of that a great many American forum-dwellers think the only solution is to throw meaningless statistics at one another and pretend to be the sole authority on whatever is being argued.

I stopped visiting American political forums a long time ago, mostly as a respite from the insufferable breed of ignorance and closemindedness that festered in them. But misery certainly does love company, and now international forums are slowly becoming contaminated as well.

Please don't take it personally. These guys are only being themselves (as frightening as that may sound)

To all the Europeaners and Internationals in this thread, allow me to apologize on behalf of my countrymen.

As you undoubtedly have gathered, America has serious problems in race-relations. On top of that a great many American forum-dwellers think the only solution is to throw meaningless statistics at one another and pretend to be the sole authority on whatever is being argued.

I stopped visiting American political forums a long time ago, mostly as a respite from the insufferable breed of ignorance and closemindedness that festered in them. But misery certainly does love company, and now international forums are slowly becoming contaminated as well.

Please don't take it personally. These guys are only being themselves (as frightening as that may sound)

This post was not needed at all and is one hell of a flame bait

If pigmentation does determine what is "Black" (or presumably "White") for you, on what criteria are you relying?

It doesn't determine what is black to me. I already said that.

If a black person were to bleach their skin white, everyone would still know they were black because of their facial features and hair.

If a white person tans themself black, everyone would still know they weren't black by looking at the same characteristics.

Ancestry determines race, not color.

All I can say is there's a reason Germany is exporting Mercedes's and Africa's main export and achievement seems to be all the world's worst epidemics.

Unlike likely all the posters on this topic, I've spent time around and known hundreds of black people in my life. I've lived in and around Baltimore my entire life (the heroin and murder per capita capital), done every drug in the book, seen and known some of the lowest, deadliest, scummiest, most pathetic, most dangerous, and every other type you wouldn't wanna know. I've seen the lowest low crackheads are willing to sink to. I've also spent time in a suburban setting, I've seen all the best of various groups of people, as well as the worst.

From my largely shameful experiences, I've gleaned a bit of knowledge on the subject that people who've only spoken to "caucasized" negroids who are in the large majority and have assimilated into white/other culture cannot possibly have. I've seen white crackheads do some truly pathetic things, I've seen what white dealers do, I've known every type of poor white trash you can know. I've done the same with blacks (Baltimore largely devoid of Asian/Hispanics). What I've concluded from this extremely in-depth "study" is that life and perspective is a game of percentages.

I think everybody in this day and age realizes blanket statements about race or whatever other topic are stupid. What most people fail to realize is that statements like "each gender is totally equal, all races are completely equal outside pigment" falls into the same category of foolish blanket statements. Take 100 Eskimos and 100 Kenyans and run them on a 20 mile marathon through blazing heat. Who are you putting money on? The reasoning goes beyond "Kenyans are more used to heat", and even using that logic is itself an admission that there is SOME difference beyond simply pigment. Who are you taking in a math contest between 100 Peruvians and 100 Japanese? Is the racial composition of the NBA just some miraculous coincidence? I could go on all day. Are all Jews greedy? Hell no. Are a higher percentage of Jews greedier than, say, Swedes? Were it possible to measure, you might be surprised by the results.

I have to say, and I find it unfortunate, that through al my experience, the hundreds of poor blacks I've known have been, on a general basis, stupider, more prone to violence, more prone to theft, and all sorts of unfortunately similar inferiorities. It all goes back to "Eve", or "Out of Africa" theory. Life originated in Africa, right? Scientists have long theorized that the inability of Africans as a whole to advance on par with the rest of the human race is attributable largely to its makeup of jungle canopy and desert being unsuitable for agriculture (like rocky Europe is better). Assuming this is so, obviously numbers of likely habilines decided to move on to greener pastures and establish themselves in more suitable climates. Who stayed behind, and why? I'll leave that and its implications unanswered.

Pick any random black person and put them up against a white person in a match of wits. Could they win? Absolutely. Pick 100,000 black people and put them up against 100,000 Dutch. Will they win? I ain't puttin' my money on em. Explain it away to oppression, poverty, anything you like. It doesn't much matter when 3 black guys are following behind you on Edmundson Ave. Collegiate rhetoric about the black man being kept down is nice, but simply fails to have relevance when you're on the streets. One could also argue that several other races were "kept down", yet fought through that adversity to have a higher median income and lower crime rate.

All of this is no excuse for hatred toward blacks or any group for the sake of that hatred. Believing race is skin deep, however, is oblivious to reality. That belief is based on subjective feelings of what one wants to believe, rather than an objective, empirical analysis of facts with a neutral opinion, rather than the need to interpret data with a "ok, so the crime rate is higher, which cause can I attribute this to?" mindset. Like I said, life is about playing the percentages. There's a reason cops go after teenagers. There's a reason they after black teenagers and not 95 year old Chinese women. It's not sexism, it's not racism, it's about playing the percentages. I find that people with belief about irrelevance of race have largely met only other races which have already been assimilated into their culture, and get the rest from MTV or whoever else.

It doesn't determine what is black to me. I already said that.

If a black person were to bleach their skin white, everyone would still know they were black because of their facial features and hair.

If a white person tans themself black, everyone would still know they weren't black by looking at the same characteristics.

Ancestry determines race, not color.

Its this same type of thinking that helped cause the Rwandian genocide.

Its this same type of thinking that helped cause the Rwandian genocide.


Really?

Would you like to tell us what determines race (if not ancestry)?

Would you like to tell us what determines race (if not ancestry)?

Race is a cultural and intellectual construct that has been changing and developing over the entire course of Western civilization. What determines race? The most popular thinker/thinkers of your time.

Hey, I'm new and here's my new and completely right opinion that you all will never forget because it's that damn good. Just kidding.

So I'm a 16 year old white guy from south Houston. (locally known as H-town or SoHo) And we got a hell of a mix of cultures here. I AM A MINORITY AT MY HIGH-SCHOOL!

When I was growing up my best friend was Lenin Havier Espinosa, kid fresh off the plane from Panama. We hung out a lot, one on one we got along. RACE WAS NO ISSUE! But then we get into some toes being stepped on when we get into a group of his latino friends. CULTURE BARES ISSUES!

A person who judges race will guess to know a person by looking at him. Racist ideas are usually incorrect and counter productive.
I am a culturalist. I take pride in knowing when the f*** to keep my mouth shut in a crowd. I know that guy with a black towel and gold crest on his head wants to reach 7th heaven by Jihad. I'm not going to judge him on a personal level, but I'm not gonna ask him to come to my freaking church. I know that Jerome is a hard working, family oriernted guy. But I'm not gonna be around when the Panthers walk through the door. You know why? Because cultures don't consist of people, they are larger than people. Instinct brings us to slowly forsake everything else for people who look like us, who share our culture. It's not race that separates Panzers from Panthers, but culture. I don't judge one as being better than the other, but people love their own culture more than anything else that can bind a population. I get stared at and shut out in a flea market, pero cuando hablamos con Span/english todo's aight.(but when we talk in span/english, everything is aight) Because I related with their lengua, a cultural thing. But if I pretend to not understand, not offensively and not rude, just as a guy who only speaks English, the whole scene is different. THEY HATE THE WHITE GUY WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND! They don't know what kind of person I am, but they know I fit the suit for the culture they have encountered. When I break that suit, by speaking Spanish, MY RACE IS STILL THE SAME BUT MY CULTURAL LABEL IS DIFFERENT!

In conclusion, I'M WHITE BUT I FIT IN WITH MEXICANS BECAUSE I SPEAK SPANISH! :upyours: Race does not bring me into open arms but culture does. Race does not leave me excluded in friendly conversations, but culture does. THE CULTURES DIVIDE! NOT THE COLORS IN THEM!

I find that people with belief about irrelevance of race have largely met only other races which have already been assimilated into their culture, and get the rest from MTV or whoever else.

I've noticed the same thing.

I love it when suburban, liberal white kids say "Ooh! They're all equal in every way! Let's all love each other!"

I doubt they'd be preaching the same "love and compassion" tripe if you dropped them off on the West side of Chicago for a few hours.

I don't have a drop of white blood in me, actually. :)



Obviously so, because I now live in a 95% white area where I rarely come into contact with blacks.

No, dear. The statistics assume we are located in the same geographic area. Notwithstanding this, if you move to an area in which the predominate race is the race to which you belong, the risk of harm to you by a member of your own race increases dramatically. This is the logical conclusion offered by the FBI's statistics.

And for our apologetic European contributor, these are NOT my statistics. Examine the chart yourself and see if your vastly superior European intellect draws a different conclusion.


Assuming you live in a more diverse area, of course you're more likely to be attacked by a black man.

No, dear. I am more likely to be attacked by a fellow Black because I am Black---geography is irrelevant to the extent there are other Blacks proximately located. The same is true for you within a group of members of your own race.

And if I lived in a more diverse area, I -as a young woman- would be even more at risk than you are.

Your cited statistics do not support this conclusion. If you have another information source to establish this, I will concede the point. You conclusion would contradict at least a decade of recorded crime statistics, however.

Black man aren't less likely to attack me simply because I'm a non-black female, but because I rarely come into contact with them.

See answer, above.

Nicely putRace is a cultural and intellectual construct that has been changing and developing over the entire course of Western civilization. What determines race? The most popular thinker/thinkers of your time.

This post was not needed at all and is one hell of a flame bait

It might not have been necessary, but it is nevertheless the truth as I see it, and as such I seriously hope it won't elicit flaming.

Its this same type of thinking that helped cause the Rwandian genocide.

I agree.

What determines race? The most popular thinker/thinkers of your time.


It's more simple than that, I think.

A person of Nigerian descent who has black skin, kinky hair, and large features is not Asian, not Caucasian, but black.

A Finnish person with pale skin, blonde hair, and blues eyes is white.

Facts are facts, no matter what anyone thinks.

I don't get point 1). It's probably true that "race" as it is defined is arbitrary lines draw along physical characteristics, and is not in any case a very useful concept. That said, almost everyone acknowledges the existence of "race". So you can't in fairness say it doesn't exist.

Would you agree that if we are going to make biological determinism based argument ("black men are more violent than white men") based on statistics, that a clear cut and agreed upon biological definition of the terms existed? Otherwise, the statistics are meaningless.

In regards to the particular post, the main set of statistics (the FBI crime report murder rates) provides no explanation of how race was determined. Was it self selection (as the census does)? Then the statistics are flawed and invalid, because there is no clear definition.
Was it done under a scientific selection? If so, then what were the exact factors used to detemine race?
If neither, then the statistics are invalid

If I were to collect a set of statistics showing that people who's given names begin with the letters A-L are more likely to commit violent crimes than those who's names begin with M-Z (actually a less arbitrary selection, as that can at least be clearly defined), would you give it credence?

I am more likely to be attacked by a fellow Black because I am Black.

Why would a black man who wants to rob or rape someone be more likely to choose a fellow black than a non-black person?

If someone has violent intentions, they don't stop and think to themselves: "Hmmm...I would attack her, but she's Asian. I think I'll attack that black girl over there!"

Posted by The Bauhas


It's more simple than that, I think.

A person of Nigerian descent who has black skin, kinky hair, and large features is not Asian, not Caucasian, but black.

A Finnish person with pale skin, blonde hair, and blues eyes is white.

Facts are facts, no matter what anyone thinks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts huh? Well which facts are we looking at? How many races, categories, are there?

Your "facts", so called, are mere observations that do not suggest anything about the existance of a race. What creates race are how these observable characteristics are framed. And how these things are framed are dependant on culture.

...And how these things are framed are dependant on culture.

How is the perception of someone's race affected by culture?

A white person is still white, whether they are immersed in a German culture or a Japanese one.

About the "a black person is more likely to be attacked by a black person than a white person is to be attacked by a black person", that obviously has to do with the fact that the majority of crimes have always been ones of passion. You'll find different statistics with "stranger on stranger" violence, but the highest crime per capita in the latter category is still "black on black" of course; I fail to see how this is a particular defense.

Hehe, by the way, I really shouldn't be bringing this up, but there has been a curious phenomenon in Baltimore for some time now. This wonderful thing is a cute little get-together called "poop parties" by primarily black crackheads in Baltimore. Luckily, I haven't been witness to one, but I've heard from a lot of people about them and can describe them. Basically, it amounts to folks getting together, taking craps on the ground, smearing them all over, and throwing the assorted feces at one another......and that's about it. Obviously, I'm not attributing this as a common activity of the black culture at large, and sure, you'll find all sorts of incest and such in Appalachia, but I'm sorry, black people, at least in Baltimore, do some of the nastiest ass things I could have ever imagined. You walk 5 minutes through Roland Heights and you'll get at least 5 offers of crack, probably at least 1 person huddled over and masturbating in plain sight, 5 hobos approaching you and mumbling the most unintelligible bullshit, 20 guys asking you for change for "the bus".....I'm sorry, you go through the worst urban areas for other races, you just simply don't see the same shit. I don't judge entire peoples by the worst of their race, but when "the worst" of their race comprises a significantly larger portion, I do take note. I love all peoples of all races by default, but when my suspicions are confirmed one way or another dozens of consecutive times, I do incorporate it into my objective mindset rather than endlessly trying to find excuses for it.

If someone has violent intentions, they don't stop and think to themselves: "Hmmm...I would attack her, but she's Asian. I think I'll attack that black girl over there!"

Never underestimate the power of legal incentive. When somebody gets a lighter sentence for harming/killing/raping a member of their ethnic group than a member of another, that's one hell of a good reason to stick to crime against people of your ethnicity.

A lot of serial murderers like the Green River killer got away with what they did for so long by heavily targetting minorities and the poor.

Why would a black man who wants to rob or rape someone be more likely to choose a fellow black than a non-black person?

If someone has violent intentions, they don't stop and think to themselves: "Hmmm...I would attack her, but she's Asian. I think I'll attack that black girl over there!"

Because proximity=opportunity. This is coming from someone who practices criminal defense work in courtrooms everyday.

And yes, the identity of the victim is a determining variable in the calculation used by many criminals. This is a function of the anticipated response of law enforcement authorities based upon the identity of the victim.

English translation: The perceived response of law enforcement to crimes committed against minorities is different than the perceived response to crimes committed against those in the majority. The commission of crime is a games of playing the odds.

You do the math. Check the statistics you cite---both the cross-racial and geographic aspects---and this will become abundantly clear.

The Bauhas

How is the perception of someone's race affected by culture?

A white person is still white, whether they are immersed in a German culture or a Japanese one.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What? No. Dear God No. Who the heck let you out of your cage No.

The races which WE lump people into and the characteristics of those races are defined by OUR culture.

For example, the ancient Greeks recongnized two races. The Greek and the Barbarian. What seperated the two? Simple. Us v. Them. The Barbarians didn't have a defining characteristic other than not being Greek. If you were an ancient Greek then you wouldn't think in terms of white, black, asian, etc you would think in terms of Greek(Us) and Barbarian(Them).

That is what I mean by framing the observations and creating race by way of culture.

When somebody gets a lighter sentence for harming/killing/raping a member of their ethnic group than a member of another, that's one hell of a good reason to stick to crime against people of your ethnicity.

It is true that blacks get heavier sentences for harming non-blacks, but it can't account for the high amount of black-on-black crime. I still think that more black-on-black than black-on-white crime occurs because the U.S. is pretty segregated.

At any rate, statistics aren't going to make me feel better when I'm walking home at night and see a black man following me.

you really wonder why people look at blacks with fear? what do the most famous and prominent black people talk about. SEX RAPE HOE MURDER GUNZ ****** WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT. gangster rappers and that. ray charles, denzel washington.... two black men.. sure they are famous... but the aren't as prominent in todays culture as say, 50 cent and other such "gangster" rappers. We are conditioned to think of black people as murderers, drug dealers, muggers, rapists and all that because that is what the most prominent of them sing/rap/talk about. its irritating how some black people can find it absolutely attrocious that some white people have a little prejudice. YOU DONT WANT TO FACE PREJUDICE DON"T SUPPORT THE PEOPLE WHO PAINT THE BAD PICTURE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! gad. personally if i see any young person dressed in "gangster attire" im cautious about it

Whites are way more dangerous than blacks. Look at the holocaust, gulags, colonialism- whites are always committing violent crime. Look at other kinds of crime: a Ponzi scheme? clearly an Italian name for a European crime. I challenge you find one black man involved in the Enron scandal. Ask a Native American or an historian and he'll tell you that whites frequently break deals and contracts. Furthermore, whites are lazy, look at me! I'm white and I sit around all day and commit petty crimes all night all while listening to music made by hardworking, industrious black people who have to worry nonstop about dangerous hooligans like me in their neighborhoods!

If everyone was color blind we would probably pick on short people or tall people. Humans don't like anything that is different.

About the "a black person is more likely to be attacked by a black person than a white person is to be attacked by a black person", that obviously has to do with the fact that the majority of crimes have always been ones of passion. You'll find different statistics with "stranger on stranger" violence, but the highest crime per capita in the latter category is still "black on black" of course; I fail to see how this is a particular defense.

This statistical conclusion is not based on the impetus for the crime; it is simply the result of the statistical comparison of the race of the perp and the race of the victim in the category of homicides committed during calendar year 2002. It is only a defense if someone believes it is being used to minimize the prevalence of crime among the Black population.

Try this one on for size: The same statistical analysis applies to White-On-White crime. Still view it as a defense?


Hehe, by the way, I really shouldn't be bringing this up, but there has been a curious phenomenon in Baltimore for some time now. This wonderful thing is a cute little get-together called "poop parties" by primarily black crackheads in Baltimore. Luckily, I haven't been witness to one, but I've heard from a lot of people about them and can describe them. Basically, it amounts to folks getting together, taking craps on the ground, smearing them all over, and throwing the assorted feces at one another......and that's about it. Obviously, I'm not attributing this as a common activity of the black culture at large, and sure, you'll find all sorts of incest and such in Appalachia, but I'm sorry, black people, at least in Baltimore, do some of the nastiest ass things I could have ever imagined. You walk 5 minutes through Roland Heights and you'll get at least 5 offers of crack, probably at least 1 person huddled over and masturbating in plain sight, 5 hobos approaching you and mumbling the most unintelligible bullshit, 20 guys asking you for change for "the bus".....I'm sorry, you go through the worst urban areas for other races, you just simply don't see the same shit. I don't judge entire peoples by the worst of their race, but when "the worst" of their race comprises a significantly larger portion, I do take note. I love all peoples of all races by default, but when my suspicions are confirmed one way or another dozens of consecutive times, I do incorporate it into my objective mindset rather than endlessly trying to find excuses for it.

You just migrated from the conduct of crackheads to the conduct of Black people in Baltimore generally. Nothing racist in that, of course.

The races which WE lump people into and the characteristics of those races are defined by OUR culture.

What race you perceive someone to be is not determined by culture, though. A person who is obviously black (African hair, features, etc.) will still be looked at as black by any culture.
The behavioral characteristics we associate with certain races are affected by our culture, not the physical ones.

Why does it even matter what determines race?
Racial differences and inequalities still exist, and there's no ignoring them.

The races which WE lump people into and the characteristics of those races are defined by OUR culture.

To an extent, I agree, but you take it a little bit too far there. If you grew up in area where murder is considered a great thing, then move to China and murder someone, should they consider it a problem of THEIR culture?

If a race suddenly moved millions of its citizens to our country, and soon after every single member of that race started murdering at random, is it incorrect to specifically direct law enforcement efforts and suspicion at members of that race? Should you look at a member of that race and say "they're part of our culture" and, knowing they are inherently more likely to hurt you, view them exactly the same?

Your mindset has its validations, the opposite mindset has (less, but existent) validations. Taking a polarized stance like "so and so race is inferior and violent" is no less accurate than the equally polarized stance "All races are EXACTLY equal and only the products of their environment" however. As in politics, and everything else, the correct stance is found somewhere between.

...hardworking, industrious black people who have to worry nonstop about dangerous hooligans like me in their neighborhoods!

Now, that's funny. :)

Now, that's funny. :)

I can say with total authority that I am more dangerous than the vast majority of black people.

Would you agree that if we are going to make biological determinism based argument ("black men are more violent than white men") based on statistics, that a clear cut and agreed upon biological definition of the terms existed? Otherwise, the statistics are meaningless.

In regards to the particular post, the main set of statistics (the FBI crime report murder rates) provides no explanation of how race was determined. Was it self selection (as the census does)? Then the statistics are flawed and invalid, because there is no clear definition.
Was it done under a scientific selection? If so, then what were the exact factors used to detemine race?
If neither, then the statistics are invalid

If I were to collect a set of statistics showing that people who's given names begin with the letters A-L are more likely to commit violent crimes than those who's names begin with M-Z (actually a less arbitrary selection, as that can at least be clearly defined), would you give it credence?

Okay, I see what you are saying. Basically that there is no clear biological definition of race. I can agree with that.

On the other hand, I don't see why self-identification of race is such a problem. The idea of race certianly exists as a social construct. Even if race does not exist, people act as if it does. I would assume that by and large they correctly self-identify.

As I said before, I don't know how useful this is. (Personally I would prefer it the government took away all those little boxes on so many of its forms). Nevertheless these divisions are there, even if the basis for them is fatally flawed. And I can see how, as a cultural construct, the concept of race could impact certain groups. For example, african-americans are consistently shown to have less socio-economic and educational sucess than their white counter parts. But I don't take away from that type of studies that african-americans are genetically predisposed to be less sucessful, but rather, it is a function of how society is geared towards treating different groups generally based upon these artificial racial divisions.

In other words, it is harder for someone who self-identifies as african-america to succeed because they look "black", and the rest of society treats them accordingly based upon a set pre-concieved notions - even if, biologically speaking, there is no valid way to differentiate them from anyone else.

Of course, it's a chicken and egg thing - which I said I don't know how useful it is. As long as we cling to this construct, then there is a good chance it becomes self-fulfilling. We might be better off abandoning the whole thing. At the same time I don't know if that is possible, and there is the risk if it becomes official policy to abandon it, then whole groups of people will experience even more discrimination because of the way they look.

But, yeah, from the biological side, I see where you are coming from.

What race you perceive someone to be is not determined by culture, though. A person who is obviously black (African hair, features, etc.) will still be looked at as black by any culture.

If black means dark color skin? Then yes, but I did not say anything to the contrary.

Edit: I was mistaken in my above responce. No that "black" person will not be perceived as "black" by another culture unless that culture has a similar construct of "black" as we do.

Why does it even matter what determines race?

I don't know... You asked the question. Why don't you tell me.


To Aryanis a general reply,

Eh... I don't know what the heck you are trying to say. Something about validating racial profiling I think.

Look I'm just saying that race doesn't exist outside of our culture. We group people as we like. I'm only going too far if, indeed, race has intrinsic and universal meaning.

you really wonder why people look at blacks with fear? what do the most famous and prominent black people talk about. SEX RAPE HOE MURDER GUNZ ****** WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT. gangster rappers and that. ray charles, denzel washington.... two black men.. sure they are famous... but the aren't as prominent in todays culture as say, 50 cent and other such "gangster" rappers. We are conditioned to think of black people as murderers, drug dealers, muggers, rapists and all that because that is what the most prominent of them sing/rap/talk about. its irritating how some black people can find it absolutely attrocious that some white people have a little prejudice. YOU DONT WANT TO FACE PREJUDICE DON"T SUPPORT THE PEOPLE WHO PAINT THE BAD PICTURE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! gad. personally if i see any young person dressed in "gangster attire" im cautious about it

Denzel Washington is a two-time Oscar winning actor, and is known world-wide. Most "gangsta rappers" will be here today-gone tomorrow. I would lay odds that you focus more on the ganstas because it fits in with your perception of Blacks generally.

And your conclusion that Blacks who complain of racial demagogery in the majority community also support these thugs is as ridiculous as it is erroneous. Being able to secure gainful employment and not be discounted as unworthy in the workplace is far more important to Blacks than whether 50-cent has another hit record.

And it is the White kids in suburbs who are helping these thugs make millions from their cds.

Still view it as a defense?

Notice how I said "I fail to see how this is a defense"?



You just migrated from the conduct of crackheads to the conduct of Black people in Baltimore generally. Nothing racist in that, of course.

I was merely noting that the worst of the worst for one group is clearly worse than the worst of the worst of...say...Norway, and contains a higher percentage able to be lumped into that "worst" category. I also hate (modern) Europeans, by the way, so there is no subjective bias from me.
I'm not a racist, despite your apparent insight into my mind, but I don't blind myself either. There are a great number of superior assets the negroid race possesses which no other race can come close to, no doubt about it. In terms of the international stage, there is no question caucasoids have inflicted more harm on other cultures as well, for example. The "skin deep" argument is all I'm arguing against. It is a portrait of the way people want to see things, rather than an objective, empirical analysis.

In our history books are pages upon pages of facts, written by whites, about slavery and oppression where blacks were consistently beaten, hanged, raped, and the victims of other heinous crimes committed by white civilians, shrugged off by law enforcers and even supported by the government for hundreds of years and whites think blacks are more prone to acts of violence?

Some people are living proof that propaganda works.

Ignorance is the parent of fear and fear is the parent of hatred.

When White people are scared people die (september 11).

In our history books are pages upon pages of facts, written by whites, about slavery and oppression where blacks were consistently beaten, hanged, raped, and the victims of other heinous crimes committed by white civilians, shrugged off by law enforcers and even supported by the government for hundreds of years and whites think blacks are more prone to acts of violence?

Some people are living proof that propaganda works.

Ignorance is the parent of fear and fear is the parent of hatred.

When White people are scared people die (september 11).

Careful, JH; you wouldn't want to inject historical accuracy into this debate. It might derail the wonderul examples offered by our "White Is Right" contributers.

But I digress. What we have in this thread is a classic example of the "Tuxedo Terrorist." This was the method David Duke attempted when he sought to expand the appeal of his racist ideology and seek public office. That he was able to convince tens of thousands of citizens across the country of the "wisdom" of his drivel is more troubling than the message he spread.

You can spray all the perfume you like on the message. You can attempt to evoke sympathy in those who would listen to you by claiming "victim status" at the hands of those "evil minorities," and then go on to state, "Doesn't my fear seem reasonable? I mean, aren't I entitled to feel this way?"

It is the worst kind of race-baiting, because it juxtaposes the natural human tendency toward altruism with rank stereotyping and racist mantra. At least have the honesty and integrity to spread your gospel openly, without misdirection and distraction.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain? Don't count on it.

At any rate, statistics aren't going to make me feel better when I'm walking home at night and see a black man following me.

I would advise you to try to separate criminality from race. If you're always scared of people just because of their physical features, you'll end up wrong most of the time, which will eventually dull your senses and leave you unprepared for when that black guy at night really is a criminal.

However if you can look into someone's eyes and figure out their intentions, learn to differentiate the crack addict from the harmless poser even though they're both black, you free up your senses. You'll be able to keep your alertness up and concentrate on the truly dangerous people out there.

Of course that leaves sociopaths who are good actors and can fool people into complacency.

Careful, JH; you wouldn't want to inject historical accuracy into this debate. It might derail the wonderul examples offered by our "White Is Right" contributers.

Thats not to say I believe white people are the only racists, we are good teachers and people learn quickly.
I'm from england and it is a fact that afro caribbean and Africans don't get on. Also the asian population such as Indian and pakistani's don't get on.
although I have no doubt that white people are some what better at discrimanting than the others formentioned it still does exist in other races to hate.

I don't discriminate. I hate everyone equally.

I don't discriminate. I hate everyone equally.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Cheers!

That's something I wonder about quite a bit.

As soon as someone dares to utter "I really don't like black people." or "Jews are swindlers.", everyone immediately labels them an evil racist.

Of course, they are racist, but is this always necessarily wrong?

Can it really be called "horrible" or "evil" if some white kid grew up in the ghetto and was constantly harassed by blacks, and then grew up to become a neo-Nazi?

I know that I have some racist views against certain groups, but no one ever knows that I feel this way until I voice it. This is because I always treat people the way they treat me, regardless of their race. If they show me respect, I show them the same respect and consider them a friend. If they're rude and ignorant to me, I give the same attitude back (or, more often, I just ignore them).

Sure, if I'm walking to my car at night after work and see a man lurking nearby, of course I'm going to be more on my guard if he is black than if he is Asian or white.
But if I were to meet someone of any ethnicity or color in a normal setting, I would treat them with the same respect they showed me.

My point is this: Everyone is a little bit prejudiced against some group. Some people have preconceived notions about poor people, others assume things about gays, other people stereotype teenagers, etc.
People can not control their thoughts about certain groups, whether they be negative or positive. What they can control is their behavior, by striving to treat people the way they should be treated.

This is why it bothers me when I see people being criticized for admitting that they have racist thoughts that they can't control.

What do you think?


We are all creatures of our enviorment, and you will always revert back to your trainning. If your experience has been to be targeted by one group or another you will naturally for the sake of self preservation tend to be more on guard when exposed to that group. It is not wrong, it is human nature despite what Liberals and Socialists try and tell you. These are people who have an agenda and use these methods to empower themselves and maintain their grip on social behaivor. If they can silence any opposition their agenda is simple to push. With teachers unions on board with these groups it is easy to condition students to their desired behaivor.
Don't sweat it, and have enough smarts to realize that in most cases, we all pretty much want the same things in life, but when people get into groups they tend to lose their individual identity and follow the pack. They can become entirely different animals and take on a mind set that none on an individual basis would on their own.
Also, be polite to your teachers and simply realize that they have been conditioned to think the way they do, and they probably didn't get their job because of anything other than affirmative action, good sound liberal political correctness, or they were just plain cowards hiding out in college for a very long time to keep from having to fight for their country.

Crime, criminality, and social policy are very diverse
topics. Equally diverse are the answers one might receive when
one is asked their opinions on these topics. Race, gender, and
ethnicity are all involved, some more readily observable than
others, here.

Today more than 2,000,000 people are in prison in the US. China is the only place that imprisons more people than the state of California. Seventy percent of people in US prisons are people of color. Black women are the fastest growing group, and American Indians are the largest group per capita. In 1996, 75,000 women were in prison, and 60 percent were Black or Latino.

Okay so after reading about 3 pages of this thing I decided I really felt like saying something.

I really don't have a problem with any individual from a different race than mine, until they act disrespectfully, like an idiot, inappropriately, etc.

Yes I admit I do have a prejudgidice outlook on people before I meet them, but mainly that has to do with my upbringing, my environment, and my & friends experiences.

Even though I do, I think the most important thing that makes it "okay" is that I have an open mind. I am willing to set aside my prejudice-ness and be willing to see if they are what I either expected them to be, or different.

A few things that I do not understand though, or find hard to get over are:

*How do black people get accents when the other people in the same area talk normally?

*The percentage rate of each race in jail indicates that yes, black people have more tendency to commit crimes.

*Reversed Racism, which I think is a bigger problem today than ever before, and they get away with it too. If a black person were to act racistly against a white person, no one would do anything, just because the white person would lose no matter what. If a white person were to act out racistly against a black person, they would sue him for "everything he's got." and probably would take up a whole entire court system and tax dollars to do so. I mean, in today's society- yeesh!

*Affirmative Action- I really have a problem with this. I find it so offensive when any colleges or organizations ask you for your race. I never fill it in. What should it matter?! If you are smart enough to say- go to college A. Then you should be able to get into college A~ *after meeting all other criteria* ~ i mean, why should someone be screwed over b/c of a minority quota? It makes it really hard for me to be open towards other races, because yes- technically, we are set against them. especially with the race for education! I mean, it was there for a good reason back in the day I suppose, but... I mean, how long has it been? Don't you think they are on level ground here, if not a step ahead?!

*keeping on with minority preference, a girl was just in the news paper recently on topping the record of scholarship money recieved by one student from her school. 350,000$. which would've been great, for someone who deserved them~ but what stunned me was that she was from East St. Louis, all black neighborhood, very very poor, not that smart, and still recieving them! It's so discouraging to myself and others I'm sure to hear that, especially when one works ones arse off to be scholarship material. I guess I will never get a scholarship, not these days anyways- not when you have to be poor, a minority, dumb, and in a "struggle". Who can compete with that? :headbang:

oh, and with what someone said on the first couple of pages-

it wouldnt matter who the heck was comming up by me in a parking lot in the middle of the night, i would have the mase out, the keys jetting out between my knuckles, and in a guarded stance. I'm just that paranoid about the freaks out there today who could be psycho axe murderers, or even worse. nose pickers. Nighttime is when the freaks come out~ or so my mother says, and its a saying that I shall always have in memory...because it is true.

I would advise you to try to separate criminality from race. If you're always scared of people just because of their physical features, you'll end up wrong most of the time, which will eventually dull your senses and leave you unprepared for when that black guy at night really is a criminal.

However if you can look into someone's eyes and figure out their intentions, learn to differentiate the crack addict from the harmless poser even though they're both black, you free up your senses. You'll be able to keep your alertness up and concentrate on the truly dangerous people out there.
How exactly do you do this? I know I can't!

The first day at my high school there were two indians in my class. It was the first time I had come into any significant contact with indians before, so I was not familiar with their differences in appearance. I was completely comfortable around them, but I did have a little trouble telling them apart. Now when I think back, they looked completely different! One was short and fat, and the other was tall and athletic! How very different can you get?
But, my eyes, while they could see that, just didn't. They said to my brain "oh, that guy has dark skin, it's very different to everyone else I know, and that's enough to recognize the person by". When I came into contact with more indians and/or became more familiar with these two, my brain stopped using their skin color as their distinguising features. The same thing happens with asians. Or africans.
I watch enough subtitled japanese cinema that I can easily tell different people apart, but when I started watching, I didn't have a chance.

So, if I don't come into much contact with african americans, how, exactly, and I supposed to look into their eyes and work out if they mean me harm?
I'm not. I can't. My brains facial recognition abilities hasn't built up enough of a mental library of data about african american faces to allow me to tell their subtler moods. Except for where it's in common with whites/asians/indians, who I have had more contact.

Oh, and incidentally, I'm going to judge people based on their nationality. This is NOT racism, although for years I used to worry that it was. (not that I don't have complete authority over what I think. I'm still a nice person, and don't want to be racist).
When I'm driving through eastwood, a suburb near my home, I do keep an eye out for asian drivers. And give them more space. Now, this is NOT a racist act. The most capable, safest driver I know is asian. I just happen to have had a few close calls, in or around eastwood, from asian drivers. What I attribute this to is that eastwood has a large asian community, including asian shops, asian restaurants etc. So, when people move to Sydney from certain parts of asia they are much more likely to feel comfortable, and therefore move to, eastwood. Now, the quality of driving in many countries in asia is just terrible. If you don't believe me, visit thailand (not that eastwood has many thais). So, I figure, on my drive home I'm likely to have an accident with a driver from a foreign country where the road safety isn't such a high priority. The place that is most likely to happen, in my personal case, is eastwood. Therefore, I'm more careful of asian drivers in eastwood. If I see an asian driver there, there is a higher percentage chance that they are a foreigner, and a worse driver. That is not racism, that is actually me "jumping to conclusions" based on an observable fact.
Maybe I'm wrong about people from asian countries being, on the whole, worse drivers. Either way, from my experiences, and not through any bias against any other race, I'm more careful of other cars while driving through eastwood. And I'm more careful when I see an asian driver in eastwood, as they are much more likely to be an eastwood resident.
And, just to show it's not a race thing, I don't have any such reservations when I see an asian driver in the city. Or anywhere else, really.

So, I think it's completely reasonable for an American to say "I am more scared of black men". It's based on observable evidence. They may be WRONG in their conclusions, as I may be. But that doesn't mean they are judging black people as worse, or more violent. It just may be their less politically correct way of saying "due to the socio-economic divide, black males are more likely to come from a poorer environment, and therefore probably had less life choices available, increasing the chance that they turned to crime. Also, due to the "black culture" that they are more likely to have been exposed to, and subscribe to, there is a chance that they will respond in an antagonistic way to me". That could be a racist sentiment, but it doesn't have to be. One of my friends on my street was black. I saw nothing wrong with that whatsoever. He was "just the same" as the rest of us, as far as I was concerned. When I was in south africa, however, I didn't talk to any black people, other than the ones that were friends with my family. I didn't judge them because they were black, but I was aware that there was a good chance that the black people come from poor and crime-ridden areas, and grew up in a culture of violence. Which is sad. I'd respond exactly the same way regardless of their skin. Oh, and I was also overwhelmed a bit, it was the first time I'd seen black people.

So, yeah. I think racism is bad. I think we shouldn't judge people based on their skin. I do, however, think it's valid to jump to conclusions, as a kind of "mental shorthand", based on skin colour. Just as I'd do the same based on clothing, or accent. This can be a good thing, just as much as a bad thing. I'm much more likely to discuss baseball with someone who has an american accent.
I don't know about other people, but when I don't need this mental shorthand, when I know someone well enough, I stop "seeing" the surface. One of my friends has scars all down her arm, from an accident when she was a baby. The first time I met her I couldn't help but keep noticing them. Once when we were walking through the city a random stranger started talking to her about how she could get plastic surgery. It honestly took me a little while to realize what he was talking about, because I completely didn't see the scars anymore. Same with skin, really. Someone said something about Denzel Washington being black, and I was like "he is?". Then I pictured him and thought "oh, of course he is. That goes without saying". His skin colour just wasn't important to me.

Of course that leaves sociopaths who are good actors and can fool people into complacency.
Actually most sociopaths are really bad at hiding it. People just get an "uncomfortable" feeling when around them. It's because (I'm told), when you feel a strong dissassociation with the world around you, or other symptoms of being a sociopath/causes of being a sociopath, you react differently. Just in subtle ways. And us humans are really really good at picking up on these subtle things, even if we don't realize what we're picking up on. Which makes people uncomfortable.

I know, when I greet people, I never used to smile. I'd just say "hi". I never saw anything wrong with that. When it was pointed out to me, and I made a concious effort, suddenly people started trusting me more, chatting to me much more. I've trained myself that smiling when I see someone is my "normal" response. I'm not being deceitful, I'm just reacting somewhat differently to how I used to. People pick up on it if you act differently to how they expect. In my case they just thought I was an unpleasant person/angry about something.

Doesn't mean everyone that makes you uncomfortable is a sociopath, though. Most just have harmless personality disorders.

I'm certainly not a sociopath. I just have the ability to easily and quite naturally "drop out of normal behaviour" and make people instantly uncomfortable. Needless to say, it's not an ability I use often. Only while playing creepy bad guys or ghosts for our tabletop roleplaying session.

Okay so after reading about 3 pages of this thing I decided I really felt like saying something.

I really don't have a problem with any individual from a different race than mine, until they act disrespectfully, like an idiot, inappropriately, etc.

Yes I admit I do have a prejudgidice outlook on people before I meet them, but mainly that has to do with my upbringing, my environment, and my & friends experiences.

Even though I do, I think the most important thing that makes it "okay" is that I have an open mind. I am willing to set aside my prejudice-ness and be willing to see if they are what I either expected them to be, or different.

A few things that I do not understand though, or find hard to get over are:

*How do black people get accents when the other people in the same area talk normally?

*The percentage rate of each race in jail indicates that yes, black people have more tendency to commit crimes.

*Reversed Racism, which I think is a bigger problem today than ever before, and they get away with it too. If a black person were to act racistly against a white person, no one would do anything, just because the white person would lose no matter what. If a white person were to act out racistly against a black person, they would sue him for "everything he's got." and probably would take up a whole entire court system and tax dollars to do so. I mean, in today's society- yeesh!

*Affirmative Action- I really have a problem with this. I find it so offensive when any colleges or organizations ask you for your race. I never fill it in. What should it matter?! If you are smart enough to say- go to college A. Then you should be able to get into college A~ *after meeting all other criteria* ~ i mean, why should someone be screwed over b/c of a minority quota? It makes it really hard for me to be open towards other races, because yes- technically, we are set against them. especially with the race for education! I mean, it was there for a good reason back in the day I suppose, but... I mean, how long has it been? Don't you think they are on level ground here, if not a step ahead?!

*keeping on with minority preference, a girl was just in the news paper recently on topping the record of scholarship money recieved by one student from her school. 350,000$. which would've been great, for someone who deserved them~ but what stunned me was that she was from East St. Louis, all black neighborhood, very very poor, not that smart, and still recieving them! It's so discouraging to myself and others I'm sure to hear that, especially when one works ones arse off to be scholarship material. I guess I will never get a scholarship, not these days anyways- not when you have to be poor, a minority, dumb, and in a "struggle". Who can compete with that? :headbang:

oh, and with what someone said on the first couple of pages-

it wouldnt matter who the heck was comming up by me in a parking lot in the middle of the night, i would have the mase out, the keys jetting out between my knuckles, and in a guarded stance. I'm just that paranoid about the freaks out there today who could be psycho axe murderers, or even worse. nose pickers. Nighttime is when the freaks come out~ or so my mother says, and its a saying that I shall always have in memory...because it is true.


First off, Affirmative Action, is Reverse Discrimination. They are one and the same. Look at it like this. The effect that Affirmative Action has on you is predictible and universal whether or not one cares to admit it. The effect is desired and perpetuated by politicians and government for the purpose of keeping Americans divided. If government were to encourage people to find things in common rather than find differences and report them, what do you think they would find? I'd be more than willing to bet, what we would find is that those in goverment are the problem! If not for their meddling, and creating conflicts the people would have a common enemy and those in government would no longer be able to manipulate things to their advantage. They would be forced to work for the people instead of the way things are.

The percentage rate of each race in jail indicates that yes, black people have more tendency to commit crimes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Approximately 5,000,000, including those on parole and probation, are under the surveillance of the criminal justice system. Although Whites make up 74 percent of the general population, they are only 36 percent of this population. One in three Black men aged 20-29 is in prison, jail, or on probation or parole. Black men are seven times more likely than White men to be in prison. Five times as many Black men are presently in prison as are in four-year colleges and universities. In 1930, the rate of incarceration for Black people was three times that of Whites. In 1960, it was five times that of Whites. In 1996, it was eight times that of Whites.


The race of the victims is also a significant factor in sentencing people to death. Blacks kill Blacks, Hispanics kill Hispanics, but the most likely scenario for receiving the death penalty is to kill someone White. Blacks and Whites are victims of murder in almost equal numbers, yet 82% of prisoners executed since 1977 were convicted of the murder of a White person.

Racism is always wrong. Why? Genetically, the differences between races are miniscule. A black man is simply a white man with different skin, 'tis all. Don't fear black men; fear "gangsta" punks who feel they have something to prove.

***ENTERING THREAD LATE***

Even a .001% difference is a huge difference when in context with genetics. I'm REALLY tired of hearing this strawman repeated ad naseum.

I'm sure it's quite easy to decide who is a "gangsta" punk and who is not in the middle of the night.

So, yeah. I think racism is bad. I think we shouldn't judge people based on their skin.

Another strawman. Race isn't about solely skin color. It's just one attribute.

Here is an excerpt from an article on this very subject. Also, both sides of this argument could benefit by reading some of JP Rushton's work regarding intelligence and race.

"Nationally, blacks are imprisoned on average 9.1 times as often as whites.

If this high rate of black imprisonment was caused by anti-black conservatism, then the ratio of blacks to whites imprisoned should be highest in Republican strongholds like the Old South. But instead, it is lowest there of any major region.

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina are only about six times more likely to imprison blacks than whites—just two-thirds of the national average.

In contrast, by far the greatest racial disparity was found in the most liberal spot on the map: the black-run District of Columbia, where Bush won only nine percent of the vote. Blacks in Washington D.C. are 56 times more likely than whites to wind up in the slammer.

The next biggest gap was 31 to 1 in Minnesota, which has normally been quite a bit more liberal than the typical heartland state.

Overall, the two regions with the biggest racial differences in black-white imprisonment rates are the Old Northwest and the Mid-Atlantic.

States with relatively high black vs. white imprisonment rates tended to vote for Kerry—the correlation was a strong r = 0.62

Obviously, the discrimination explanation for the racial gap does not hold water.

Another popular theory, put forward by New York Times reporter Fox Butterfield in his 1996 book All God's Children is, in the words of an Amazon.com reviewer:

"… that the primary origin of black violence is the tradition of white violence that was transferred to them from their former slave owners."

Josh Marshall, proprietor of the TalkingPointsMemo.com blog, wrote his history Ph.D. dissertation on the same premise—that blacks learned to be violent from those dueling and feuding Southern whites.

Of course, looked at from an international perspective, this theory requires Occam's Butterknife at its dullest. It would requite a local rationalization for each of the many countries with violent black communities.

Thus, presumably, the extreme crime in the black favelas of Brazil, as seen in the terrific 2003 movie City of God, is in imitation of the Portuguese; the sometimes genocidal violence in Ethiopia was learned from the Italians during their five brief years of colonization; and Shaka (1785-1828), King of the Zulus, would have been a pacifist if not for those vicious vibrations emanating from white men somewhere over the horizon.

But Fox Butterknife's hypothesis makes little sense even within the U.S. As we have seen, the most crime-prone blacks are in Iowa and Wisconsin, where whites were traditionally quite law-abiding. In contrast, the most honest blacks tend to be found in the Cotton Belt, where the Butterfield-Marshall theory predicts they should be most contaminated by white duelists."

From : Mapping The Unmentionable: Race And Crime
By Steve Sailer

Not all white people are racist, not all black people are racist of course but I have never seen a white man linched up on a tree because of any belief that he is sub-human, I have never seen a white man being randomly attacked by a car load of knife holding black yobs...on the basis that he is sub-human!?

The difficulty is that if you have more melamine in your skin you will be automatically be classed as black.

Education and knowledge passed down through generations can maybe eradicate these prejudiced views? Children learn from their 'mentors', be it black or white. Hatred eats away at our soul, manifesting itself, leading to segregation. Is that what we really want? Isnt that giving in to racists?

The percentage rate of each race in jail indicates that yes, black people have more tendency to commit crimes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Approximately 5,000,000, including those on parole and probation, are under the surveillance of the criminal justice system. Although Whites make up 74 percent of the general population, they are only 36 percent of this population. One in three Black men aged 20-29 is in prison, jail, or on probation or parole. Black men are seven times more likely than White men to be in prison. Five times as many Black men are presently in prison as are in four-year colleges and universities. In 1930, the rate of incarceration for Black people was three times that of Whites. In 1960, it was five times that of Whites. In 1996, it was eight times that of Whites.


The race of the victims is also a significant factor in sentencing people to death. Blacks kill Blacks, Hispanics kill Hispanics, but the most likely scenario for receiving the death penalty is to kill someone White. Blacks and Whites are victims of murder in almost equal numbers, yet 82% of prisoners executed since 1977 were convicted of the murder of a White person.

You need to go get some numbers from someplace other than Amnisty International and their parrot in florida.

Affirmative Action- I really have a problem with this. I find it so offensive when any colleges or organizations ask you for your race. I never fill it in. What should it matter?! If you are smart enough to say- go to college A. Then you should be able to get into college A~ *after meeting all other criteria* ~ i mean, why should someone be screwed over b/c of a minority quota? It makes it really hard for me to be open towards other races, because yes- technically, we are set against them. especially with the race for education! I mean, it was there for a good reason back in the day I suppose, but... I mean, how long has it been? Don't you think they are on level ground here, if not a step ahead?!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affirmative action has both good and bad aspects to it. Diversifying college campuses is an important element in education. Having people with many different views within a close proximity may open up some people's minds to ideas that have not been fully processed in the past. Also, giving members of "underrepresented" groups an opportunity to receive the best education possible, that they may not have received in past only benefits society as a whole. Of course, with all of the good that a policy or idea can bring, there are always some aspects people feel are wrong.

Many see affirmative action as a form of reverse racism. They feel that Caucasians are being discriminated against. This could be true depending on how you look at it, which is what this whole issue comes down to. Yes, some qualified whites are being denied admission to allow members of minority groups to be admitted. But the whole purpose of affirmative action is to diversify the student body, not to discriminate for the sake of discriminating.

I think you are viewing crime and race from the wrong angle here. To say that black people "have more tendency to commit crime" and thereby insinuating that the fact that they commit crimes is direclty linked to their race is wrong.

It's not their race that is the reason for their high crime rate, it's their social class. If you take a closer look at your statistics, you will find that in the US, the lower social classes show a disproportionate majority of blacks and hispanics, whereas these groups are a clear minority in higher social classes. It's a sad fact, but true, and it's origins are both historical and racial.
Now, people from lower social classes are more likely to commit crimes, you can check that with any statistic from any country on the globe.
But colour is a lot more obvious than social class, so it's easier for people to point their fingers and say "Blacks are criminal"

Liverbreath']First off, Affirmative Action, is Reverse Discrimination. They are one and the same. Look at it like this. The effect that Affirmative Action has on you is predictible and universal whether or not one cares to admit it. The effect is desired and perpetuated by politicians and government for the purpose of keeping Americans divided. If government were to encourage people to find things in common rather than find differences and report them, what do you think they would find? I'd be more than willing to bet, what we would find is that those in goverment are the problem! If not for their meddling, and creating conflicts the people would have a common enemy and those in government would no longer be able to manipulate things to their advantage. They would be forced to work for the people instead of the way things are.

Affirmative action is an inherently vague term that is really almost meaningless. It really is just the same thing as saying “positive steps.” The term was first used in the 1960's to say that organizations should not simply stop discriminating. Rather, they should take positive steps or “affirmative action” to ensure that they don't have any policies or practices that unintentionally disadvantage certain groups.

Whites are way more dangerous than blacks.

I love it when liberals try to destroy racism by denigrating whites. O irony, how thou speaks! And thou speaks with a tongue of fire.

Look at the holocaust

While I believe the holocaust is very, shall we say, "overrated" and I belong to one of the groups that have been said to be a target of the holocaust, this is one single incident and you can find other genocides larger committed by other race groups.

gulags

Soviet Russia had many Jews in it's top ranks. Not to mention that Communism was thought up by a Jew, Karl Marx.

colonialism- whites are always committing violent crime.

Uh....all groups have had a desire to expand using war. If you want to see a bigger mess, go look at Africa. Europeans have merely been the most successful in modern times.

Look at other kinds of crime: a Ponzi scheme? clearly an Italian name for a European crime.

whitey :mp5:

I challenge you find one black man involved in the Enron scandal.

Nobody has ever claimed that whites are perfect. Also, you're comparing violent crimes to "yuppie" (heh heh) crimes. Are you insinuating that blacks aren't intelligent enough to commit crimes involving white-collar positions? That would be racist!!!

Ask a Native American or an historian and he'll tell you that whites frequently break deals and contracts.

Definately _not_ an honorable time period in history, but the prime objective wasn't to destroy the NAs but to assimiliate them. That might be, partially, thanks to Christianity and it's desire for universalization.

Furthermore, whites are lazy, look at me!

You know, there is a defense mechanism called Reaction Formation. You ought to look it up. ;)

I'm white and I sit around all day and commit petty crimes all night all while listening to music made by hardworking, industrious black people who have to worry nonstop about dangerous hooligans like me in their neighborhoods!

Mainstream music is something meant for the masses....something commercial and designed for the lowest common denominator. Something democratic.

Each of the above did absolutely nothing to combat the idea of race, but provide happier, more digestable red herrings. I, myself, don't find the idea of combatting racism by debasing whites to be very happy, however. Let's try replacing the word "white" with "black" and see the Pavlovian responses kick in. I wonder why they're don't emerge when somebody says something anti-European :confused:

When blacks riot, attacking white folks or Korean-Americans simply for no other reason than their skin color or race, there's so much media-thumbsucking about the pent-up frustrations of black people living under racist circumstances, there's probably not a viable thumbprint left among the entire New York Times editorial board. In such circumstances, it's all context. "Understand what it's like to live they way they do," we are admonished. "Blacks are merely reacting to" whatever white journalists happen to feel guilty about this week.
But when whites attack blacks, well that's cut and dry. It's a hate crime. It's racism.

I think you are viewing crime and race from the wrong angle here. To say that black people "have more tendency to commit crime" and thereby insinuating that the fact that they commit crimes is direclty linked to their race is wrong.

It's not their race that is the reason for their high crime rate, it's their social class. If you take a closer look at your statistics, you will find that in the US, the lower social classes show a disproportionate majority of blacks and hispanics, whereas these groups are a clear minority in higher social classes. It's a sad fact, but true, and it's origins are both historical and racial.
Now, people from lower social classes are more likely to commit crimes, you can check that with any statistic from any country on the globe.
But colour is a lot more obvious than social class, so it's easier for people to point their fingers and say "Blacks are criminal"

My father came to America with $100, didn't speak english, and never went on welfare. He's doing pretty swell now. One example, yes, but still....

It's rather easy to enter the capitalist system and become a wage slave with a decent income. Poverty is easily escapable if one tries. If they don't, then they're a failure.

Well, ultimately sometimes one cannot rid oneself of feelings which one knows are wrong. Example: Me. I am slightly intimidated by black people. Why? Because I think that they're going to think I'm some sort of racist. :rolleyes:
The fact is, I don't behave any differently around black people intentionally, but I become... jittery. My problem is that I've onyl talked to about three black people in my entire life, and I've been brought up with al these crazy notions and preconceptions from the media, so I may well end up looking like a racist trying to control myself or something... :-/

Yeah, I get nervous around black people due to the fact simply that they're a different race, and racial tension exists. I have no qualms with black people theoretically, obviously. I'm very liberal and progressive etc... it's just... there's lots of pressure not to be racist, so I end up being a little... odd... whenever I actually meet a black guy. :/ Also, unfortunately, they're often immigrants with veyr strong accents, so I end up not bing able to understand what they're saying and looking like I'm messing them about when I ask them to repeat themselves :-/

It's purely a matter of exposure, really. I've got Indian and Chinese friends and I don't even consider them a different race. Indeed, I consider the whole idea farcical.

When blacks riot, attacking white folks or Korean-Americans simply for no other reason than their skin color or race, there's so much media-thumbsucking about the pent-up frustrations of black people living under racist circumstances, there's probably not a viable thumbprint left among the entire New York Times editorial board. In such circumstances, it's all context. "Understand what it's like to live they way they do," we are admonished. "Blacks are merely reacting to" whatever white journalists happen to feel guilty about this week.
But when whites attack blacks, well that's cut and dry. It's a hate crime. It's racism.
Now thats a description of reality. At last someone can see with eyes that are unjaded by the pseudo-fictional-media world. I saw a video tape of the race riot in Chicago and another one in Seattle. In the Chicago one, blacks are (in a group) beating this girl, and this tall blond guy puts his body in the way between the blows, and tries to help the girl to her feet. He doesn't throw any punches at all. But before the girl is even on her feet, a black bashes a bottle over his head. Not a movie prop, a real glass bottle. His guy died from that blow the next day.

In the Seattle one there is a very clear picture of the blacks fighting whites who aren't even defending themselves, and white police officers watching and doing nothing. There is a very clear segment where a big black male punches a white girl right in the face. I think this one is still on the web too, I'll see if I can get a link to it.

Prejudging someone because of their race is as ignorant as it is unfair.

Oh look how unsurprised I am! People who think even having a racist *FEELING* is *always* wrong. No doubt the same people who think economic freedom is a bad idea and we need a nanny state to bring about global, politically correct, totalitarian utopia.

Poverty is easily escapable if one tries. If they don't, then they're a failure. Yes, a failure at being in the right place at the right time. Wherever you are, I can guarantee you it's not a meritocratic utopia.

<snip>*FEELING*<snip>
Sense crime!

I think it's okay to be more afraid of a black guy then a white guy, but it's fact, not racism. Here's why:

1. Poor people are more likely to turn to crime.
2. Blacks have only recently recieved fair treatment economically (and of course socially, but that's not important for this), so most black families are still poor.
3. Therefore more blacks are likely to be criminals.


Obviously the Uniform Crime Report (Yearly FBI statistics) shows over 50% of crime is committed by young black males 18-35. Seeing how about 15% of the American population is black, split that for male to female and divide the males into age catagories...point is a single digit percentage of the population is responsible for a majority of violent crime. Young black males are much more likely to turn to crime not because of poverty, because the practice is encouraged by their popular culture.

Why didn't crime spike during the Great Depression? It didn't. Poverty is always thrown up as an excuse for bad behavior (inner city blacks, Palestinians, etc). They choose bad behavior.

Why didn't crime spike during the Great Depression? It didn't.

Maybe because that the large majority of people had nothing worth stealing during the Great Depression?

I agree that culture plays a part in crime, but to dismiss arguments such as poverty and inequality, particularly with regards to Relative Deprivation, isn't correct.

Personally I go with M.L.K's idea of "judgeing a man by the strength of his character, not the color of his skin." *Paraphrase*

About six months ago I was at a restaurant that my friend works at (pretty good food) and three black men wearing stereotypical “urban wear” and speaking in equally stereotypical slurs came in. When someone came to take their order they insisted on verifying their order to the waiter with “you got dat, muthafucka?” Over the course of my meal it seemed they consistently used “you know wat I’m sayin’,” “muthafucka,” and “mah nigga” instead of periods, they made approximately 7 references to drugs (heroine and MJ) and at least one of them men had no qualms about stating how he beats his girlfriend. Needless to say, I lost my appetite. Later on, I got around to asking my friend who works there if that was common, he said he gets that sort of thing about 3 times a weak. Did I judge these men? Hell yes I did. Was it because they where black? Fuck no. Did it taint my perspective of blacks? Yes it did, and statistics back that up. Did it in any way effect my perspective of my black friend that owns a small pharmacy, speaks perfect English, owns a BMW roadster, and commonly wears a $500 leather jacket and silk shirts and slacks? Not by any stretch of the imagination (he is a really easy going guy, funny as hell, moves well, has a aura of success and confidence about him.)

You want to know what is ignorant? NOT judging this kind of character (or the kind from the quoted post below) and chocking it up with some pathetically weak ass defense about how downtrodden and misbegotten they are and instead judging the person who calls them on it. THAT is ignorance.

Now thats a description of reality. At last someone can see with eyes that are unjaded by the pseudo-fictional-media world. I saw a video tape of the race riot in Chicago and another one in Seattle. In the Chicago one, blacks are (in a group) beating this girl, and this tall blond guy puts his body in the way between the blows, and tries to help the girl to her feet. He doesn't throw any punches at all. But before the girl is even on her feet, a black bashes a bottle over his head. Not a movie prop, a real glass bottle. His guy died from that blow the next day.

In the Seattle one there is a very clear picture of the blacks fighting whites who aren't even defending themselves, and white police officers watching and doing nothing. There is a very clear segment where a big black male punches a white girl right in the face. I think this one is still on the web too, I'll see if I can get a link to it.

It's a vicious cycle. Black men are assumed to be more violent than white men and are more likely to end up in prison. People see this and attribute it to their race, resulting in people continuing to assume they are more violent.

Why didn't crime spike during the Great Depression? It didn't. Poverty is always thrown up as an excuse for bad behavior (inner city blacks, Palestinians, etc). They choose bad behavior.

How do you suppose the Nazis rose to power in Depression-age Germany? The world's worst criminals came from the world's worst economic collapse. In general an entire population of unemployed young males is a recipe for disaster.

It's just one of those obvious rules of humankind...

Yes, a failure at being in the right place at the right time. Wherever you are, I can guarantee you it's not a meritocratic utopia.

At least in the first world nations it's easy. Third world countries will have trouble most certainly, but that is something they have to fix themselves.

Prejudging someone because of their race is as ignorant as it is unfair.

No. Taking it to absolutes, however, is.

YES*.

Simple enough answer?

Okay, then, let me equivocate a bit.

*You can FEEL whatever you want -- what makes racist feelings wrong is when they're acted upon or used as a basis to treat someone you don't even know like they're an [insert stereotype here]. Some people fit nicely around a particular stereotype, but I don't think it's fair to assume anything about anyone until you discover it for yourself.

It's so ridiculous to say that all racial assumptions are wrong.

There are differences between the races, and there's no avoiding it.

Who do you think would score higher on a basic math test, a group of black kids or a group of Chinese kids?

Or put the Chinese kids against the black kids in a basketball game, and take a wild guess as to who would win.

That doesn't mean that all Chinese kids are better than all black kids at math, or that all black kids are star athletes. But when looking at different groups of people, it's just not possible that they're going to have equal abilities in everything.

YES*.

what makes racist feelings wrong is when they're acted upon...

The only time I'm obviously less friendly with someone because of their color is if they're some ignorant gangsta who thinks that the ghetto is cool. And even then, I'm not rude, just less friendly because I don't want those type of people for friends.

I have no problem with the more "assimilated", suburban black people, though, as they tend to be far more intelligent than the others.
My area is mostly white, so the black people that live here speak proper English and drive SUVs like everyone else.

The black peoeple I'm leery of are the gangstas from the ghetto who wouldn't hesitate to stab me for my wallet.

Question for those who voted yes:

You are walking and a crowd of gypsy children are also walking in your direction. Do you alter your path or do you stay inert?

Question for those who voted yes:

You are walking and a crowd of gypsy children are also walking in your direction. Do you alter your path or do you stay inert?
Stay inert. Gypsies are cool! :p

Stay inert. Gypsies are cool! :p


I actually thought the same thing, because I get limited exposure to gypsies because I am an American (I think of them as fun, circus people for some reason).

I think that is why so many people are able to preach about tolerance and compassion - they've never had to deal with a significant amount of actual ghetto thugs, and when someone mentions "black people", they get a picture in their mind of the guy in their office who wears a three-piece suit and actually speaks standard English.

I actually thought the same thing, because I get limited exposure to gypsies because I am an American (I think of them as fun, circus people for some reason).

I think that is why so many people are able to preach about tolerance and compassion - they've never had to deal with a significant amount of actual ghetto thugs, and when someone mentions "black people", they get a picture in their mind of the guy in their office who wears a three-piece suit and actually speaks standard English.
I think we should all be tolerant and compassionate. I always have, and it works for me. I have an eye for true friends, African-American, Jewish, or whatever.

In some respects I'm racist, but most of the time I'm not wrong. I base most of my stereotypes on statistics - after all, behind all forms of racism are numbers. I'm not racist in that I say things like, "Spades suck at life," or, "Slant-eyes need to kill their commie selves," I'm racist in that I point out things like, "The vast majority of black people in the United States vote with the Democrats no matter what," which is true. Or, "A good majority of rednecks vote with the Republicans no matter what," which is also true. And, yes: redneck is a race. They have become their own species via "keeping it in the family," if you know what I mean.

It's so ridiculous to say that all racial assumptions are wrong.

There are differences between the races, and there's no avoiding it.

Who do you think would score higher on a basic math test, a group of black kids or a group of Chinese kids?

Or put the Chinese kids against the black kids in a basketball game, and take a wild guess as to who would win.

That doesn't mean that all Chinese kids are better than all black kids at math, or that all black kids are star athletes. But when looking at different groups of people, it's just not possible that they're going to have equal abilities in everything.

Sort of. This gets tricky because there are really two kinds of differences between "races": Those that can be attributed to genetic makeup (i.e. African-Americans are on average taller and stronger than Chinese) and those that are most likely the result of cultural conditioning (i.e. Chinese kids are on average better at math than African-American kids because of a culture that stresses the value of math). It seems ludicrous to claim that African-Americans have any more of a genetic predisposition to violence than any other "race" when the crime statistics can be easily explained in terms of social pressures.

Liverbreath']First off, Affirmative Action, is Reverse Discrimination. They are one and the same.


The term "reverse discrimination" is somewhat redundant, as it has the exact same meaning as discrimination. I also find it mildly ironic that whoever came up with the term was themself committing an act of discrimination in the process.

If you think someone's being discriminatory then call them on it. Don't cop out and make up new definitions for their actions.

Chinese kids are on average better at math than African-American kids because of a culture that stresses the value of math.


I don't buy that for a second. Do you honestly believe that the son of a chicken farmer from Inner Mongolia would know the slightest thing about mathematics? The average American is way better schooled than the average Chinese citizen.

Equating the educational successes of Chinese-Amercans to those of mainland China makes zero sense. On the one hand we're talking about a group of people selected for entry into this country on the basis of educational tendency and work ethic (cream of the cream), on the other we're talking about a country of 1 billion with one of the lowest average wage rates of the third world.

We are all members of one race, the human race, and it is obviously always wrong to attempt to create false distinctions between people in order to turn them against each other. The only purpose racism serves is to divide the solidarity of the world's working class and therefore to weaken their struggle against capitalism and exploitation.

About six months ago I was at a restaurant that my friend works at (pretty good food) and three black men wearing stereotypical “urban wear” and speaking in equally stereotypical slurs came in. When someone came to take their order they insisted on verifying their order to the waiter with “you got dat, muthafucka?” Over the course of my meal it seemed they consistently used “you know wat I’m sayin’,” “muthafucka,” and “mah nigga” instead of periods, they made approximately 7 references to drugs (heroine and MJ) and at least one of them men had no qualms about stating how he beats his girlfriend. Needless to say, I lost my appetite. Later on, I got around to asking my friend who works there if that was common, he said he gets that sort of thing about 3 times a weak. Did I judge these men? Hell yes I did. Was it because they where black? Fuck no. Did it taint my perspective of blacks? Yes it did, and statistics back that up.

You want to know what is ignorant? NOT judging this kind of character and chocking it up with some pathetically weak ass defense about how downtrodden and misbegotten they are and instead judging the person who calls them on it. THAT is ignorance.
You know, you're absolutely right. Thanks for posting that.

F*ck rasicsm, it's counter productive and very boring. rascists on the whole are un-informed. We're all human beings for f*cks sake! Can't we all just get along?! Is it that difficult?! :headbang:

We are all members of one race, the human race, and it is obviously always wrong to attempt to create false distinctions between people in order to turn them against each other. The only purpose racism serves is to divide the solidarity of the world's working class and therefore to weaken their struggle against capitalism and exploitation.

Yes, because racism only exists thanks to the higher-ups in the capitalist system. :rolleyes:

http://www.thedoctorslounge.net/cardiolounge/articles/bidil_blacks/

Yes, the capitalist pigs are able to make medicine that works thanks to their nonexistant distinctions.

Amazing.

(I'd love to see them make a medicine for Whites. But that would be racist.)

Here is an excerpt from an article on this very subject. Also, both sides of this argument could benefit by reading some of JP Rushton's work regarding intelligence and race.

"Nationally, blacks are imprisoned on average 9.1 times as often as whites.

If this high rate of black imprisonment was caused by anti-black conservatism, then the ratio of blacks to whites imprisoned should be highest in Republican strongholds like the Old South. But instead, it is lowest there of any major region.

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina are only about six times more likely to imprison blacks than whites—just two-thirds of the national average.

In contrast, by far the greatest racial disparity was found in the most liberal spot on the map: the black-run District of Columbia, where Bush won only nine percent of the vote. Blacks in Washington D.C. are 56 times more likely than whites to wind up in the slammer.

The next biggest gap was 31 to 1 in Minnesota, which has normally been quite a bit more liberal than the typical heartland state.

Overall, the two regions with the biggest racial differences in black-white imprisonment rates are the Old Northwest and the Mid-Atlantic.

States with relatively high black vs. white imprisonment rates tended to vote for Kerry—the correlation was a strong r = 0.62

Obviously, the discrimination explanation for the racial gap does not hold water.

Another popular theory, put forward by New York Times reporter Fox Butterfield in his 1996 book All God's Children is, in the words of an Amazon.com reviewer:

"… that the primary origin of black violence is the tradition of white violence that was transferred to them from their former slave owners."

Josh Marshall, proprietor of the TalkingPointsMemo.com blog, wrote his history Ph.D. dissertation on the same premise—that blacks learned to be violent from those dueling and feuding Southern whites.

Of course, looked at from an international perspective, this theory requires Occam's Butterknife at its dullest. It would requite a local rationalization for each of the many countries with violent black communities.

Thus, presumably, the extreme crime in the black favelas of Brazil, as seen in the terrific 2003 movie City of God, is in imitation of the Portuguese; the sometimes genocidal violence in Ethiopia was learned from the Italians during their five brief years of colonization; and Shaka (1785-1828), King of the Zulus, would have been a pacifist if not for those vicious vibrations emanating from white men somewhere over the horizon.

But Fox Butterknife's hypothesis makes little sense even within the U.S. As we have seen, the most crime-prone blacks are in Iowa and Wisconsin, where whites were traditionally quite law-abiding. In contrast, the most honest blacks tend to be found in the Cotton Belt, where the Butterfield-Marshall theory predicts they should be most contaminated by white duelists."

From : Mapping The Unmentionable: Race And Crime
By Steve Sailer

Sailer really should re-examine the statistics upon which he bases this hypothesis. If you limit the analysis to violent crime statistics, the Butterfield-Marshall theory is established, at least to a prima facie degree. There are far more complex statistical correlation analyses which should and must be done in order for Sailer's analysis to prove true. Also, his theories are adopted by primarily supremasist organizations. Check the reviews on his theory and you will understand why I say this.

For those interested in the objectivity and neutrality of our Mr. Sailer, check the following:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/index.htm

I'm not even going to begin saying what I think about anyone that ticked the 'yeah its fine' box... lets just say its unpleasent

anyone trying to JUSTIFY ticking said box... crawl back into your caves and stay there, the rest of the world is trying to be grown ups, go play on the railways lines or something. We'll see how different you are from everyone else when you innards are scattered accross the scenary.

black people can be arseholes just as much as people from any other ethnicity (Race is no longer used as terminology as it intrinsically suggests an underlying difference, when there isn't one) Its not rascist to say that X person is a tosser, even if he or she *is* black, white or bloody tie-dye.

what is wrong is making ridiculous generalisations based on the colour of someones skin, idiots. I'm sure someone will have tried suggesting that 'black' people are different or less intelligent or whatever... let me tell you a little story.

It involves a close friend of mine from south africe, Mendokazi Gquobo. Now, Mendokazi (Mendo herefore) fled her native country (I forget precisely which one it was) after her villiage was attacked by rebels of some sort, she lost all contact with her family, presuming them dead in the attack. She arrived in England having worked and generally backpacked her way across two continents, originally 'sight seeing', she eventually applied for citizenship and now works full time in one of my old bars, she also works for a charity helping refugees and other people. She is a polyglot, fluent in 6 south african and 3 european languages and a number of dialects, including a really *really* good scottish accent she picked up from a colleague.

there is a point to my story... I have more respect for her then virtually anyone else I have ever met, not just for the amazing things she has lived through and survived, but also because she's a fabulous dancer and an amazing person in general.

Don't ever EVER try to suggest that racism is OK, its NOT

(P.S. just a bit of closure on Mendo's story, via her charity work she was reacently re-united with her aunt and some of her cousins who, her mother is alive and well living with relatives in her home country and she plans to visit later this year)

there is a point to my story... I have more respect for her then virtually anyone else I have ever met, not just for the amazing things she has lived through and survived, but also because she's a fabulous dancer and an amazing person in general.


That still doesn't prove whether race exists or not. Nice try.

A wise man once said that people ignore reality because it's less polite.

I've already stated that 'race' doesn't exist, beyond the fact that we are a part of the 'human race'

its ethnicity that is under discussion...

just a minor change in vocabulary seeing as the vast majority of people seem to be un-aware that to discuss 'race' is... well... ridiculous

I also want to note that almost all rebuttals to race involve the experience of a single outstanding individual the naysayer knows. It's true there will be brilliant people of all races, but as a whole there will be different qualities and abilities in certain skills of all races. East Asians and Ashkenazim Jews rank the highest on IQ tests, followed by Whites, and with Blacks last. This doesn't mean that all blacks will have lower IQs than the Chinese, but as a whole blacks will be behind. I'm sorry that these words are "impolite" and "unhappy" but let's focus on reality else we, metaphorically speaking, walk off the cliff we are too blind to see.

I've already stated that 'race' doesn't exist, beyond the fact that we are a part of the 'human race'


its ethnicity that is under discussion...


Dictionary for 'race' :
1. The descendants of a common ancestor; a family, tribe,
people, or nation, believed or presumed to belong to the
same stock; a lineage; a breed.

the rest of the world is trying to be grown ups, go play on the railways lines or something. We'll see how different you are from everyone else when you innards are scattered accross the scenary.

Ah now is that the kind of statement a "grown up" person such as yourself should be making?


she's a fabulous dancer


A fabulous dancer you say? What a quaint little story, I'll run back to my cave now.

I'm just wondering why the people that flame a person for using an isolated negative personal incident to justify racism generally turn around and use an isolated positive personal incident to justify "equality".

This might have already been discussed, but I thought I'd mention it. I am Caucasian. I live in an area of the country where there really isn't a whole lot of diversity - for some reason, various minorities simply didn't choose to move up here. Therefore, I don't know that many people from other races other than the ones I went to school with (whom I was perfectly comfortable with.)

When I meet a new person of another race, I ocassionally struggle with two things. The first thing is that my mind goes into overdrive calculating what I do and don't say so I never allow myself room to say anything that might remotely be considered racist. Needless to say, this takes up a lot of processing power away from my otherwise intelligent conversation and puts me at risk of making myself look stupid. I don't know why I'm so afraid of being portrayed as racist... it's not like I'm really at risk of it anyway...?

The other thing that occurs, which I consider to be far more serious, is when I'm talking to someone that talks differently (whether it be a ghetto accent, or a distinctly foreign accent, or just a foreign language) is that I wonder if they really are thinking the same way I think, or if there is a disconnect there.

The danger I think is when you tie race and communications together... and yes, when I'm talking to a young African-American who talks like they are from the inner city, this is how I begin to feel. I wonder if we are processing the information the same way. Does their genetic makeup influence their culture or actions? Do we have different goals, dreams, and strivings?

This has become especially important to me lately because the job I am in now is loosely related to the enforcement of Affirmative Action/EOE guidelines. I of all people have no room to be racist, right? And yet there are still some struggles in my head.

Americans are all too ready to brand as terrorists groups like the ELF, the ALF, and various white power organizations (who, unlike the previous two, I consider an odious cancer on the body of the USA). Urban terrorism is conducted daily by mostly non-white street gangs, terrorising neighborhoods composed of mostly non-white law abiding, but economically disadvantaged, citizens of my country.

The worst terrorists in America are not Muslims, they are African-American and Hispanic-American gangs. In the US, to say this is racism, maybe even anti-Bushism...but it is true. Gangs kill more people every year than any 9/11. I'm not proud of the KKK, and I doubt any white musician could build a successful career out of Aryan Nation pride...but a successful rap career can be based on being a crack dealer for a violent bunch of thugs. In fact, lack of gang cred can be a detriment to making a gold album.

The days of the drinking fountains for the whites and the blacks are over, you're bringing the racism on yourselves by not taking care of your community.

I'm white, and I'm more afraid of the white crackheads at the gas station I stopped at this morning than any black guy.

It has a little something to do with race, because around here white on white crime (and black on black crime) is more prevalent than mixed race crime. And if I look at serial killers, the vast majority of them seem to be white middle-class guys, which isn't particularly comforting.

I had a point when I posted this, but I don't remember what it was. I guess just that to be afraid of a black guy because of some past experiences is ridiculous. That's not cool. You really should get counseling--a therapist could help you work through these feelings and your past experiences, and you would realize that your preconceived notions are completely irrational.

[QUOTE=Natashenka]I'm white, and I'm more afraid of the white crackheads at the gas station I stopped at this morning than any black guy.
QUOTE]

This, I agree with. I've worked at a gas station before, and seen a lot of things. The few minorities that live around here are generally affluent and responsible people. It's the white underclass & druggies that I would worry about if I had to walk the streets at night, around here.

I also want to note that almost all rebuttals to race involve the experience of a single outstanding individual the naysayer knows. It's true there will be brilliant people of all races, but as a whole there will be different qualities and abilities in certain skills of all races. East Asians and Ashkenazim Jews rank the highest on IQ tests, followed by Whites, and with Blacks last. This doesn't mean that all blacks will have lower IQs than the Chinese, but as a whole blacks will be behind. I'm sorry that these words are "impolite" and "unhappy" but let's focus on reality else we, metaphorically speaking, walk off the cliff we are too blind to see.

sigh. Whites wrote the tests, and they are still slanted to favor those from certain backgrounds. They also only test certain kinds of intelligence. You've never heard of people that test well, or test badly? And even if the IQ tests were a real judge of intelligence, where do people get off attaching intrinsic value based on intelligence? My neighbor's 1 year old is probably no smarter than the average dog....does that make her less valuable? If the Einsteins and Steven Hawkings of the world decided the world would be better off without us mediocre people.....well, you get the idea.

There are smart people and stupid people of all races....

sigh. Whites wrote the tests, and they are still slanted to favor those from certain backgrounds.

Yeah. So Asians could get the highest scores.

They also only test certain kinds of intelligence.

You have a point there. I believe IQ is general intelligence, and there might be different kind of intelligences certain races are more gifted in.

You've never heard of people that test well, or test badly?

Laughable argument against race. A race of people don't test as well as others? That sounds....racial.

And even if the IQ tests were a real judge of intelligence, where do people get off attaching intrinsic value based on intelligence?

True, intelligence is meaningless if not applied, but this doesn't say anything about whether or not race exists.

My neighbor's 1 year old is probably no smarter than the average dog....does that make her less valuable?

This is meaningless and an attempt to cover for races that may be less "capable" (I use such a word loosely).

Comparing dog intelligence to the intelligence of a child is extremely flawed.

If the Einsteins and Steven Hawkings of the world decided the world would be better off without us mediocre people.....well, you get the idea.

Mediocre people are needed in a society as we all can't be kings (nor can we be Ocalmsnocis) but currently the mediocre rule with the sceptre of democracy.

There are smart people and stupid people of all races....

Nobody is denying that, but perhaps some races are disposed to having a different standard of intelligence?

My neighbor's 1 year old is probably no smarter than the average dog....does that make her less valuable?



This is meaningless and an attempt to cover for races that may be less "capable" (I use such a word loosely).

Comparing dog intelligence to the intelligence of a child is extremely flawed.


I'm just going to respond to this part for now.

I believe that it strikes at the heart of the issue. In each case of measuring racial intelligence, there are two flaws: 1. The tested populations may or may not be representative as their race as a whole (as in my dog vs. child example, or in the small segments of the population selected for testing).
2. The tests may be culturally biased, and probably are. Different cultures value different applications of intelligence. White (and to an even greater degree, East Asian in general) culture focuses on a testing process that is divorced from reality in tests of intelligence. Most of my students here prefer to memorize long lists of vocabulary, phrases, and entire presentations rather than actually practicing speaking English. Does this make them smarter, or better students? Not neccessarily, but it probably does make them test better. For other cultures that prefer reality as apposed to abstractions, this seems to make these tests flawed in measuring intelligence, especially for a group in general.

Interpreting the results of a test and determining that a certain race is better or worse or the same has nothing to do with reality.

It has to do with a person's original bias.

If a person sees different races of people as being just people, then he will search for flaws in the test.

If, on the other hand, this person already assumes that some races will test better than others, then he will look for flaws in groups of people, i.e. races.

East Asians and Ashkenazim Jews rank the highest on IQ tests, followed by Whites, and with Blacks last. This doesn't mean that all blacks will have lower IQs than the Chinese, but as a whole blacks will be behind.


Funny you should mention the Intelligence Quotient as evidence, seeing as though no one has a clue as to what IQ measures.

Binet invented it in 1904 as an experimental indicator of a student's level of education, but there was never any mention of it reflecting the intelligence of a person. In fact Binet specifically cautioned against its use to such an end.

Of course being dead he couldn't stop William Stern from doing so anyways in 1916. And to this day it remains an arbitrary and meaningless measurement with only a mystical significance attached to it.

Funny you should mention the Intelligence Quotient as evidence, seeing as though no one has a clue as to what IQ measures.

Various factors. Spacial intelligence, verbal skills, reasoning, etc. IQ is a summary of all these abilities.

Binet invented it in 1904 as an experimental indicator of a student's level of education, but there was never any mention of it reflecting the intelligence of a person. In fact Binet specifically cautioned against its use to such an end.

So? It's been over a hundred years. Things evolve. And please note that whatever Binet said a hundred years ago does not prove whether the tests are valid or not.

Of course being dead he couldn't stop William Stern from doing so anyways in 1916. And to this day it remains an arbitrary and meaningless measurement with only a mystical significance attached to it.

And it is mystical that certain races consistently score higher on the test than others.

Interpreting the results of a test and determining that a certain race is better or worse or the same has nothing to do with reality.

It has to do with a person's original bias.

If a person sees different races of people as being just people, then he will search for flaws in the test.

If, on the other hand, this person already assumes that some races will test better than others, then he will look for flaws in groups of people, i.e. races.

Proof?

Common sense. Think about it. Your first, gut, reaction betrays your bias -- that there must be something wrong with the people rather than something wrong with the test. Now you can either step back and look at both options objectively, or you can follow your gut (instead of your mind).

If you're black people certainly make excuses and acceptions for being racist or just call them "militants" instead.

IQ tests are absurd, for a start it is impossible to define 'intelligence' let alone measure it.

Ok so it was 4.30 am here and i'd just got in from work and my little comment about railway lines was probably not my greatest moment. Further I can see your point about my little anecdote, more on that later.

However, 'race' is in the dictionary yeah, and it supports your use of the term, however it is still an incorrect usage, there are no 'racial traits' beyond the change in skin colour, caused by long term adaptation to a certain environment, and a variance in appearence, in the same way that all people vary in appearance. Your assertion that various change's in appearance constitute a category of 'race definition' would logically conclude that I am a different race from anyone that varies from 'my' appearance, that is anyone with different coloured hair, varying skin pigmentation, a different height etc. On this basis, nobody is the same as me, no shit. So your arguement essentially suggests that we should not treat everyone the same, rather we should treat them as an individual based on their personal characteristics.... wow, we're on the same side after all.

However you are trying to create artificial groups of people that share certain characteristics, considering that these characteristics are primarilly merely superficial physical variations, you are creating 'schema' to enable your brain to cope with an infinate variation that surrounds you. This is an entirely natural process which begins in childhood and never ceases, its our brains being lazy because they've got a lot to do. However your attachment of certain values, or judgements based on those schema is where we differ, it is akin to a child who upon being introduced to a fourlegged creature (dog) attempts to classify all such similar appearing creatures as 'dog' it is only through experience and increased understanding that the child is able to comprehend the variations between 'dog' and 'cat' and futher to differentiate between individual dogs or cats. This process is at work, and underlies the creation of 'race', it is only through increasing our understanding and experience of people and the variations between them that we begin to comprehend that within an ethnic group (a group sharing a common history and culture) their is an infinate variation of characteristics and individuals.

Your criticism of my anecdote is based on the idea that I have had one experience of a black south african and base my judgement of all those from such an ethnic background upon that experience. This is clearly not the case as I have met many such individuals that I dislike, for various reasons, the difference is that I recognise the capacity for variation within that group, where as your experiences, or lack there of cause you to pre-judge all persons whom you view as being a part of that group (namely 'blacks') based upon a negative stereotype. I on the other hand am essentially neutral to all individuals and try not to form such stereotypes.

You could have this argument about racial profiling. We do it all the time, and no one ever says anything. Back when I worked for Radio Shack, we all knew what to do if someone of a certain race came through the door. The Orthidox Jews in the area used to buy things and return them 30 days later, which meant we lost our commission, so no one ever helped them. When someone came in who didn't speak English, or had their kids speaking for them, we would try to sell them a sprint phone, or a pre-payed phone, because chances are, they didn't have good credit.

Was this being racist, or being smart? We didn't have anything against these people, but we knew some races were more likely to buy certain products than others. Someone who walks into the store in a buisness suit gets shown the phone with the high credit restrictions. This too is profiling.

Various factors. Spacial intelligence, verbal skills, reasoning, etc. IQ is a summary of all these abilities.

As I said, that would constitute an arbitrary guess on your part. You have no idea what the Intelligence quotient is, why it is a quotient instead of a sum or product, and how it reflects on an individual's talents and/or skills. Saying otherwise means that you are blatantly lying.


It's been over a hundred years. Things evolve. And please note that whatever Binet said a hundred years ago does not prove whether the tests are valid or not.

:rolleyes: OK that's just pitiful. The very architect of the IQ specifically said that his invention was not a measure of innate mental capacity, and you want everyone to ignore him. That's like an Evolutionist saying Darwin was full of shit but everyone should still believe in evolution. How many followers do you expect to win over with that approach?

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, and it is making you look more than a little ridiculous.

F*ck rasicsm, it's counter productive and very boring. rascists on the whole are un-informed. We're all human beings for f*cks sake! Can't we all just get along?! Is it that difficult?! :headbang:
I could make the same argument for species-ism. We are all animals, we all bleed red don't we ? Why are animals treated inferior? Some of them are more intelligent than we are.

I'm white, and I'm more afraid of the white crackheads at the gas station I stopped at this morning than any black guy.

I had a point when I posted this, but I don't remember what it was.


Maybe you'd be able to remember things better if you stopped hanging out with the crack heads. Crack isn't good for a person's memory.

I could make the same argument for species-ism. We are all animals, we all bleed red don't we ? Why are animals treated inferior? Some of them are more intelligent than we are.

No, but obviously some are more intelligent than you.

Is anyone else disturbed by all the people who don't even believe in FREEDOM OF THOUGHT (they voted yes)?

Even fundamentalist religionites believe you can have those evil thoughts, just don't act on them.

Makes me wonder just what these people will vote into being, in order to control people's minds.

Is anyone else disturbed by all the people who don't even believe in FREEDOM OF THOUGHT (they voted yes)?

Even fundamentalist religionites believe you can have those evil thoughts, just don't act on them.

Makes me wonder just what these people will vote into being, in order to control people's minds.
to say that racist feelings are always wrong is not to say they should be outlawed. just that they are wrong

some things are just wrong. im sure you can think of an example of a feeling that is always wrong without my having to post something distasteful in an already distasteful thread.

Is anyone else disturbed by all the people who don't even believe in FREEDOM OF THOUGHT (they voted yes)?

Even fundamentalist religionites believe you can have those evil thoughts, just don't act on them.

Makes me wonder just what these people will vote into being, in order to control people's minds.

There is no limit to what they will do. The game is global domination and certain groups, (IE: Ford, Rockefeller, Tides and many others) believe that a passive global population will be required for it. In order to achieve this they must break down a desire for freedom and free thought. To accomplish this they must first indoctrinate you into believing your thoughts are wrong thinking, and with the help of political correctness, never, ever speak your mind out loud, if it is contrary to doctrine.
Most of your schools are very much on board with all this rubish, but that is mainly because these foundations are the ones footing the bill for research grants etc. None of it is anything new. It has been going on at least since the early 1900's when these foundations came to being. You can find the facts about them through old historical records, such as their original, "charters" etc, however once it became well known what they were about, and their founders died off, they changed most of them to read as if they were something good, with good intentions for all. Case in point, check into the Cecil Rhodes Foundation and you will find out that a Rhodes Scholar is just the most wonderful thing in the world. The fact is, he started the foundation in the first place for the sole purpose of re-establishing the British Empire and returning lost colonial territory. Including the United States, to British Rule.
It is a very interesting insight into the minds of the rich and elite throughout the world.
On our side however, is time. What we trade in youth we make up for in wisdom, and we are not so easily tricked into surrendering things such as herritage, nationality, freedom, independent thought, and free speech. What is not on our side is a society that fails to value our senior citizens for the treasure troves of knowledge that they are.

There is no limit to what they will do. The game is global domination and certain groups, (IE: Ford, Rockefeller, Tides and many others) believe that a passive global population will be required for it. In order to achieve this they must break down a desire for freedom and free thought. To accomplish this they must first indoctrinate you into believing your thoughts are wrong thinking, and with the help of political correctness, never, ever speak your mind out loud, if it is contrary to doctrine.
Most of your schools are very much on board with all this rubish, but that is mainly because these foundations are the ones footing the bill for research grants etc. None of it is anything new. It has been going on at least since the early 1900's when these foundations came to being. You can find the facts about them through old historical records, such as their original, "charters" etc, however once it became well known what they were about, and their founders died off, they changed most of them to read as if they were something good, with good intentions for all. Case in point, check into the Cecil Rhodes Foundation and you will find out that a Rhodes Scholar is just the most wonderful thing in the world. The fact is, he started the foundation in the first place for the sole purpose of re-establishing the British Empire and returning lost colonial territory. Including the United States, to British Rule.
It is a very interesting insight into the minds of the rich and elite throughout the world.
On our side however, is time. What we trade in youth we make up for in wisdom, and we are not so easily tricked into surrendering things such as herritage, nationality, freedom, independent thought, and free speech. What is not on our side is a society that fails to value our senior citizens for the treasure troves of knowledge that they are.
isnt that just a teeeny tiny bit paranoid?

the great charitable foundations are on a multigenerational plan of global domination???

isnt that just a teeeny tiny bit paranoid?

the great charitable foundations are on a multigenerational plan of global domination???


Every suburban wage slave, his brother, and his kids have a scheme for world domination. Hell I certinaly do. Is it REALLY so hard to believe it that select few people with something resembling the means to do so, set in motion said schemes?

Every suburban wage slave, his brother, and his kids have a scheme for world domination. Hell I certinaly do. Is it REALLY so hard to believe it that select few people with something resembling the means to do so, set in motion said schemes?
yes
but only because of the multigenerational part

yes
but only because of the multigenerational part

Why is that so hard to believe? I lot of people are willing to work for a dead man's legacy if they think they can benefit from it in some way.

Why is that so hard to believe? I lot of people are willing to work for a dead man's legacy if they think they can benefit from it in some way.
as a mom i know how hard it is to get your kids to keep their room clean. how much more useless is it to expect that your grandchildren will be interested in your plan for world domination.

Is anyone else disturbed by all the people who don't even believe in FREEDOM OF THOUGHT (they voted yes)?

Even fundamentalist religionites believe you can have those evil thoughts, just don't act on them.

Makes me wonder just what these people will vote into being, in order to control people's minds.


As I recall, the poll asked "Are racist feelings always necessarily wrong?" and not "Should the law prosecute racist feelings?" Thus the freedom of thought topic has nothing to do with the poll. :rolleyes:

isnt that just a teeeny tiny bit paranoid?

the great charitable foundations are on a multigenerational plan of global domination???

Charity is not their goal. Not by any strech of the imagination. They are the driving force behind, "The New World Order". Nothing at all paranoid about it. It's real, they are real, and the only thing in doubt is will the world wake up before it's too late.

A few quotes to ponder for you:
***
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.
***

"We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs, the House Magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations (July/August 1995)

***

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

Strobe Talbot, Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

***

"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent."

Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950

***

There is much much more evidence, most of it right in front of our noses. They simply bank on our denial of reality and willingness to write it off as parinoid.

As I recall, the poll asked "Are racist feelings always necessarily wrong?" and not "Should the law prosecute racist feelings?" Thus the freedom of thought topic has nothing to do with the poll. :rolleyes:
The poll asked, " Are racist feelings always necessarily wrong? (note question mark depecting end of question)

Feelings = Thoughts - By any definition. Thus, the suppression of the freedom of thought is relevant, as, must be the identity of those that would supress it.

If that doesn't satisfy your thread policing affliction, then by all means, SNITCH on me.

Fortunately for us your recaller is defective. The poll asked, " Are racist feelings always necessarily wrong? (note question mark depecting end of question)

Feelings = Thoughts - By any definition. Thus, the suppression of the freedom of thought is relevant, as, must be the identity of those that would supress it.

If that doesn't satisfy your thread policing affliction, then by all means, SNITCH on me.
how does calling racist feelings OR thoughts wrong equate to supressing them in others?

Feelings, of whatever sort, are neither "wrong" nor "right." They just are. When you choose to act on your feelings, it's your actions which have either a positive or a negative effect. The analogy I've heard used most often is, "There's no blame if a bird flies over your head. But if you let it build a nest in your hair, that's a whole different matter!" :)

as a mom i know how hard it is to get your kids to keep their room clean. how much more useless is it to expect that your grandchildren will be interested in your plan for world domination.

Who cares if you're a mom? You apparently don't know much about history. JP Morgan? Heard of them? Not the firm, but the two people. John Pierpont Morgan Jr and Sr. Junior there cared a lot about his Father's legacy. Senior there cared a lot about his father's (Junius Morgan's) legacy. Junior there cared a lot about his grandfather's legacy.

But hey, what do the architects of US Steel, International Merchant Marine, General Electric, rail road monopolies and the saviors of wall street, the US government and British investors have to do with anything.

Is anyone else disturbed by all the people who don't even believe in FREEDOM OF THOUGHT (they voted yes)?

Even fundamentalist religionites believe you can have those evil thoughts, just don't act on them.

Makes me wonder just what these people will vote into being, in order to control people's minds.

As has been pointed out several times, the idea that certain thoughts are wrong does not equal the banning of such ideas.

The idea that criticism is disturbing and an infringement on freedom of thought is, itself, disturbing. It's also hypocritical.

If you can't handle someone saying an idea is wrong without resorting to claims that saying an idea is wrong equals oppression, may I kindly suggest you avoid debating?

As has been pointed out several times, the idea that certain thoughts are wrong does not equal the banning of such ideas.

The idea that criticism is disturbing and an infringement on freedom of thought is, itself, disturbing. It's also hypocritical.

If you can't handle someone saying an idea is wrong without resorting to claims that saying an idea is wrong equals oppression, may I kindly suggest you avoid debating?

That would all be true enough if it only did stop with criticism. Just as it did with Germany, the Soviet Union and countless dictatorships in the past, it progresses. Now days (in the U.S.) you must be very careful of what you say at all times. Even the slightest misconception of what you say can get you fired instantly. What's worse is that the accusation alone is grounds enough to be fired. They have even taken to persecuting someone now for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person on your day off and far far away from the workplace, as grounds for firing.
Now you combine that with not being able to be hired as a University Professor unless of course you think correctly. Cant get a job as an actor unless of course you think correctly. The list goes on with examples such as this so please dont tell me how it doesnt equal oppression. It is so blatent now they make jokes about how easy it is.

Maybe you'd be able to remember things better if you stopped hanging out with the crack heads. Crack isn't good for a person's memory.

I try to stay as far away from crackheads as possible.

Feelings = Thoughts - By any definition. Thus, the suppression of the freedom of thought is relevant, as, must be the identity of those that would supress it.

If that doesn't satisfy your thread policing affliction, then by all means, SNITCH on me.


No, feelings and thoughts are two different things. It makes sense for me to say "I feel sad". It does not, however, make sense for me to say "I think sad".

Also you completely missed my point. I answered 'yes' to the poll because I think racist feelings are wrong, sinful, whatever. I also believe in free speech though, meaning I might not like what you have to say but you should have a right to say it anyways.

C'mon man, I feel like I'm talking to a grade schooler here. These are very basic points.