NationStates Jolt Archive

A made an analogy a while ago, comparing the Jews to Nazis. That was an inappropriate comment and for that, I apologize to Sanctaphrax and any others here who were offended by it.

With that said, I need to clarify a few things, for many, many people that often wrongly play the racism card. First of all, it needs to be understood that racism is not a thought, but a feeling. In psychology, thoughts are emotionally-neutral. They are merely observations and logical evaluations. Emotion, however, is an immediate sense of value. To put it simply, thoughts tell us what things are and why, emotions tell us whether those things are good or bad. And a thought or an idea cannot be racist unless there is the emotion that goes with it, that tells us a certain race is bad or good, no matter how subtle. Intellectual ideas, opinions based upon logic, cannot be racist unless they are tied to emotion or were created by it.

I have no problem with Jews. I don't hate them. There is nothing that I would not do with a Jew. I would be friends with a Jew, I'd hug a Jew, I'd marry a Jew. My dad's ex-girlfriend was a Jew and I didn't care. Now, I know that it's ridiculous to say that, but I need to: Because people often tie political and intellectual beliefs to racism. And I am not a racist. I don't hate any race, nor do I believe any is better or worse, nor do I believe any should be discriminated against. Yes, I have criticisms of Israel and of the Jewish culture, but that does not mean I hate Jews, and I abhor the anti-semitic remarks made by white supremacist groups and on Palestinian television.

In another forum I'm in, a Spanish guy made the comment that "white parents can't raise their kids right." And a bunch of posters jumped all over him for being racist. I explained he wasn't being racist, but simply expressing a politically-incorrect opinion. I and others at the forum have known him for a while, so we know he doesn't hate white people, so just because he puts forth a politically-incorrect opinion does not mean he is racist.

As a result, I decided to form a list of what racism is and what racism is not. I've also built upon this list, with thorough explanations.

WHAT RACISM IS NOT...
1. Believing in racial stereotypes or generalizations, but not universally, is not racist.
According to psychology, we naturally generalize. Our brains usually break all things down into categories and labels, called "categorical processing." When we learn things, we also create things called "prototypes." If I were to tell you to imagine a terrorist, the first thing you would envision is likely a Muslim terrorist, even if I didn't specifically mention "Muslim" terrorist. With prototypes, features are also generally exaggerated. Asking anyone to envision a person of any race, they are likely to imagine a stereotype.

Generalizations and stereotypes are also not always totally false, but rather, psychology teaches that they would not exist unless they were based on some form of truth. In some cases, that's just a story, which popularized a certain stereotype. So, obviously, sometimes they're fictious, but not always. And according to Sociology and Anthropology, cultures can share certain characteristics. Would it be racist to say that the Vikings were violent? Of course not. What's important with stereotypes is not that you don't make them, but that they are reasonable and aren't applied universally.

For example, I'm a white person and I agree that white parents are generally permissive, particularly liberal parents in the north. But if I were to say, "ALL WHITE PARENTS ARE PERMISSIVE!!" that would be a prejudiced comment, because it completely violates human reason, by ignoring the idea that there are exceptions. Racists often do this. They believe "all" Jews or "all" blacks have a certain quality, but that is not true. Lastly, it's also important to emphasize that such characteristics are within the culture, not the race. Someone who makes poor generalizations about a certain race throughout history is ignorant, just as someone who judges a race today by their forefathers' actions centuries ago.
2. Believing racial epithets of any kind should not be offensive is not racist.
As long as it's viewed with an equal scale. If, for example, you believe the N-word is obviously offensive, but the word "cracker" should not be offensive, then that is prejudice. Understandably, that's a poor example, though...

To give you a better example: If you believe anti-Jewish slurs are wrong, but believe anti-Muslims slurs are okay (or vice-versa), then that is prejudice. But if you believe both or all racial slurs either should be offensive or should not, then that is not racism because it's an intellectual thought that does not imply a certain race is good or bad, because it values them with an equal scale.

3. Criticizing a certain race's culture (IE: whites are permissive, blacks are violent, or Jews are racist) is not racist.
As stated earlier, cultures can have stereotypes, and even negative stereotypes should not be exempt. For example, I believe the Jewish culture is admirable for its parenting skills. If it's one things Jews can do, it's raise children. Very, very few Jews commit crimes, do drugs, and a majority of them go onto higher education. As a result, fields such as law, medicine, jewelry, and movie-making are disproportionately dominated by the Jews. So, there is a flip-side to every politically-incorrect statement. Jews would agree if I say, "Jews are good at parenting, their kids don't commit crimes, do drugs, and they get good jobs." But they would be likely to denounce me as a racist if I say, "Jews disproportionately dominate certain fields."

The point is: People will often agree with an idea, but denounce it as racist if it's worded differently, even though you're saying the same thing. Good parenting leads to good jobs. Because Jews' culture has such a tight, social structure and an emphasis on family values, they are more successful than others in the work force. This, obviously, leads to them having more jobs and control over lucrative fields, not because of some Jewish conspiracy, but because of a good quality within their culture!

As long as your criticisms do not support hatred or discrimination, are not universal, and are emotionally-neutral, then they are not racism.

In some cases, charges of racism are racist in and of themselves. For example, a Jewish author once wrote that one of the fields where Jews are discriminated against most is jockeying. In another forum, a person quoted this man. Now this, obviously, is ridiculous. Because the Jews emphasize higher-education, it is silly to believe that they aren't becoming jockeys because they're being discriminated against. Simply put: A Jewish mother is not going to tell her son, "Sure.. Forget medical school or law. Go ride a horse!" Racists or any social group which believes they are better than others (such as majorities within all the major religions) will often create a persecution-complex. White supremacists talk about how others are trying to exterminate the white race. And black supremacists in the Nation of Islam say similar things. In other words, they justify their own racism by denouncing others as racist.

Anyway, I digress. The idea that criticisms of a culture are not always inherently racist is further emphasized by the fact that people who are of that culture sometimes share the same criticisms. Black comedians often poke fun at their own race and "self-hating Jews" often make criticisms of Israel, and sometimes even Jewish culture. So, if a person who is not black or Jewish shares these same intellectual opinions, as long as it is motivated strictly by rational thought and not hatred, it isn't racism.

4. Believing in eugenics is not racist.
The idea that eugenics is not racist is probably one of the most difficult of all to explain. I, personally, don't believe in eugenics, but being that it's a intended to be a science, it cannot be inherently racist.

Science is or at least is intended to be objective and emotionally-neutral. Eugenicists do not do research because they hate certain races, but because they, as scientists, believe it's true. Research cannot be done with an emotional bias and so, whether or not a eugenicist is racist simply depends upon the level of obvious bias in their work. Eugenics is a pseudoscience, as said before, so obviously, it's probably going to be denounced as biased, no matter what. But it needs to be looked at carefully, if the evidence warrants such further observation.

After looking into it, I was also shocked to determine that eugenics was actually once part of standard curriculum in universities in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The black civil rights activist, W.E.B. Dubois also believed in eugenics. And eugenics was not tied to racism until the Nazis began including it in their policies in order to support genocide. This further supports that it isn't necessarily racist.

Centuries ago, scientists were denounced as anti-Christian because they put forth work which contradicted the church's teachings. Today, eugenicists are denounced as prejudiced because they put forth work which contradicts society's most common perception of race. They should not be judged before actually looking at their work. Just as with anything in the above list, if it's motivated strictly by the intellect rather than by hatred, it is not inherently racist.

5. Cartoons with exaggerated features are not racist.
A caricature, by its nature, has exaggerated features. In fact, I actually wonder--has a white artist doing caricatures on the street ever been charged with racism? It would be hilarious to see such an event and I don't doubt that it has.

Any form of art can be a caricature or at least partially caricaturing, and is not immediately racist. The easiest way to tell if a form of art is racist is by how many negative stereotypes it shares. If it's simply one or a few, then it's probably not racist. In political cartoons containing Condoleeza Rice, she's been drawn with bigger lips, and a bigger nose. Now, those are very few characteristics and are merely exaggerations of features she has, so to immediately denounce it as racist is erroneous.

But if a cartoon shares constant negative stereotypes, it's obviously racist. For example, the Mexican comic book, "Memin Penguin," caused a controversy quite a while ago. At first, I didn't believe it was racist, because although the main character looked monkey-like, I assumed it was just a caricature of the character, no different than how Bill Cosby exaggerated black features in his cartoon, Fat Albert.

However, when I read more on the comic on Spanish websites and actually read the comic (I know a fair amount of Spanish), it was obvious that it was racist because it contained practically every negative stereotype about blacks that exists. The main character not only looked monkey-like, but often stole, was a poor student, and his mother (who, as it seems, didn't work) looked like Aunt Jemimah. And he didn't have a father. The last straw, when I finally realized how disgustingly bigoted the comic's creator was, was when I read that there was one edition of the comic where a white kid in church told Memin that black kids don't go to heaven, which is why there are no black angels.

Now, with political cartoons of Condoleeza Rice, there are very few stereotypical characteristics, so it isn't necessarily racist. But with Memin Penguin, there are so many negative stereotypes, that it is virtually undeniable. This is the scale that art needs to be measured by: Not immediately racist, but a spectrum of probability, depending upon how many stereotypes there are.

6. Being politically incorrect is not racist.
Probably one of the main reasons we falsely denounce people as racists is because of politics. Politicians who do it gain support by stirring up ignorant hatred. And we follow their lead, like political sheep. In Judaism, Jews believe in "lashon harah," their all-inclusive definition of slander, which states that no one may say anything bad about another individual Jew or the Jewish people, whether it's true or not. Because of this, the ADL does not simply persecute anti-Jewish racists, but anyone who makes negative comments about Jews and they immediately denounce it as racist.

But that is not always the case, and this witch-hunt is racist in and of itself. Being politically-incorrect is not racist, unless it is motivated by hatred. It's understandable that in our time, there are racists who are far more subtle, such as David Duke's followers. This subtlety has created the mentality which allows such a witch-hunt to occur. But we must be careful and we must ask ourselves, "What are the odds that someone could have this opinion, but not be motivated by hatred?" Understandably, our biases often make that practically impossible. But it is important to remember that politically-incorrect intellectualism does not equate with subtle racism, though it can. The only clear and undeniable characteristics of racists are listed below.

WHAT RACISM IS...
1. Believing one race or nation is "better" than another is racist.
2. Believing people should be treated differently, because of their nationality is racist.
3. Hating a specific nationality is racist.
4. Opposing inter-racial marriage of any kind is racist.
5. Believing some racial epithets are okay, but some are not is racist.
6. Believing racial stereotypes apply universally is racist.
7. Calling people who oppose prejudice racists or other derogatory terms ("self-hating Jew", "anti-white", etc) is racist.

Hating a specific nationality is racist.
Not necessarily. What if Nation A is full of white people and Nation B is as well. Each one hates the other, but they're of the same race.

Not necessarily. What if Nation A is full of white people and Nation B is as well. Each one hates the other, but they're of the same race.
In which case, that would be discrimination.

Bravo Shrub, my hat is off to you.

In which case, that would be discrimination.
Discrimination, but not racism.

Discrimination, but not racism.
Isn't that what I just said? :p

Isn't that what I just said? :p
I wasn't sure what you said. :p

Not necessarily. What if Nation A is full of white people and Nation B is as well. Each one hates the other, but they're of the same race.
It needs to be recognized that "nation" is not necessarily genetic characteristics, but of your social group.

For example, a recent scientific study showed that Jews and Arabs are practically the same race, about as different as a white American is from a British American. And yet, if an Arab hates a Jew, it's called "racism," and vice-versa.

There also really aren't clean-cut "races," but it's based purely on ignorant labels.

Let's say that a light-skinned black man and a white person have two children: One appears to be white (because of how light-skinned they are) and one appears to be black. Even though they both share the same genes, they're both "the same race," we judge them by their mere appearance, not their genetics.

Often, we define black as whoever has any black DNA in them at all. But then.. there's a problem. I'll give you two examples: One friend of mine, named Paul, is 75% Native American and 25% black. But if you looked at him, you'd just think he was white. That's why a lot of black people get offended when he uses the N-word (he listens to rap). Once you tell them, "But his father was black!" their opinion suddenly changes.

But then, wait--My mother has something in her blood which is only found in blacks and Native Americans. If we did some geneology and found out that, hundreds of years ago, I had a black ancestor and that I have some dormant black DNA, even though I appear white, should I be able to say the N-word?

No, racism is best defined as social groups, "nationalities," not races. This also works with the current definition of racism.

Racism
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Race
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less istinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

There's anti-American racism, anti-French racism, and racism against any nationality. It's not based on genetics, but on social groups. Not all Muslims are Arabs, and not all Jews descended strictly from the Israelites.

Shrub, you've written some impressive essays...
I disagree with your stance on eugenics being unbiased because it's science... Science is biased, it just pretends to be. Look at environmental studies funded by oil companies, compared to those funded by Greenpeace. Same world, different conclusions - diametrically opposite, in fact. But it isn't necessarily racist.
This essay is damn good.

Shrub, you've written some impressive essays...
I disagree with your stance on eugenics being unbiased because it's science... Science is biased, it just pretends to be. Look at environmental studies funded by oil companies, compared to those funded by Greenpeace. Same world, different conclusions - diametrically opposite, in fact. But it isn't necessarily racist.
This essay is damn good.
I took a look at the Wiki on eugenics and added some information to the original essay. It wasn't considered racist until the Nazis used it to justify genocide. The black civil rights activist, W.E.B. Dubois, also believed in eugenics.

I took a look at the Wiki on eugenics and added some information to the original essay. It wasn't considered racist until the Nazis used it to justify genocide. The black civil rights activist, W.E.B. Dubois, also believed in eugenics.
Yup. I don't consider eugenics inherently racist. Just morally wrong, but not racist.
Oh, and Sheeptopia is me, but with my puppet... Its first post! I'm soo proud!

Just what we needed: apologetics for racism. :rolleyes: :headbang:

Get a clue.

Just what we needed: apologetics for racism. :rolleyes: :headbang:

Get a clue.
It's not "apologetic" at all, but rather, I'm merely clarifying the nonsense political-correctness has caused us to believe.

Racists act with hatred, out of ignorance. You just did the same. Did you actually read the essay, or did you just skim through it, immediately assuming you knew what its contents were?

Read it. You might be surprised by what you see.

It's not "apologetic" at all, but rather, I'm merely clarifying the nonsense political-correctness has caused us to believe.

Racists act with hatred, out of ignorance. You just did the same. Did you actually read the essay, or did you just skim through it, immediately assuming you knew what its contents were?

Read it. You might be surprised by what you see.

I read it. I was not impressed. I was suprised only by the ignorance and sophistry.

I'm not going point-by-point to dispute your "essay" for two reasons: (1) it isn't worth it and (2) I've done that in the past with your "essays," only to have you completely ignore the critique.

You have this dangerously naive view of racists that is similar to how most people view rapists -- that they are drooling knuckle-dragging strange thugs that are easily spotted and/or commit serial offenses.

One need not be a hard-core "racist" to say or do something that is racially biased (i.e., racist).

And, yes, there are racist thoughts, words, and cartoons.

EDIT: And look up the word "apologetics." I thought someone with frequent pretenses towards being a theologian would know the meaning of the word.

I read it. I was not impressed. I was suprised only by the ignorance and sophistry.

I'm not going point-by-point to dispute your "essay" for two reasons: (1) it isn't worth it and (2) I've done that in the past with your "essays," only to have you completely ignore the critique.

You have this dangerously naive view of racists that is similar to how most people view rapists -- that they are drooling knuckle-dragging strange thugs that are easily spotted and/or commit serial offenses.

One need not be a hard-core "racist" to say or do something that is racially biased (i.e., racist).

And, yes, there are racist thoughts, words, and cartoons.

EDIT: And look up the word "apologetics." I thought someone with frequent pretenses towards being a theologian would know the meaning of the word.
Apologetics is an often mis-used term. For example, boycott-canada.com calls the government "apologetics" for justifying seal-clubbing. That's fucking retarded, haha.

Apologetic has the connotation of "justifying an immoral act", even though it's dictionary definition means "justifying or explaining an act."

But I'm not justifying anything immoral. Racists, no matter how subtle, are idiots. Notice: I also mentioned David Duke and his followers who are certainly not "drooling knuckle-dragging strange thugs," so your point is moot.

And finally, if you're going to claim (or imply) that I'm an anti-Jewish racist, then here's a good question for you, genius: Why would I ask that moderators deal with an anti-semitic remark?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433713

i agree with shrub

not everything that is wrong when dealing with racial issues is racist. some thngs are just stupid.

to lump it all under the name of racism dilutes the anger we should feel about real racists... those who work to make sure that people of other races are kept behind. those who murder members of other races for their race. those who gain money and power through advocating racial violence.

to think its OK to use all sorts of racial epithets are just stupid not racists. those who disagree with the policies of the state of israel are not automatically anti-jewish. those who get nervous around young black men dressed in "gangsta" clothing are not racist. those who believe in eugenics are not racist.

now plenty of the people discribed above ARE racists but its the rest of their beliefs and behaviors that make them so.

not everything WRONG is racist.

The only thing that separates Israelis from Nazis are that Israelis haven't built death camps. Yet.

This was a stupid thing to say. I wasn't sure if you were being serious, or being funny, but either way, it was pretty much evil all around. How does Nazis Slaughtering 6 million Jews relate to Israelis in any way shape or form?
Think before you say dumbass offensive things, especially when Jews like me can read them.

Shrub, what you are doing in your post is an intellectually dishonest manipulation aimed to whitewash more or less all of the most common racist practices.

Believing in racial stereotypes or generalizations, but not universally, is not racist.
Yes it is, or rather it can be, if the said stereotypes and generalizations are being deliberately invoked in an offensive way or a way that suggests that the group in question possesses inherent qualities that make them inferior or evil by default.

Example 1
Saying that all Jews are rich may be a racist attack or it may merely be a false observation made by a clinical idiot. However, saying that all Jews are rich because they cheat the non-Jews in trade leaves no two options, it is racist to boot.

Example 2: Saying that there are many Jews in the top political positions in your country is a factual observation that may or may not be true. However, regardless of whether or not it is true, saying that there are too many Jews in the top political positions in your country is a racist slur, as it suggests that a group of people should not be allowed to succeed beyond an artificially set limit because of their ethnic background.


2. Believing racial epithets of any kind should not be offensive is not racist.
As long as it's viewed with an equal scale. If, for example, you believe the N-word is obviously offensive, but the word "cracker" should not be offensive, then that is prejudice. Understandably, that's a poor example, though...
What you are suggesting here is that if I go around calling everyone "motherfuckers", it is somehow alright and no one should take offense because I am being "fair and balanced" in my name calling. Surely you must see the absurdity of that. If not, I will refer to you, just like I do to every person unable to see absurdity in your statement, as "motherfucker". Fair is fair, after all ;)


3. Criticizing a certain race's culture (IE: whites are permissive, blacks are violent, or Jews are racist) is not racist.
Again, it can be, and it is more often than not. For instance, saying that Jews use blood of Christian babies for baked goods is racist regardless of the intent and sincerety of beliefs of whoever says it. Statements like "this culture is racist" cannot possibly be "emotionally neutral", they by definition invite a negative emotional response and hatred- which renders your whole rationalization bogus from top to bottom.

As stated earlier, cultures can have stereotypes, and even negative stereotypes should not be exempt. For example, I believe the Jewish culture is admirable for its parenting skills. If it's one things Jews can do, it's raise children. Very, very few Jews commit crimes, do drugs, and a majority of them go onto higher education. As a result, fields such as law, medicine, jewelry, and movie-making are disproportionately dominated by the Jews. So, there is a flip-side to every politically-incorrect statement. Jews would agree if I say, "Jews are good at parenting, their kids don't commit crimes, do drugs, and they get good jobs." But they would be likely to denounce me as a racist if I say, "Jews disproportionately dominate certain fields."
And here you fall into the exact same trap that I have described above: your last statement, by using the word "disproportionally", suggests that Jewish presence in certain fields can only be seen as normal and acceptable for as long as it does not exceed a certain "proportion", after which it should be regarded as somehow abnormal, too big, exceeding some kind of "natural" limit- which, in turn, automatically suggests inherent "unfairness" of the situation. You falling into this trap further reinforces my point.


The idea that criticisms of a culture are not always inherently racist is further emphasized by the fact that people who are of that culture sometimes share the same criticisms. Black comedians often poke fun at their own race and "self-hating Jews" often make criticisms of Israel, and sometimes even Jewish culture. So, if a person who is not black or Jewish shares these same intellectual opinions, as long as it is motivated strictly by rational thought and not hatred, it isn't racism.
Again, it all depends on what kind of criticisms we're talking about. A prominent Jewish born anti-Zionist scumbag Israel Shamir refers to Jews as "cancer-like people" who "only exist to drip Palestinian blood into their matza". Does the fact of him being born Jewish makes these statements any less racist? Give me a freaking break. If a person who is Black or Jewish is spewing the same crap as the anti-Jewish or anti-Black racists, it does not redeem a single word of the aforementioned crap.

4. Believing in eugenics is not racist.
The idea that eugenics is not racist is probably one of the most difficult of all to explain. I, personally, don't believe in eugenics, but being that it's a intended to be a science, it cannot be inherently racist.

Science is or at least is intended to be objective and emotionally-neutral. Eugenicists do not do research because they hate certain races, but because they, as scientists, believe it's true. Research cannot be done with an emotional bias and so, whether or not a eugenicist is racist simply depends upon the level of obvious bias in their work. Eugenics is a pseudoscience, as said before, so obviously, it's probably going to be denounced as biased, no matter what. But it needs to be looked at carefully, if the evidence warrants such further observation.

After looking into it, I was also shocked to determine that eugenics was actually once part of standard curriculum in universities in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The black civil rights activist, W.E.B. Dubois also believed in eugenics. And eugenics was not tied to racism until the Nazis began including it in their policies in order to support genocide. This further supports that it isn't necessarily racist.[/quote]
Well duh. Eugenics weren't racist until the racial purity and superiority theories came along- what an insightful observation! :rolleyes:

The problem with eugenics is the slippery slope nightmare. Once you begin breeding humans by traits, it is INEVITABLE that eventually someone will breed them for racial purity. Whatever the initial motivation, it is the result that counts here.


5. Cartoons with exaggerated features are not racist.
[indent]A caricature, by its nature, has exaggerated features. In fact, I actually wonder--has a white artist doing caricatures on the street ever been charged with racism? It would be hilarious to see such an event and I don't doubt that it has.

Any form of art can be a caricature or at least partially caricaturing, and is not immediately racist. The easiest way to tell if a form of art is racist is by [i]how many negative stereotypes it shares. If it's simply one or a few, then it's probably not racist. In political cartoons containing Condoleeza Rice, she's been drawn with bigger lips, and a bigger nose. Now, those are very few characteristics and are merely exaggerations of features she has, so to immediately denounce it as racist is erroneous.
And again, its all in the "how" it is done. Exaggerating personal features of the person criticized is one thing, assigning to him exaggerated racial features or symbols is another, as your own example with "Memim Penguin" demonstrates. This (http://www.jcpa.org/phas/blood%20libel_cartoon.gif) cartoon, clearly referring to the "Jews consume non-Jewish blood" libel, is as racist as they come. So is this (http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/cartoons/7_28_al_watan.jpg), exploiting the stereotypical "ugly Jew" image originally conceived by Der Sturmer.


6. Being politically incorrect is not racist.
Probably one of the main reasons we falsely denounce people as racists is because of politics. Politicians who do it gain support by stirring up ignorant hatred. And we follow their lead, like political sheep. In Judaism, Jews believe in "lashon harah," their all-inclusive definition of slander, which states that no one may say [i]anything bad about another individual Jew or the Jewish people, whether it's true or not. Because of this, the ADL does not simply persecute anti-Jewish racists, but anyone who makes negative comments about Jews and they immediately denounce it as racist.
Actually it isn't what "lashon harah" is about, and you are again full of bull. Racist bull, in fact, as the slant in your understanding of lashon harah is aimed to create an offensive anti-Jewish stereotype.

Lashon Harah- the "evil tongue"- is a prohibition of any kind of slander against anyone, Jewish, Gentile or Martian. It is not limited to Jews only. In fact, even slander against inanimate objects at times falls under "lashon harah" definition. Simply put, the "lashon harah" laws can be summed up as a prohibition on any verbal actions that may hurt a person's honor- slander, revealing confidential information, name calling, words that may result in formenting senseless arguments and fights.

However, these laws are not absolute, and under certain circumstances it may even be an obligation to speak "lashon harah" (if it is a matter of saving lives). Plus, pointless gossip about politicians' private lives is forbidden, but "lashon harah" regarding their political standing is allowed, as long as its true, as it can help the voters make an informed decision.

Shrub, what you are doing in your post is an intellectually dishonest manipulation aimed to whitewash more or less all of the most common racist practices.
Not at all. All of those that are "not" racism can be, I agree. But I was trying to place strong emphasis on that conditionality.

Because---the only reason the things in the list of "what racism is not" is because a person must qualify for one of the things in the list of "what racism is."

For example, if a person draws a stereotypical cartoon, that's not racist. But if they draw a stereotypical cartoon AND demonstrate their disgust with one race by doing that, then that is racist.

Yes it is, or rather it can be, if the said stereotypes and generalizations are being deliberately invoked in an offensive way or a way that suggests that the group in question possesses inherent qualities that make them inferior or evil by default.
I agree. But too often, people refuse to understand what "deliberately" is. Bill Cosby exaggerated black features in Fat Albert and if he had been a non-black artist, he'd have been crucified. Each race does not have the artistic monopoly over caricaturing their own race.


Example 1
Saying that all Jews are rich may be a racist attack or it may merely be a false observation made by a clinical idiot. However, saying that all Jews are rich because they cheat the non-Jews in trade leaves no two options, it is racist to boot.

Example 2: Saying that there are many Jews in the top political positions in your country is a factual observation that may or may not be true. However, regardless of whether or not it is true, saying that there are too many Jews in the top political positions in your country is a racist slur, as it suggests that a group of people should not be allowed to succeed beyond an artificially set limit because of their ethnic background.
I agree completely in both cases.

What you are suggesting here is that if I go around calling everyone "motherfuckers", it is somehow alright and no one should take offense because I am being "fair and balanced" in my name calling. Surely you must see the absurdity of that. If not, I will refer to you, just like I do to every person unable to see absurdity in your statement, as "motherfucker". Fair is fair, after all ;)
True, it's ridiculous. But what you need to recognize is that it's an issue of whether or not vulgarity is a problem and if censorship, whether done by the government, or through shunning those who don't self-censor, is the solution. And that's an intellectual idea, which does not place any value on race.

Again, it can be, and it is more often than not. For instance, saying that Jews use blood of Christian babies for baked goods is racist regardless of the intent and sincerety of beliefs of whoever says it. Statements like "this culture is racist" cannot possibly be "emotionally neutral", they by definition invite a negative emotional response and hatred- which renders your whole rationalization bogus from top to bottom.
LOL. I'd say "Jews use blood of Christian babies" isn't inherently racist, if there's some evidence to support it. But realistically, no, whoever says that is a racist, and I highly doubt there's absolutely any evidence to support it. Haha. I'm sorry for laughing, but that's one of the most fucking ridiculous and silly things I've ever heard. I also read once that some believed the Monica Lewinsky scandal was an Israeli conspiracy, because Clinton was pro-Arab and LEWINSKY was Jew. ;)

Stating that a culture is racist is not racist, though I can understand why it usually would be. Because perceptions of racism are strongly tied to emotions. For years, blacks percieved whites as racist (many still do), and they've been prejudiced against us because of it. Israelis and Palestinians both percieve the other side as racist, and hate eachother over it. But as it's been made clear here--I believe that large amount (I need to clarify my previous words--not necessarily a majority) of Jews are racist. But I don't hate Jews. I don't think I need to clarify that anymore, and I really hope that you and anyone else thinks I do hate Jews, because I don't.

If it clarifies things anymore, a while ago I was fascinated by Judaism, and even donated 30 bucks to a Jewish charity.

So, I have my negative intellectual opinions of Jewish culture, but I also have positive opinions of the Jews, such as what I said about Jewish families. But my negative opinions do not immediately cancel out my positive opinions and immediately make me racist, and even if I only had negative opinions, that still wouldn't immediately make me a racist.

And here you fall into the exact same trap that I have described above: your last statement, by using the word "disproportionally", suggests that Jewish presence in certain fields can only be seen as normal and acceptable for as long as it does not exceed a certain "proportion", after which it should be regarded as somehow abnormal, too big, exceeding some kind of "natural" limit- which, in turn, automatically suggests inherent "unfairness" of the situation. You falling into this trap further reinforces my point.
That's the implication you drew from it.

"Disproportionate" is purely mathematical, with no emotional value whatsoever. Just as there are a disproportionate number of whites and males in certain fields, it isn't inherently bad. All it means is that we need to figure out WHY non-Jews, non-whites, and non-males aren't succeeding as much as the others. My statement does not imply that Jews are the problem, simply that they are a larger proportion. I also made it clear that they are the larger proportion, because of their positive qualities, which doesn't make it unfair in any way.


Again, it all depends on what kind of criticisms we're talking about. A prominent Jewish born anti-Zionist scumbag Israel Shamir refers to Jews as "cancer-like people" who "only exist to drip Palestinian blood into their matza". Does the fact of him being born Jewish makes these statements any less racist? Give me a freaking break. If a person who is Black or Jewish is spewing the same crap as the anti-Jewish or anti-Black racists, it does not redeem a single word of the aforementioned crap.
But I said that intellectual opinions are not racist, so as long as they're emotionally-neutral, and motivated by rational thought, not hatred. Saying that Jews "only exist to drip Palestinian blood into their matza," is clearly not rational thought and is obviously motivated by racism. I merely quoted black comedians and people labeled as "self-hating Jews."

To give you a much lighter example than mentioning self-hating Jews, Jewish comedians often poke fun at their race. There was once an episode of Jerry Seinfeld where Jerry got angry with a dentist who converted to Judaism, just for the Jew jokes. The fact that one even needs to convert to Judaism to make such jokes is silly, which is what I'm trying to explain here.

The problem with eugenics is the slippery slope nightmare. Once you begin breeding humans by traits, it is INEVITABLE that eventually someone will breed them for racial purity. Whatever the initial motivation, it is the result that counts here.
That's not an issue of whether or not eugenics is racist, but whether or not it's moral, period, to believe in eugenics. And I agree completely. Supporting eugenics, even if it's true, which I doubt, would be wrong.

And again, its all in the "how" it is done. Exaggerating personal features of the person criticized is one thing, assigning to him exaggerated racial features or symbols is another, as your own example with "Memim Penguin" demonstrates. This (http://www.jcpa.org/phas/blood%20libel_cartoon.gif) cartoon, clearly referring to the "Jews consume non-Jewish blood" libel, is as racist as they come. So is this (http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/cartoons/7_28_al_watan.jpg), exploiting the stereotypical "ugly Jew" image originally conceived by Der Sturmer.
The first one--yes, obviously racist. I should clarify, the scale as to whether or not something is racist or not isn't always just the number of stereotypes, because as you showed, sometimes it can be just plain obvious. However, what's "obvious Jewish racism" to certain black people isn't so for many others. The same goes for any other races which typically face prejudice. In this case, I'd definitely agree that it's racist, but in other cases, you may just be letting your biases coupled with the subtle racist society lead to the witch-hunt I mentioned before.

The second one--yes, it's racist, but not just for the reason you outlined. In political caricatures, individuals we are supposed to despise are drawn as ugly. This is almost always true, no matter who we're encouraged to hate. If the caricature is supposed to represent an entire RACE... In other words... If, in a political cartoon, a caricature is not a specific individual or group, and it's drawn ugly, then yes, it's racist. In this case, I don't believe it's a specific person, so it's racist. It's also racist for another reason you didn't mention, which is that it's an Arab cartoon that implies the Jews control America, which goes back to what you said earlier, about there being "too many" Jews in a certain field.

Actually it isn't what "lashon harah" is about, and you are again full of bull. Racist bull, in fact, as the slant in your understanding of lashon harah is aimed to create an offensive anti-Jewish stereotype.

Lashon Harah- the "evil tongue"- is a prohibition of any kind of slander against anyone, Jewish, Gentile or Martian. It is not limited to Jews only. In fact, even slander against inanimate objects at times falls under "lashon harah" definition. Simply put, the "lashon harah" laws can be summed up as a prohibition on any verbal actions that may hurt a person's honor- slander, revealing confidential information, name calling, words that may result in formenting senseless arguments and fights.

However, these laws are not absolute, and under certain circumstances it may even be an obligation to speak "lashon harah" (if it is a matter of saving lives). Plus, pointless gossip about politicians' private lives is forbidden, but "lashon harah" regarding their political standing is allowed, as long as its true, as it can help the voters make an informed decision.
Ah, I'm sorry for misunderstanding it and I did not mean to improperly characterize Judaism that way. I'm really actually glad to hear that it doesn't apply only to Jews, because the fact that I thought it only applied to Jews bothered me (as I have issues with every major religion). But at the same time, wouldn't denouncing racists also be lashon harah? I'll start another thread, someday, to debate my issues with Judaism (you seem to be fairly knowledgeable). Because I have found that Judaism is far more reasonable and rational than Christianity, especially non-Orthodox Judaism. In most cases, you're actually able to debate properly, rather than just repeatedly telling me that I'm going to hell if I don't believe what you believe.

But anyway, you seem to still think I am racist, so I need to ask: What can I do to get you to understand that I'm being sincere? How can I have these intellectual beliefs, while not having you denounce me as racist? I don't believe that hatred can be solved by more hatred. Furthermore, I honestly don't hate Jews and if there's absolutely anything I can do to get you to understand that, please let me know. God bless.

WHAT RACISM IS...
1. Believing one race or nation is "better" than another is racist.
2. Believing people should be treated differently, because of their nationality is racist.
3. Hating a specific nationality is racist.
4. Opposing inter-racial marriage of any kind is racist.
5. Believing some racial epithets are okay, but some are not is racist.
6. Believing racial stereotypes apply universally is racist.
7. Calling people who oppose prejudice racists or other derogatory terms ("self-hating Jew", "anti-white", etc) is racist.

1. That is ethnocentrism not racism. The world is divided into three basic races,
Caucassion, Neg...(forgot the rest), and Mongoliod (there maybe a better term, but if that is true, I can not remember it). Therefore saying some ethnocentric person [like me] is rascist is wrong. I have at least one friend of every basic race.
2. Not rascist, but discrimination none-the-less.
3. See two.
4. Not really, somewhat it is.

Damn! With all that yelling and screaming going on in the first post, I could not hear a word s/he was saying. :D

1. That is ethnocentrism not racism. The world is divided into three basic races,
Caucassion, Neg...(forgot the rest), and Mongoliod (there maybe a better term, but if that is true, I can not remember it). Therefore saying some ethnocentric person [like me] is rascist is wrong. I have at least one friend of every basic race.
2. Not rascist, but discrimination none-the-less.
3. See two.
4. Not really, somewhat it is.
1. LOL. Not MONGOLOID. A mongoloid is a retard. I think you mean "mulatto." But what you're describing sounds like 18th or 19th century science. Asians, Hispanics, Arabs aren't the same as white people. And as I said before, the differences between races is []quite[/i] blurred, so classifications of "race," is ignorant and silly. Instead, we should classify people and define racism according to nationality, nationality meaning "social group."
2. No, it is.
3. Hating a nationality isn't racist? Don't be ridiculous.
4. Somewhat? Not at all.

I gave long, explanations as to why my list of things that aren't racist, really aren't racist. Go ahead and give your long, intellectual justification for those four and we'll debate it.

Damn! With all that yelling and screaming going on in the first post, I could not hear a word s/he was saying. :D

No worries.

I'll summarize it for you:

Anything less than the actions of a full-blown racist (i.e., someone who lives and breathes for racial superiority) is not racist -- even if it is something that a "real" racist would think or say.

So long as you have never lynched an African-American or killed Jews into concentration camps, you are not a "racist" and therefore what you do or say may be wrong, but can't be racist.

Most importantly, Shrub wants to explaint that, although he has said some racist things and may have some racist ideas, he is not a racist because he doesn't wear a sheet or a Nazi uniform.

It's elegant in its simplicity, ain't it?

1. LOL. Not MONGOLOID. A mongoloid is a retard. I think you mean "mulatto." But what you're describing sounds like 18th or 19th century science. Asians, Hispanics, Arabs aren't the same as white people. And as I said before, the differences between races is []quite[/i] blurred, so classifications of "race," is ignorant and silly. Instead, we should classify people and define racism according to nationality, nationality meaning "social group."
*snip*

LOL

Although I disagree with Jibea as much as I disagree with you, you are the one that is mistaken. Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid are three common (although ridiculous) racial classifications. For example, here is a link (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/deedric1.htm#Racial%20Determination) to the FBI regarding racial categorization of hair. Here (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ra/race.html), here (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/mongoloid_race), and here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6736341&dopt=Abstract) are more sources.

Good luck redefining race as nationality. That makes almost as little sense as the concept of race to begin with.

1. LOL. Not MONGOLOID.

Actually they are correct, the races are Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid. (At least, they were considered to be so many many moons ago.)

Well said Shrub, may I just add Im white, male and proud, and wont apologise for that to any of the pc goons on here.

Well said Shrub, may I just add Im white, male and proud, and wont apologise for that to any of the pc goons on here.
No. You are a racist.

What I've tried to explain is that white supremacists who have "white pride" are just as racist as the Black Panther and Malcom X who proclaimed "black power," which are just as racist as Arab nationalists who commit terrorism (proclaiming, "Drive into the sea!"), which are just as racist as Zionist Jews who believe Jews should control all of Palestine and that the government should be run [i]only by Jews, or the Jewish terrorist groups they descended from.

Don't compliment me at all, because I am in no way condoning or whitewashing your ignorant and hateful beliefs. I am clarifying the difference between intellectual opinions and subtle racists, such as you, when you log off of the Nationstates forums and go outside. I only hope that you experience many blacks, hispanics, asians, native americans, and jews in your life, so that you understand the truth, which is that we aren't inherently different from one another, but are separated only by culture.

Actually they are correct, the races are Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid. (At least, they were considered to be so many many moons ago.)
You left out capoid. And in the 60's (at least) they called them 'racial groups' not races.

[QUOTE=President Shrub]No. You are a racist.

Sorry you think that, as I dont hold any hatred or feel any superiority towards members of other races based purely on their skin colour or other differences, I'll have to disagree.

What I've tried to explain is that white supremacists who have "white pride" are just as racist as the Black Panther and Malcom X who proclaimed "black power," which are just as racist as Arab nationalists who commit terrorism (proclaiming, "Drive into the sea!"), which are just as racist as Zionist Jews who believe Jews should control all of Palestine and that the government should be run [i]only by Jews, or the Jewish terrorist groups they descended from.

But Im not a white supremeist, Im only proud of my whiteness.


Don't compliment me at all, because I am in no way condoning or whitewashing your ignorant and hateful beliefs.

I dont have any, except for the ones you want to paint me with.

I am clarifying the difference between intellectual opinions and subtle racists, such as you, when you log off of the Nationstates forums and go outside. I only hope that you experience many blacks, hispanics, asians, native americans, and jews in your life, so that you understand the truth, which is that we aren't inherently different from one another, but are separated only by culture.

Were seperated by alot more than that, and thats good, I prefer Gods created differences in all their beauty.
Your great truth is nothing but a self deluded fantasy created by fear of other races.
You believe if you embrace anyone of another colour purely for that reason alone that they then wont want to hurt you.

No worries.

I'll summarize it for you:

Anything less than the actions of a full-blown racist (i.e., someone who lives and breathes for racial superiority) is not racist -- even if it is something that a "real" racist would think or say.

So long as you have never lynched an African-American or killed Jews into concentration camps, you are not a "racist" and therefore what you do or say may be wrong, but can't be racist.

Most importantly, Shrub wants to explaint that, although he has said some racist things and may have some racist ideas, he is not a racist because he doesn't wear a sheet or a Nazi uniform.

It's elegant in its simplicity, ain't it?

Actually, what Shrub is saying is that certain activities are not NECESSARILY racist, unless they are with the intent of denigrating a race. For example, saying, "Jewish people eat babies" is racist, but saying "Jewish people are disproportionately represented in politics" isn't.
Now, saying 'disproportionately' may sound racist, but, with the condition that this is not necessarily a bad thing, it isn't, in my opinion. By disproportionately, I only mean more represented than the percentage of people who share their beliefs... I'll explain with an example.
In politics, men make up significantly more than three-quarters of the highest echelons of government (in Ireland, it's something like 90%). Meaning that men are disproportionately represented in politics. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and to say this is not sexist, it's statement of fact. So, if you apply the same reasoning to Jewish politicians, does it become racist?

But Im not a white supremeist, Im only proud of my whiteness.
And why is that? What did you do to become White? What did you do that somehow justifies pride?

Sorry you think that, as I dont hold any hatred or feel any superiority towards members of other races based purely on their skin colour or other differences, I'll have to disagree.

But Im not a white supremeist, Im only proud of my whiteness.
Pride of one's race, whether it's white, black, or Jewish is often a cause for war and, in my opinion, is racist. Like eugenics, it isn't inherently bad, but where it leads is bad. Because it's an emotion determining the value of one race. The only possible answer for why you feel so "good" about your race is because you percieve it as better. Over time, many take pride of one's race to the extreme, and you end up with prejudice.

If I were to ask you, "Why are you proud to be white?" I don't think there's any non-racist person here who doubts that you would made several racist comments.

Were seperated by alot more than that, and thats good, I prefer Gods created differences in all their beauty.
Your great truth is nothing but a self deluded fantasy created by fear of other races.
You believe if you embrace anyone of another colour purely for that reason alone that they then wont want to hurt you.
But what you don't understand is that, scientifically, the differences between different races has only been shown in medicine and biology, not psychology. Races do tend to exhibit different trends in behavior, but it's more about "social groups," because it's because of their culture, which is constantly changing and mixing with the cultures of other races. Simply put: A black person who grew up in a white neighborhood is "white," and a white person who grew up in a black neighborhood is "black." Now, that's a politically-incorrect way of saying it, but it's true. A dialect, and all of one's culture, is determined by the individuals around you, when you're growing up. And thus, Bryant Gumbel and Condoleeza Rice speak extremely concisely, with absolutely no ethnic slur to their speech, whatsoever. (To clarify for anyone who jumps on that last sentence, Rice may have been born in Alabama, but her family was somewhat wealthy, and moved to Denver when she was 13. Bryant Gumbel, I'm not too sure--he grew up in Chicago, but I can't find what neighborhood or how wealthy his family was.) But anyone who knows someone who has emigrated knows this is true. My father moved to America from Scotland when he was 20. He's lived here for most of his life and he doesn't have much of a Scottish accent anymore. If I moved to Scotland, within 10 years, I'd likely have a Scottish accent.

But not just accents, but your entire culture is determined by who lives around you. And one's culture involves more than just arbitrary things, like fashion and food, but our ethics and general perceptions of society. This doesn't violate free-will, either, but just greatly influences it, allowing madrassas in the Middle East to generate terrorists... But never with a 100% success rate, because of free-will.

If you were to take the son of an Iraqi terrorist and raise him in a rich school in the U.S., after growing up, he'd likely be pro-American and oppose terrorism. (Hell, with a background like that, he'd probably be a Republican.)

And if you were to take any American and raise him in a Middle-Eastern madrassa, after growing up, he'd likely be an anti-American terrorist.

This is further proven from the twins, Jack and Oskar. Both identical twins with the same DNA and both were Jewish... But one group in racist, Nazi family, not knowing he was a Jew and he ended up being anti-Jewish himself. The other grew up with a Jewish family in the Caribbean and became devoutly Jewish.

Even with identical DNA, it was their culture which separated them.

Actually, what Shrub is saying is that certain activities are not NECESSARILY racist, unless they are with the intent of denigrating a race. For example, saying, "Jewish people eat babies" is racist, but saying "Jewish people are disproportionately represented in politics" isn't.
Now, saying 'disproportionately' may sound racist, but, with the condition that this is not necessarily a bad thing, it isn't, in my opinion. By disproportionately, I only mean more represented than the percentage of people who share their beliefs... I'll explain with an example.
In politics, men make up significantly more than three-quarters of the highest echelons of government (in Ireland, it's something like 90%). Meaning that men are disproportionately represented in politics. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and to say this is not sexist, it's statement of fact. So, if you apply the same reasoning to Jewish politicians, does it become racist?
Exactly. But even saying they're represented disproportionately in politics isn't necessarily bad, either. It all depends on how they use the power and how they got it. It's merely a statistic, determining whether it's good or bad is another matter entirely.

Actually, what Shrub is saying is that certain activities are not NECESSARILY racist, unless they are with the intent of denigrating a race. For example, saying, "Jewish people eat babies" is racist, but saying "Jewish people are disproportionately represented in politics" isn't.
Now, saying 'disproportionately' may sound racist, but, with the condition that this is not necessarily a bad thing, it isn't, in my opinion. By disproportionately, I only mean more represented than the percentage of people who share their beliefs... I'll explain with an example.
In politics, men make up significantly more than three-quarters of the highest echelons of government (in Ireland, it's something like 90%). Meaning that men are disproportionately represented in politics. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and to say this is not sexist, it's statement of fact. So, if you apply the same reasoning to Jewish politicians, does it become racist?

I fully understand what Shrub thinks he is saying.

He has gone a bit further than saying they are not necessarily racist. Notice the big-ass headline where he says they are not racist.

You pick an example that is obviously benign. I would agree that not all statements that relate to a racial or ethnic group are racist. That is rather obvious. But Shrub goes much, much farther than that. And I think you know it.

*snip*

Perhaps you are starting to see what a tangled web you have woven.

Your armchair anthropology, genetics, and sociology are rather laughable.

And how quickly your apologetics have attracted what even you agree are racists.

I fully understand what Shrub thinks he is saying.

He has gone a bit further than saying they are not necessarily racist. Notice the big-ass headline where he says they are not racist.

You pick an example that is obviously benign. I would agree that not all statements that relate to a racial or ethnic group are racist. That is rather obvious. But Shrub goes much, much farther than that. And I think you know it.
Big attention-grabbing headline? You'd almost think he wanted to attract people's attention. The reason I picked benign examples was to show that things that Shrub described (which those are) are not racist. I could have said "There are too many Jews in the Seanad" (as far as I know, there's only one) and that would have been racist, but still fit into one of Shrub's "might not be racist" categories...

While I agree with a lot of what you are saying, I believe you are taking it too far. Since when does having "white pride" or "black pride" make you racist? Racist is easy to sumarize. You think of or treat others badly because of their race or whatever.

I fully understand what Shrub thinks he is saying.

He has gone a bit further than saying they are not necessarily racist. Notice the big-ass headline where he says they are not racist.

You pick an example that is obviously benign. I would agree that not all statements that relate to a racial or ethnic group are racist. That is rather obvious. But Shrub goes much, much farther than that. And I think you know it.

That's a ridiculous extent with which to take his statements. If I say "people whose favourite colour is purple are not gay" would you assume that I meant that no gay person could possibly like the colour purple? The qualifier "necessarily" is clearly implied.

WHAT BEING GAY IS NOT...

1. Liking the colour purple

Purple is commonly associated with the homosexual subculture. Blah de blah de blah. But straight people can like the colour purple as well!