NationStates Jolt Archive

A white man who inadvertantly makes a racist statement about blacks

or

A black man who demands the white man be punished for his statement

Answer: people who make stupid comparisons like the one in the opening post, thinking that they've caught anyone who would answer it in a corner.

Jesse Jackson. :eek:

oh, and how exactly is the second one racist? he is prohibiting free speach, not saying something bad about the first guy based on race.

Anyone who makes a derogatory remark about someone of another race is racist, no matter what colour of their skin.

I don't think the thread poster actually understands racism.

Racism isn't a game.

But, pray tell, what isn't racist about being inadvertenly racist?

Of your two only one has admittedly done or said anything racist.

Biggest racists, Jesse Jackson and whoever that black guy is who ran for president, his name escapes me currently.. Al Sharpton. Jackson is the worst though, it doesn't matter what's going on, if there's a black guy within 50 miles Jackson will take the time to grandstand about how the whole world is against that one man and how it's all the white guy's fault.

Answer: people who make stupid comparisons like the one in the opening post, thinking that they've caught anyone who would answer it in a corner.

Hear, hear.

A white man who inadvertantly makes a racist statement about blacks

or

A black man who demands the white man be punished for his statement

There's the clue :p

its funny to think that today i hear less and less racist remarks about blacks yet turn on a rap song and the blacks are spewing racist remarks about whites, get over your selves

Biggest racists, Jesse Jackson and whoever that black guy is who ran for president, his name escapes me currently.. Al Sharpton. Jackson is the worst though, it doesn't matter what's going on, if there's a black guy within 50 miles Jackson will take the time to grandstand about how the whole world is against that one man and how it's all the white guy's fault.

Yes. A man who has spent his whole life fighting for civil rights is the world's biggest racist. Not just a racist, but the biggest one.

:headbang:

Racism isn't a game.

But, pray tell, what isn't racist about being inadvertenly racist?

Of your two only one has admittedly done or said anything racist.

Being racist is about judging and/or treating people differently on the basis of their race. It is not about making an inadvertant comment that others treat as racist.
The black man has done nothing racist if and only if he would demand the punishment of anyone that made the statement. If he is demanding the punishmnet because the person who made the statement is white, then he is being racist.

There is a difficulty in establishing whether an inadvertant statement is reflective of deep seated beliefs or just a careless phrasing that is open to a racist interpretation.

There's the clue :p
See the word three words before that, inadvertantly. I don't see anything wrong with accidentaly saying something that sounded racist.

its funny to think that today i hear less and less racist remarks about blacks yet turn on a rap song and the blacks are spewing racist remarks about whites, get over your selves

The white man is horribly oppressed. Maybe someday a revolution will come and we can finally have equality for the white man.

The poll is not complete.

And there isn't much that is racist about being against racism.

It would be racist, if person B was trying to stop person A from saying anything, based on person A's ethnicity or colour of skin and what else that racism applies to. However, person B in this case is trying to stop person A from saying something racist, without it being based on person A's ethnicity or colour, but rather on the fact that what he is syaing is racist.

Probably the white man who made the racist statement.

Is it sexist for a woman to demand a man be punished if he says that all women belong in the kitchen?

Being racist is about judging and/or treating people differently on the basis of their race. It is not about making an inadvertant comment that others treat as racist.
The black man has done nothing racist if and only if he would demand the punishment of anyone that made the statement. If he is demanding the punishmnet because the person who made the statement is white, then he is being racist.

There is a difficulty in establishing whether an inadvertant statement is reflective of deep seated beliefs or just a careless phrasing that is open to a racist interpretation.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say.


The poll is also flawed: it lacks a "both" option.

I would go for either person A or neither.

its funny to think that today i hear less and less racist remarks about blacks yet turn on a rap song and the blacks are spewing racist remarks about whites, get over your selves

Yeah, these double standards are pretty irritating.

Being racist is about judging and/or treating people differently on the basis of their race. It is not about making an inadvertant comment that others treat as racist.
The black man has done nothing racist if and only if he would demand the punishment of anyone that made the statement. If he is demanding the punishmnet because the person who made the statement is white, then he is being racist.

There is a difficulty in establishing whether an inadvertant statement is reflective of deep seated beliefs or just a careless phrasing that is open to a racist interpretation.

You are quick to make assumptions that change the scenario. Suddenly the black man is only seeking punishment because the white person is white. Suddenly the statement wasn't racist, it was just careless phrasing.

I wonder why you are so eager to make those assumptions?

But, pray tell, what isn't racist about being inadvertenly racist?


Hard to be racist when you don't know that what you're doing is considered racist, I should think.

See the word three words before that, inadvertantly. I don't see anything wrong with accidentaly saying something that sounded racist.

Maybe not, but the question is "Who's more racist?" It's hard, in the assinine scenario presented, to say that the black man is MORE racist for being offended by a racist statement.

See the word three words before that, inadvertantly. I don't see anything wrong with accidentaly saying something that sounded racist.

'Inadvertantly'? Nah. I don't really believe in that. It would be merely a way for your self conscious to burst forth with a diatribe you normally would not utter- because you know it is wrong.

Say you are caught in a traffic jam and some guy driving a car cuts you off:

Instinct would be: "That fucking idiot! Asshole!"

Whereas, if you noticed he was black: "That fucking ******! Em.. Asshole."

Sub in varying ethnic groups for the others. I don't really buy that 'inadvertantly' line. Personal opinion that's all.

Yes. A man who has spent his whole life fighting for civil rights is the world's biggest racist. Not just a racist, but the biggest one.

:headbang:

Heh, you can't seriously think Jesse Jackson gives a damn about anything but seeing his own name in the press. You're not that deluded. He's exploiting black people's misery for his own gains, and demonizing everyone else in the process. It's racist and incredibly insulting to nearly everyone.

Sharpton is just a loud mouthed idiot, not that it's particularly unusual, he's just more famous than most.

Yeah, these double standards are pretty irritating.
With the advent of freedom of speech, one can express whatever views they wish. However, if a person thinks that they have a free licence to be racist simply because they are white/black/whatever, they have another thing coming for them. A black racist is as bad as a white one, and vice-versa. People, being what they are, will always be somewhat reliant on double-standards though.

Probably the white man who made the racist statement.

Is it sexist for a woman to demand a man be punished if he says that all women belong in the kitchen?
Agreed. Sort of a "blame the victim" scenario presented by the OP.

Hard to be racist when you don't know that what you're doing is considered racist, I should think.
Why don't you quit playing these bullshit hypothetical games and just tell us what you said, and why it was "inadvertent." :rolleyes:

See the word three words before that, inadvertantly. I don't see anything wrong with accidentaly saying something that sounded racist.

Where does it say it 'sounded' racist. It said he didn't do it on purpose. It doesn't make it not racist. My dad used to say things that weren't intentionally racist. It doesn't make his statements any less racist. When he got mad because my sister was dating a black man, if you asked him he would say he wasn't being racist. It's inadvertant. It's still racist.

I wonder why you are so eager to make those assumptions?

Because the OP does not declare that person B was actually being racist, whereas it does declare that person A was.

Hard to be racist when you don't know that what you're doing is considered racist, I should think.

You're the one that made up the scenario where the person was inadvertently racist. Now you are saying that it wasn't really racist to be racist, just as long as I don't think I've done anything wrong.

Is ignorance a defense against all charges of racism? Can I just hire whites if I don't realize there is anything wrong with that?

You are quick to make assumptions that change the scenario. Suddenly the black man is only seeking punishment because the white person is white. Suddenly the statement wasn't racist, it was just careless phrasing.

I wonder why you are so eager to make those assumptions?

Slow down yourself a moment CT and look at what I actually said.

I said:The black man has done nothing racist if and only if he would demand the punishment of anyone that made the statement.

That is a conditional statement and I thought you would recognize one of those.
I did not claim he was seeking the punishment because the speaker was white, I claimed he would be being racist if this were a factor in his seeking the punishment.

The original scenario describes the statement by the white man as being inadvertant. Now how does the contention that it may have been careless phrasing change this scenario. It does not.


I also resent the implicit ad-hominem in your last question. Try a little harder to discuss the issue rather than attack the poster.

Hard to be racist when you don't know that what you're doing is considered racist, I should think.

So if I blow up a church full of 'porch monkeys' but I don't know that it's racist, then it isn't racist? Hmmmm... methinks you don't know what racism is.

The poll is not complete.

And there isn't much that is racist about being against racism.

It would be racist, if person B was trying to stop person A from saying anything, based on person A's ethnicity or colour of skin and what else that racism applies to. However, person B in this case is trying to stop person A from saying something racist, without it being based on person A's ethnicity or colour, but rather on the fact that what he is syaing is racist.
ya that:confused:

Slow down yourself a moment CT and look at what I actually said.

I said:The black man has done nothing racist if and only if he would demand the punishment of anyone that made the statement.

That is a conditional statement and I thought you would recognize one of those.
I did not claim he was seeking the punishment because the speaker was white, I claimed he would be being racist if this were a factor in his seeking the punishment.

The original scenario describes the statement by the white man as being inadvertant. Now how does the contention that it may have been careless phrasing change this scenario. It does not.


I also resent the implicit ad-hominem in your last question. Try a little harder to discuss the issue rather than attack the poster.

I looked at what you actually said. You bent over backward to imagine some scenario in which the black man was racist and the white man wasn't.

I legitimately question why you would do that.

Is it sexist for a woman to demand a man be punished if he says that all women belong in the kitchen?

If she has the same reaction to anyone saying that a woman belongs in the kitchen, no. If, however, she tolerates another woman saying it, but not it being said by a man, then she is being sexist.

Because the OP does not declare that person B was actually being racist, whereas it does declare that person A was.

Which would explain concluding that person A was racist and person B was not. It does not explain trying to do the opposite.

If she has the same reaction to anyone saying that a woman belongs in the kitchen, no. If, however, she tolerates another woman saying it, but not it being said by a man, then she is being sexist.
Difficult to envision a woman actually saying that though, unless she is a self-loathing woman or convinced of being inferior. Sort of like Ann Coulter (although she doesn't practise what she preaches, and who knows how seriously she means it since she links it to political affiliation).

Is ignorance a defense against all charges of racism? Can I just hire whites if I don't realize there is anything wrong with that?

Well, actually, I'd have to argue there is nothing racist about only hiring whites. It becomes racist if you deny someone else of equal or better qualifications, based on their colour of skin.

But if you only have white people applying, how can you hire anyone except whites?

Which would explain concluding that person A was racist and person B was not. It does not explain trying to do the opposite.

I already explained when person B would be racist though.

The white man is horribly oppressed. Maybe someday a revolution will come and we can finally have equality for the white man.
Either way, making racist remarks against whites is still plain and simple racism, just as is racism against blacks.

I already explained when person B would be racist though.

Only by imaging absurd facts not presented in the scenario.

As you have admitted, the scenario as presented only shows one racist action/statement. And it wasn't by person B.

You have yet to explain how person B would be more racist, even under your changed facts. Person A is still racist, correct?

:headbang:

First time I'm using that one. This is fucking stupid and arguing about it is even more stupid. er

Why don't you quit playing these bullshit hypothetical games and just tell us what you said, and why it was "inadvertent." :rolleyes:

Me? I didn't say anything, but there was a news story where a math teacher got in trouble because one of his math problems involved Condolezza Rice dropping a watermelon from a building (you can find it here (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060420092609990003)) and it got me thinking. If you want the OP to be more specific, I could make it.

Either way, making racist remarks against whites is still plain and simple racism, just as is racism against blacks.

Did I say otherwise?

But is all "racism" equal? Does it matter whether it is the slave or the slaveowner that curses the other's race?

If she has the same reaction to anyone saying that a woman belongs in the kitchen, no. If, however, she tolerates another woman saying it, but not it being said by a man, then she is being sexist.

I find this argument amusing.

"Am I a racist for dating a white woman?"
"You are if [add caveat]"

If you have to add that caveat then the answer is no. Yes, it's true that there may be more information that makes her a sexist and the black man in the original scenario a racist, but with the given scenario the answer is no, she is not a sexist and he is not a racist.

If you add the caveats you add, anything can be racist or sexist or whatever. It makes the entire point nonsensical because it DOES NOT address the original point.

I looked at what you actually said. You bent over backward to imagine some scenario in which the black man was racist and the white man wasn't.

I legitimately question why you would do that.

Wrong CT.

I asked a question about the situation that was not in the description provided. I did not look to create circumstances outside of the described scenario. I did not bend over backwards in any way whatsoever, I simply delimited certain factors that are relevant to the issue.

Who is being racist in the situation as described. - the white man, without doubt.
However that the question is even being asked makes me consider that the OP may have had something less obvious in mind. (The alternative is to be highly uncharitable to the OP.) As such it seems fair and reasonable to indicate circumstances under which the answer to the question is not so clear cut. Satisfied, or are you going to keep on attacking me, rather than the points that I raised.

Would, in your opinion, the black man be being racist if he were not to demand punishment of another black man for making the same inadvertant racist statement as that that the white man made, given that he demands this punishment in the case of the white man?

Only by imaging absurd facts not presented in the scenario.

As you have admitted, the scenario as presented only shows one racist action/statement. And it wasn't by person B.

You have yet to explain how person B would be more racist, even under your changed facts. Person A is still racist, correct?

Yes, the scenario presented does not present person B as being racist and it does present person A as being racist, whether advertantly or not.

Person A is still racist, yes. Person B would be racist. Since when are there degrees of racism anyway? (I guess that would fall under neither then)

Would, in your opinion, the black man be being racist if he were not to demand punishment of another black man for making the same inadvertant racist statement as that that the white man made, given that he demands this punishment in the case of the white man?

Of course. If you assume person B is being racist, he is. But why can't his racism be just as "inadvertant"?

Did I say otherwise?

But is all "racism" equal? Does it matter whether it is the slave or the slaveowner that curses the other's race?
Most modern racism takes place between people of roughly equal social positions, so I see it as a needless perpetuation of antique differences.

Me? I didn't say anything, but there was a news story where a math teacher got in trouble because one of his math problems involved Condolezza Rice dropping a watermelon from a building (you can find it here (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060420092609990003)) and it got me thinking. If you want the OP to be more specific, I could make it.

I don't think he's necessarily racist, but he is certainly racially insensitive. I think you would have to convince he's completely unaware of American society if he didn't recognize that it perpetuates a stereotype.

That said, it seems to me the outrage is a bit undeserved based on the information given in the article.

How the hell is asking a maths question about Condaleeza Rice dropping a watermelon from a building supposed to be racist?

Yes, the scenario presented does not present person B as being racist and it does present person A as being racist, whether advertantly or not.

Person A is still racist, yes. Person B would be racist. Since when are there degrees of racism anyway? (I guess that would fall under neither then)

Since when are there not. Is making an inadvertant comment the same as deliberately oppressing someone based on the belief they are inferior? Is it the same as blowing up black churches?

If she has the same reaction to anyone saying that a woman belongs in the kitchen, no. If, however, she tolerates another woman saying it, but not it being said by a man, then she is being sexist.

So, no. Thank you. The black man is not being racist. The white man is, on accident.

Maybe it's because I've never watched TV over much (grew up in a very rural area where we had 3 channels), but um, what's the big deal about a watermelon? Why is that racist?

How the hell is asking a maths question about Condaleeza Rice dropping a watermelon from a building supposed to be racist?

I think it would more qualify as being racially insensitive.

Most modern racism takes place between people of roughly equal social positions, so I see it as a needless perpetuation of antique differences.

Since when are blacks and whites in America in "roughly equal social positions"?

When did the black man catch up?

1st i would like to sayit seems racism stemed from slavery which i was no part of because i didnt have family here and that certain people think auto maticlly that if you are a diffrent color you would a)say something "politically incorrect" or b)you are a in a situation that is not so happy, ie- only White student in a black history class

I'll fix it for you, who is more racist?

A black person who calls a white person,
whitey, cracker, honkey, etc.
Without getting punishment

or

A white person who gets punished for calling a black person a ******?

Of course. If you assume person B is being racist, he is. But why can't his racism be just as "inadvertant"?

The point I was making is that if he was using race as a factor in his judgement then he is being racist. How that would be possible inadvertantly, is beyond my understanding. Could you explain how you consider that it would be possible to do this inadvertantly?

I think it would more qualify as being racially insensitive.

Why?

Watermelons are grown and eaten here by white people and black people alike. What is the problem?

I'll fix it for you, who is more racist?

A black person who calls a white person,
whitey, cracker, honkey, etc.
Without getting punishment

or

A white person who gets punished for calling a black person a ******?

What does their punishment have to do with who is being more racist?

Why?

Watermelons are grown and eaten here by white people and black people alike. What is the problem?

So you are completely unaware of an racial stereotypes involving black people and watermelon? Somehow, I fail to believe you.

1st i would like to sayit seems racism stemed from slavery which i was no part of because i didnt have family here and that certain people think auto maticlly that if you are a diffrent color you would a)say something "politically incorrect" or b)you are a in a situation that is not so happy, ie- only White student in a black history class

I read this four times and I have no idea what you're on about. Try posting this again, reworded.

Since when are blacks and whites in America in "roughly equal social positions"?

When did the black man catch up?
They are no longer slaves. Whether or not there is social mobility in the USA, that is a matter concerning how it is structured. Spare me the "black man" card. If a white person was racist towards a black because his/her race composed the upper echelon of society, I would still see it as little more than simple racism. Racism is not the answer. Pride found through attacking others is a sign of weakness. An attack on systems which halt social mobility, on the other hand, is a rational response.

I don't think he's necessarily racist, but he is certainly racially insensitive. I think you would have to convince he's completely unaware of American society if he didn't recognize that it perpetuates a stereotype.

That said, it seems to me the outrage is a bit undeserved based on the information given in the article.
true yet as long as we continue to waste money on stupid cases like these and keep on pointing out remarks then there always will be racism it seems that black people want to continue this debate as long as they can to be treated 'diffrently' not to say im racist because there seems to be no solution that anyone wants to consider like treating everybody normal

1st i would like to sayit seems racism stemed from slavery which i was no part of because i didnt have family here and that certain people think auto maticlly that if you are a diffrent color you would a)say something "politically incorrect" or b)you are a in a situation that is not so happy, ie- only White student in a black history class

Your meaning is unclear. Are you suggesting that, so long as you never owned slaves, you can't be racist? Are you denying that racism still exists in the United States?

So you are completely unaware of an racial stereotypes involving black people and watermelon? Somehow, I fail to believe you.

Fail to believe all you want, I am not aware of any racial connotations attached to watermelons.

true yet as long as we continue to waste money on stupid cases like these and keep on pointing out remarks then there always will be racism it seems that black people want to continue this debate as long as they can to be treated 'diffrently' not to say im racist because there seems to be no solution that anyone wants to consider like treating everybody normal

Racism would go away if we just stopped pointing out when someone was racist?

Fail to believe all you want, I am not aware of any racial connotations attached to watermelons.

Google "watermelon" and "stereotype"

You could learn something.

I'll fix it for you, who is more racist?

A black person who calls a white person,
whitey, cracker, honkey, etc.
Without getting punishment

or

A white person who gets punished for calling a black person a ******?

They're both equally racist. Their punishment has no bearing on this.

Anyone who makes a derogatory remark about someone of another race is racist, no matter what colour of their skin.

Maybe so, but not necessarily deliberately racist. They may not realise what they are saying is racist. To some people, "nigga/******" is a term for close friends. To me, it's racist.

I read this four times and I have no idea what you're on about. Try posting this again, reworded.
ok let me try again how come a black group would automatically make the only white person feel unwelcome??
i was in that situation before and when it was the other way around we treated the person normal.. it looks like the blacks are trying to prolongate an issue that is more or less slowly dissapering-- the blacks have always used racism as a tool to get what they want - what would happen when thats gone??

Since when are there not. Is making an inadvertant comment the same as deliberately oppressing someone based on the belief they are inferior? Is it the same as blowing up black churches?

It's all still racist though.

If you blow something up, illegally, you'll get charged for that too.
If you were being racist at the same time, the racism charge gets put on top of that.

That doesn't make it more racist than deliberately oppressing someone else in a racist manner. The racism factor is the same.

I'll consider the inadvertantly and deliberately for a while, but both is racist and neither is good.

Maybe so, but not necessarily deliberately racist. They may not realise what they are saying is racist. To some people, "nigga/******" is a term for close friends. To me, it's racist.
As well as horribly distorted, colloquial English, or slang even.

What does their punishment have to do with who is being more racist?

Basically,
what I was trying to get across;

Is a white person more at fault for saying ******?
Or a black man for saying cracker?

Obviously the answer would be that they are both at fault.
Yet somehow that is never the case in society.

So you are completely unaware of an racial stereotypes involving black people and watermelon? Somehow, I fail to believe you.

Heh, I didn't know that until I was about 17-18, and I live here. Imagine a foriegner or a young child who doesn't understand the connotations behind his request asking if an african-american would like to join him for fried chicken and watermelon, and the black man accuses him of racism.

Heh, I didn't know that until I was about 17-18, and I live here. Imagine a foriegner or a young child who doesn't understand the connotations behind his request asking if an african-american would like to join him for fried chicken and watermelon.
I am from Europe, and to me the entire thing makes no sense. Obviously it has some sort of connotation harking back to olden-time USA.

They are no longer slaves. Whether or not there is social mobility in the USA, that is a matter concerning how it is structured. Spare me the "black man" card. If a white person was racist towards a black because his/her race composed the upper echelon of society, I would still see it as little more than simple racism. Racism is not the answer. Pride found through attacking others is a sign of weakness. An attack on systems which halt social mobility, on the other hand, is a rational response.

You dodged the question.

Does the fact that they are no longer slaves mean that blacks became socially equal in America with the passage of the 13th Amendment?

I seem to remember something called segregation.

heres a rap song...

[Tupac]
As real as it seems the American Dream
Ain't nothing but another calculated schemes
To get us locked up shot up back in chains
To deny us of the future rob our names
Kept my history of mystery but now I see
The American Dream wasn't meant for me
Cause lady liberty is a hypocrite she lied to me
Promised me freedom, education, equality
Never gave me nothing but slavery
And now look at how dangerous you made me
Calling me a mad man cause I'm strong and bold
With this dump full of knowledge of the lies you told
Promise me emancipation indispute nation
All you gave my people was our patience
Fathers of our country never cared for me
They kept my answer shackled up in slavery
And Uncle Sam never did a dam thing for me
Except lie about the facts in my history
So now I'm sitting hear mad cause I'm unemployed
But the government's glad cause they enjoyed
When my people are down so they can screw us around
Time to change the government now panther power

[Chorus]
Panther power
Panther power
Panther power

[Tyson]
Coming straight that resides within
Go toe to toe with a panther and you just can't win
Suffered fame bats suppressed the rest
The rich get richer and the poor can't last
The American Dream was an American nightmare
You kept my people down and refuse to fight fair
The Klu Klux Klan tried to keep us out
Besides drew they know no blacks allowed
With intimidation and segregation was a way for our freedom
But now were impatient
Blacks the other skin: dead or sell outs
Freedom, equality, then I'll yell out
"Don't you ever be ashamed of what you are
It's ya panther power that makes you a star"
Panther power

[Chorus]
Panther power
Panther power
Panther power

[Tupac]
My Mother never let me forget my history
Hoping I was set free chains never put on me
Wanted to be more than just free
Had to know the true facts about my history
I couldn't settle for being a statistic
Couldn't survive in this capitalistic
Government cause it was meant to hold us back
Using ignorant, drugs, to sneak attack
In my community think of unity
But when I charged them, tried to claim immunity
I strike America like a case of hard disease
Panther power is running through my arteries
Try to stop oh boy you'll be clawed to death
Cause I'll be fighting for my freedom with my dying breath
Do you remember that is what I'm asking you?
You think you living free don't let me laugh at you
Open your eyes realize that you have been locked in chains
Said you wasn't civilized and stole your name
Cause some time has passed seem you all forget
There ain't no liberty to you and me we all ain't free yet
Panter power

[Chorus]
Panther power
Panther power
Panther power

[Tupac]
As real as it seems the American Dream
Ain't nothing but another calculated schemes
To get us locked up shot up back in chains
To deny us of the future rob our names
Kept my history of mystery but now I see
The American Dream wasn't meant for me
Cause lady liberty is a hypocrite she lied to me
Promised me freedom, education, equality
Never gave me nothing but slavery
And now look at how dangerous you made me
Calling me a mad man cause I'm strong and bold
With this dump full of knowledge of the lies you told
Promise me emancipation indispute nation
All you gave my people was our patience
Fathers of our country never cared for me
They kept my answer shackled up in slavery
And Uncle Sam never did a dam thing for me
Except lie about the facts in my history
So now I'm sitting hear mad cause I'm unemployed
But the government's glad cause they enjoyed
When my people are down so they can screw us around
Time to change the government now panther power

So you are completely unaware of an racial stereotypes involving black people and watermelon? Somehow, I fail to believe you.

I don't get it. I googled it. I still don't get it.

Fail to believe all you want, I am not aware of any racial connotations attached to watermelons.

Well, many people are, so while this professor may not have been racist, he was racially insensitve (inadvertantly or no). There is a long-time stereo type of black people and watermelons. They were characterized as watermelon and chicken thieves in the Antebellum era and that has persisted. Look back to board games at the beginning of the 20th century and you'll find dozens featuring black stereotypes holding up watermelons or stealing or whatnot. There was even one called Chuck where a huge smiling black boy has an open mouth and children hurl discs that look like watermelons into it.

I am from Europe, and to me the entire thing makes no sense. Obviously it has some sort of connotation harking back to olden-time USA.

It has to do with old movies and television shows pretty much.
That is where most racism stems from.

Heh, I didn't know that until I was about 17-18, and I live here. Imagine a foriegner or a young child who doesn't understand the connotations behind his request asking if an african-american would like to join him for fried chicken and watermelon, and the black man accuses him of racism.

are you suggesting Professor Raetner was a foreigner or young child?

My we are on the excuses bandwagon.

You dodged the question.

Does the fact that they are no longer slaves mean that blacks became socially equal in America with the passage of the 13th Amendment?

I seem to remember something called segregation.
And I seem to recall it being called off.

I didn't dodge the question. I used a hypothetical scenario to put things more into perspective.

I am from South Africa, so I know all about segregation, as well as racism in reverse. The way to end it is to stop endorsing it altogether. Defensive racism is as bad as its agressive form.

I don't get it. I googled it. I still don't get it.

Did you read the results?

http://www.soupsong.com/fwaterme.html

http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/games/

I understand helping former slaves out and establishing thier lives but all these current blacks who havent taken advantage of affirmative action are now in the same spot as they were before and then they complain about us being racist??
what do i owe you?
in my cunrty we were oppresed worse than the former slaves so i think that to make generalities and stereotypes is wrong and we need to stop it but that wont happen until both sides come together,
heck ive seen black people hating on southamericans

Well, many people are, so while this professor may not have been racist, he was racially insensitve (inadvertantly or no). There is a long-time stereo type of black people and watermelons. They were characterized as watermelon and chicken thieves in the Antebellum era and that has persisted. Look back to board games at the beginning of the 20th century and you'll find dozens featuring black stereotypes holding up watermelons or stealing or whatnot. There was even one called Chuck where a huge smiling black boy has an open mouth and children hurl discs that look like watermelons into it.

So now we have to know what associations, reasonable or otherwise, other people have in their heads lest we be accused of insensitivity in some way.
That is going over the top.

If the maths question had been about Conaleezadropping a Jaca fruit off the building, would it be fair of me to criticise the teacher for insensitivity toward blacks, when the guy has little or no chance of knowing anything about any racist connotations involved. Or should we just exclude all references to any black person in any way (thus using race as a criteria and being much more directly racist) in such questions?

Did you read the results?

http://www.soupsong.com/fwaterme.html

http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/games/

I tried. It still makes little or no sense to me.

So I guess I'll have to revise my inadvertantly racist thing.

are you suggesting Professor Raetner was a foreigner or young child?

My we are on the excuses bandwagon.

Wow, for someone accusing others of making assumptions, that was such a leap you could probably get across the Grand Canyon.

I don't get it. I googled it. I still don't get it.

I believe there was a point to each. They were associated with big, red lips and huge smiles, like watermelon, and they were associated with cowardly acts of theft in the night, like chickens. In the night, because they were so black that only their eyes and teeth would give them away. White people spent a long time in the US weaving a thread of denigration of black people and being racially aware requires us to be aware of where our images come from. These things affect us both consciously and subconsciously. I doubt the makers of games in the early 20th century realized where the stereotype came from and why it was offensive. They only knew it was there and it would sell games.

It's unfortunate that we have to actually work to undo the damage of the past, but it's there and we do.

So now we have to know what associations, reasonable or otherwise, other people have in their heads lest we be accused of insensitivity in some way.
That is going over the top.

I don't think that this reaction is appropriate as we said, but yes, we do have an obligation to understand a bit about the popular culture in which we live. Can teachers flip off students and claim they didn't realize it was an insult?

If the maths question had been about Conaleezadropping a Jaca fruit off the building, would it be fair of me to criticise the teacher for insensitivity toward blacks, when the guy has little or no chance of knowing anything about any racist connotations involved. Or should we just exclude all references to any black person in any way (thus using race as a criteria and being much more directly racist) in such questions?

Again, I think the reaction was over-dramatic, but it is not asking much to keep prevalent stereotypes out of the texts and paperwork of a course. I'll just leave the rest of that strawman alone.

Wow, for someone accusing others of making assumptions, that was such a leap you could probably get across the Grand Canyon.

Granted. ;)

And let me be clear about the underlying incident: the professor has apologized. That should more than make up for what was a mildly insensitive action at most.

That doesn't make those that were offended racists, however. Perhaps overly sensitive. But racist is a leap as well.

how come theres a BET and not White Entertainment Television?

how come theres Black Dating Services and not White?

how come theres a Negro College Fund and not White College Fund?

all in all, I think BOTH are guilty of racism

I don't think that this reaction is appropriate as we said, but yes, we do have an obligation to understand a bit about the popular culture in which we live. Can teachers flip off students and claim they didn't realize it was an insult?

There is a difference though; most people would understand what it means to "flip someone off" but there are some racial slurs or connotations that most people don't even know exist. Is it our job to know every single one, just in case we might offend someone?

Again, I think the reaction was over-dramatic, but it is not asking much to keep prevalent stereotypes out of the texts and paperwork of a course. I'll just leave the rest of that strawman alone.

If the stereotype is truly prevalent, as you seem to be claiming it is in your culture, then the reaction is not over dramatic. If it is not prevalent, then the accusation is unjustified. Either the guy was offensive in setting the question (which 57% of the people that answered the poll on the AOL news page claim he was not, by not being offended) and should be punished, or he was not and the accusers have no right to even an apology.

If we are to accept that he should apologize, but not be punished, then we are accepting that he was not aware of the stereotype, but that he did something wrong. That is a situation that I find ridiculous and one that does lead to the rest of my contention in the previous post (no straw man, just a consequence of the above.)

Google "watermelon" and "stereotype"

You could learn something.


Actually I did that, apparently us oblivious white people aren't as uncommon as you think, now what the hell's the big deal?

how come theres a BET and not White Entertainment Television?

how come theres Black Dating Services and not White?

how come theres a Negro College Fund and not White College Fund?

all in all, I think BOTH are guilty of racism
I suppose because whites don't bother creating such things?

If the stereotype is truly prevalent, as you seem to be claiming it is in your culture, then the reaction is not over dramatic. If it is not prevalent, then the accusation is unjustified. Either the guy was offensive in setting the question (which 57% of the people that answered the poll on the AOL news page claim he was not, by not being offended) and should be punished, or he was not and the accusers have no right to even an apology.

If we are to accept that he should apologize, but not be punished, then we are accepting that he was not aware of the stereotype, but that he did something wrong. That is a situation that I find ridiculous and one that does lead to the rest of my contention in the previous post (no straw man, just a consequence of the above.)

It isn't as black and white as that (excuse the expression).

Do you believe in degrees of homicide or are all homicides equally wrong?

All homocides are equally wrong. I don't see why motive is even mentioned, a person is dead. Why he was murdered isn't really a question. Taking another's life is always wrong.

Actually I did that, apparently us oblivious white people aren't as uncommon as you think, now what the hell's the big deal?

http://poynteronline.org/column.asp?id=58&aid=42722

Since the earliest days of plantation slavery, the caricature of the dark-skinned black child, his too-red lips stretched to grotesque extremes as they opened to chomp down on watermelon, was a staple of racism's diet. Over time, the watermelon became a symbol of the broader denigration of black people. It became part of the image perpetuated by a white culture bent upon bolstering the myth of superiority by depicting the inferior race as lazy, simple-minded pickaninnies interested only in such mindless pleasures as a slice of sweet watermelon.

Like all racial and ethnic stereotypes, this one's destructive properties have, through the decades, stretched far beyond mere insult. It has helped poison self-esteem, pushing some people to avoid doing anything that seemed too "black," lest they be lumped into the company of Uncle Remus, Aunt Jemima, or some other relative of racism.

All homocides are equally wrong. I don't see why motive is even mentioned, a person is dead. Why he was murdered isn't really a question. Taking another's life is always wrong.

There goes the system of jurisprudence of at least most of the Western world.

First degree murder is not the same as second-degree murder is not the same as manslaughter.

Are all things that are "wrong" equally wrong?

It isn't as black and white as that (excuse the expression).

Do you believe in degrees of homicide or are all homicides equally wrong?

Irrelevant.

The issue here is whether we have to know the connotations of everything in the minds of the other.
Let us assume that the teacher knew the racial connotations of watermelons!
Then he was being racist and should be punished; an apology is not enough.

So, let us assume he did not know these connotations.
Then he has done no wrong and does not need to apologize.

Yes it is black and white as the relevant circumstances are necessarily black and white. Either he knew the connotations or he did not. He sort of knew is not an option.

If you consider that he should have to apologize for doing something that he did not know was in any way offensive, you are removing all requirement for mens rea in racism. Not a good direction to go, unless you happen to be a fan of police states.

Theft is not murder. Killing another person is. Murder is more wrong than theft, and in my mind not quite as wrong as rape. Manslaughter would depend, do you mean when they're just trying to severely injure an accidentally kill? That's the same as doing it intentionally. Or are you referring to a genuine accident? Accidents should be prevented, not punished. An accident due to gross negligence that results in death is murder.

how come theres a BET and not White Entertainment Television?

how come theres Black Dating Services and not White?

how come theres a Negro College Fund and not White College Fund?

all in all, I think BOTH are guilty of racism

*sigh*

learn a little history and get some perspective

this is slightly outdated, but illustrates my point



Minorities and women remain economically disadvantaged: the black unemployment rate remains over twice the white unemployment rate; 97 percent of senior managers in Fortune 1000 corporations are white males; (28) in 1992, 33.3 percent of blacks and 29.3 percent of Hispanics lived in poverty, compared to 11.6 percent of whites. (29) In 1993, Hispanic men were half as likely as white men to be managers or professionals; (30) only 0.4 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries are Hispanic. (31)


Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labor market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from "audit" studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply for a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to interview or offer a job to minority applicants and to female applicants. (32)


Less direct evidence on discrimination comes from comparisons of earnings of blacks and whites, or males and females. (33) Even after adjusting for characteristics that affect earnings (such as years of education and work experience), these studies typically find that blacks and women are paid less than their white male counterparts. The average income for Hispanic women with college degrees is less than the average for white men with high school degrees. (34)


In 1994 alone, the Federal government received over 90,000 complaints of employment discrimination. Moreover 64,423 complaints were filed with state and local Fair Employment Practices Commissions, bringing the total last year to over 154,000. Thousands of other individuals filed complaints alleging racially motivated violence and discrimination in housing, voting, and public accommodations, to name just a few.


White males continue to hold 97 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries. Only 0.6 percent of senior management are African American, 0.3 percent are Asian and 0.4 percent are Hispanic.


African Americans hold only 2.5 percent of top jobs in the private sector and African American men with professional degrees earn only 79 percent of the amount earned by their white counterparts. Comparably situated African American women earn only 60 percent of the amount earned by white males.


Women hold 3 to 5 percent of senior level management positions -- there are only two women CEOs in Fortune 1000 companies.


The fears and prejudices of lower-rung white male executives were listed as a principal barrier to the advancement of women and minorities. The report also found that, across the board, men advance more rapidly than women.


The unemployment rate for African Americans was more than twice that of whites in 1994. The median income for black males working full-time, full year in 1992 was 30 percent less than white males. Hispanics fared only modestly better in each category. In 1993, black and Hispanic men were half as likely as white men to be managers or professionals.


In 1992, over 50 percent of African American children under 6 and 44 percent of Hispanic children lived under the poverty level, while only 14.4 percent of white children did so. The overall poverty rates were 33.3 percent for African Americans, 29.3 percent for Hispanics and 11.6 percent for whites.


Black employment remains fragile -- in an economic downturn, black unemployment leads the downward spiral. For example, in the 1981-82 recession, black employment dropped by 9.1 percent while white employment fell by 1.6 percent. Hispanic unemployment is also much more cyclical than unemployment for white Americans. (39) Hispanic family income remains much lower, and increases at a slower rate, than white family income.


Unequal access to education plays an important role in creating and perpetuating economic disparities. In 1993, less than 3 percent of college graduates were unemployed; but whereas 22.6 percent of whites had college degrees, only 12.2 percent of African Americans and 9.0 percent of Hispanics did.


The 1990 census reflected that 2.4 percent of the nation's businesses are owned by blacks. Almost 85 percent of those black owned businesses have no employees


Even within educational categories, the economic status of minorities and women fall short. The average woman with a masters degree earns the same amount as the average man with an associate degree. (42) While college educated black women have reached earnings parity with college educated white women, college educated black men earn 76 percent of the earnings of their white male counterparts. (43) Hispanic women earn less than 65 percent of the income earned by white men with the same educational level. Hispanic men earn 81 percent of the wages earned by white men at the same educational level. The average income for Hispanic women with college degrees is less than the average for white men with high school degrees.


A study of the graduating classes of the University of Michigan Law School from 1972-1975 revealed significant wage differentials between men and women lawyers after 15 years of practice. While women earned 93.5 percent of male salaries during the first year after school, that number dropped to 61 percent after 15 years of practice. Controlling for grades, hours of work, family responsibilities, labor market experience, and choice of careers (large firms versus small firms, academia, public interest, etc.), men are left with an unexplained 13 percent earnings advantage over women.


Here is my source (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa04.html). It is the Clinton Administration's Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President. Here are the footnotes (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/footnotes.html#aa28).

More up to date information can be found at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/eop/ca/
http://www.nul.org/stateofblackamerica.html

Irrelevant.

The issue here is whether we have to know the connotations of everything in the minds of the other.
Let us assume that the teacher knew the racial connotations of watermelons!
Then he was being racist and should be punished; an apology is not enough.

So, let us assume he did not know these connotations.
Then he has done no wrong and does not need to apologize.

Yes it is black and white as the relevant circumstances are necessarily black and white. Either he knew the connotations or he did not. He sort of knew is not an option.

If you consider that he should have to apologize for doing something that he did not know was in any way offensive, you are removing all requirement for mens rea in racism. Not a good direction to go, unless you happen to be a fan of police states.

If I genuinely am inadvertent in seriously offending you, I shouldn't even apologize?

As long as I didn't know I was doing something wrong, I was not doing anything that I should even apologize for.

Affirmitive action is racism.

If you want to be fair, you won't even ask about race. That's fair, saying you get money because you belong to a race, that's racist.

150 years after the end of Slavery, 30 years after the Civil Rights movement, exactly how long is this going to be the nameless white guy's fault? How long before people start to realize that there may infact be deeper issues behind these numbers that you can't pawn off on the vile white guy?

Affirmitive action is racism.

If you want to be fair, you won't even ask about race. That's fair, saying you get money because you belong to a race, that's racist.

150 years after the end of Slavery, 30 years after the Civil Rights movement, exactly how long is this going to be the nameless white guy's fault? How long before people start to realize that there may infact be deeper issues behind these numbers that you can't pawn off on the vile white guy?
I agree from the point of view that discriminating against whites based solely on their colour is wrong. What must be done is to ensure there is equal opportunity for all and a meritocracy. Not racism in reverse.

If I genuinely am inadvertent in seriously offending you, I shouldn't even apologize?

As long as I didn't know I was doing something wrong, I was not doing anything that I should even apologize for.

Why not? Crazy people get away from murder sometimes because they didn't know that what they were doing was wrong.

Not that I'm saying the two are one and the same...am I? :D

how come theres a BET and not White Entertainment Television?

how come theres Black Dating Services and not White?

how come theres a Negro College Fund and not White College Fund?

all in all, I think BOTH are guilty of racism

It's clearly because white people are oppressed in America./sarcasm

At the time of the creation of BET, black people were underrepresented on television. White people don't have this problem.

I don't know about the dating services and suspect that it's not really anything that anyone here would defend.

As to the college fund, it was created at a time when black people were underrepresented in higher education, mostly due to a lack of funding. Again, white people have no such problem.

I agree from the point of view that discriminating against whites based solely on their colour is wrong. What must be done is to ensure there is equal opportunity for all and a meritocracy. Not racism in reverse.


I still don't understand why grant applications, college, aps, and the census asks us our race. Why is that? They shouldn't. Why should race matter? We're all people, we deserve to be treated equally, not based upon what race we are.

I still don't understand why grant applications, college, aps, and the census asks us our race. Why is that? They shouldn't. Why should race matter? We're all people, we deserve to be treated equally, not based upon what race we are.
I agree.

Affirmitive action is racism.

If you want to be fair, you won't even ask about race. That's fair, saying you get money because you belong to a race, that's racist.

150 years after the end of Slavery, 30 years after the Civil Rights movement, exactly how long is this going to be the nameless white guy's fault? How long before people start to realize that there may infact be deeper issues behind these numbers that you can't pawn off on the vile white guy?

Affirmative action isn't about blame. It's about the fact that black people remain disproportionately disadvantaged. Unlike what most people try to suggest, affirmative action does not espouse quotas (a notion I was disabused of when I arrived at NS by none other than TCT).

With the advent of freedom of speech, one can express whatever views they wish. However, if a person thinks that they have a free licence to be racist simply because they are white/black/whatever, they have another thing coming for them. A black racist is as bad as a white one, and vice-versa. People, being what they are, will always be somewhat reliant on double-standards though.

Well, with free speech, someone can express racist views if they want, but it will reflect on them, and what kind of person they are. For the most part, if a white person says something racist, the "PC" crowd is pretty quick to jump on it, but if a black person says something racist, for the most part they are ignored. That seems like racism to me, it's almost like they are saying that white people should know better, but minorities are, you know, just minorites expressing themselves. Holding people of different races to different standards like that seems kind of racist itself- especially coming from people who claim that everyone should be treated equally.

I mean, I heard a song on TV the other day that went: "I'm black, but my skin's kind of light- it means my ancestors was raped by somebody white." What if I were to write a song that went: "White people are afraid to leave there homes, because negro crime is out of control?" Would it be on the radio?

What disadvantage? You oft hear of this nebulous intangible disadvantage. What is it?


Two people, one white, one black:


White guy, grew up in an extremely rural area, highschool dropout, divorced parents, whole broken home absuive father routine. Holding down a full time job earning ~30k a year.
Black guy, grew up in public housing, no father, on food stamps and welfare, college grad, earning ~100k a year.


I'm the white guy, black guy is a friend of mine. What disadvantage? I'm honestly curious. I mean, I'd not met more than a handful (literally) of black people before I'd met him. Maybe I'm more liberal than most white folk, but I'd guess I'm not. Hell I count him as a friend. What disadvantage did he have that I didn't?

Affirmitive action is racism.

If you want to be fair, you won't even ask about race. That's fair, saying you get money because you belong to a race, that's racist.

150 years after the end of Slavery, 30 years after the Civil Rights movement, exactly how long is this going to be the nameless white guy's fault? How long before people start to realize that there may infact be deeper issues behind these numbers that you can't pawn off on the vile white guy?

This is a whole other topic that has been explored at length.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463872

Racism and predjudice are just fancy words for preference.

Since Black Men and White men both prefer White Women, I don't really see a difference at all.

I still don't understand why grant applications, college, aps, and the census asks us our race. Why is that? They shouldn't. Why should race matter? We're all people, we deserve to be treated equally, not based upon what race we are.

We do all deserve to be treated equally. And the government should take action to see that its citizens are treated equally. That requires more than ignoring the problem.

Well, with free speech, someone can express racist views if they want, but it will reflect on them, and what kind of person they are. For the most part, if a white person says something racist, the "PC" crowd is pretty quick to jump on it, but if a black person says something racist, for the most part they are ignored. That seems like racism to me, it's almost like they are saying that white people should know better, but minorities are, you know, just minorites expressing themselves. Holding people of different races to different standards like that seems kind of racist itself- especially coming from people who claim that everyone should be treated equally.
Absolutely. This is why I am not sympathetic to people who exercise double standards in that way. If someone is racist, fine. They are racist. Do not excuse them though simply because they are a minority.

I mean, I heard a song on TV the other day that went: "I'm black, but my skin's kind of light- it means my ancestors was raped by somebody white." What if I were to write a song that went: "White people are afraid to leave there homes, because negro crime is out of control?" Would it be on the radio?
It would, but it would be lambasted left, right and centre. Hopefully people will do away with double standards as time goes by.

What disadvantage? You oft hear of this nebulous intangible disadvantage. What is it?


Two people, one white, one black:


White guy, grew up in an extremely rural area, highschool dropout, divorced parents, whole broken home absuive father routine. Holding down a full time job earning ~30k a year.
Black guy, grew up in public housing, no father, on food stamps and welfare, college grad, earning ~100k a year.


I'm the white guy, black guy is a friend of mine. What disadvantage? I'm honestly curious. I mean, I'd not met more than a handful (literally) of black people before I'd met him. Maybe I'm more liberal than most white folk, but I'd guess I'm not. Hell I count him as a friend. What disadvantage did he have that I didn't?

You do realize that specific examples are not evidence of a trend. Certainly there are some black people who are more successful than some white people, some more advantaged than others.

Here's some questions:

In the last thirty years how many black people got into Harvard because their ancestor went there? How many white people? How about all ivy league schools?

How many black people inherited a million+ dollar company from their parents? How many white people?

How many white CEO's? How many black?

How many white presidents? How many black?

How many white heads of universities? How many blacks?

What's the average income of white people? Black?

What's the average education level - white? Black?

Or is your argument that black people are generally more likely to be lazy and worthless so they get what they deserve and the whole civil rights thing is just a coincidence? I suspect it's not.

Racism and predjudice are just fancy words for preference.

Since Black Men and White men both prefer White Women, I don't really see a difference at all.
I am gay, and to be honest I find black women far more attractive than their male counterparts, to whom I feel no attraction whatsoever.

I still don't understand why grant applications, college, aps, and the census asks us our race. Why is that? They shouldn't. Why should race matter? We're all people, we deserve to be treated equally, not based upon what race we are.

The whole purpose is for them to be able toreport back to the government with proof that they are complying with equal rights.

But i see where you are coming from and i agree. If it were completely unknown what raceone is when applying, then it would be impossible to be biased about it because you wouldn't be ableto be prejudiced because you don't know their race.

We do all deserve to be treated equally. And the government should take action to see that its citizens are treated equally. That requires more than ignoring the problem.
So why ignore whites who suffer from extreme poverty in favour of better off blacks? The solution should be aiding the disadvantaged, period. No matter what their race and so on.

What disadvantage? You oft hear of this nebulous intangible disadvantage. What is it?


Two people, one white, one black:


White guy, grew up in an extremely rural area, highschool dropout, divorced parents, whole broken home absuive father routine. Holding down a full time job earning ~30k a year.
Black guy, grew up in public housing, no father, on food stamps and welfare, college grad, earning ~100k a year.


I'm the white guy, black guy is a friend of mine. What disadvantage? I'm honestly curious. I mean, I'd not met more than a handful (literally) of black people before I'd met him. Maybe I'm more liberal than most white folk, but I'd guess I'm not. Hell I count him as a friend. What disadvantage did he have that I didn't?

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/biassamp.html

So why ignore whites who suffer from extreme poverty in favour of better off blacks? The solution should be aiding the disadvantaged, period. No matter what their race and so on.

Of course you would have to demonstrate that is happening on some wide scale, because I have yet to see it.

Of course you would have to demonstrate that is happening on some wide scale, because I have yet to see it.
Which is why I ask what is the point of asking the race when giving a grant? Economic situation and academic capability should be all that matter.

The whole purpose is for them to be able toreport back to the government with proof that they are complying with equal rights.

But i see where you are coming from and i agree. If it were completely unknown what raceone is when applying, then it would be impossible to be biased about it because you wouldn't be ableto be prejudiced because you don't know their race.

Except for the studies about racist selection based on the characteristics of names. "White" names getting preference over "black" names.

Of course you would have to demonstrate that is happening on some wide scale, because I have yet to see it.

Ever heard of Appalachia, or the Rust Belt?

Except for the studies about racist selection based on the characteristics of names. "White" names getting preference over "black" names.
Considering a lot of blacks name their kids with white names nowadays, how would this be an issue? Stating race outright is almost an invitation to discriminate, either way.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/biassamp.html

It think it qualifies as hasty generalization, but maybe it's both.

So why ignore whites who suffer from extreme poverty in favour of better off blacks? The solution should be aiding the disadvantaged, period. No matter what their race and so on.

Nice strawman.

And poverty and racism are linked, but separate problems.

Ever heard of Appalachia, or the Rust Belt?

Yes. And the poverty there is due to affirmative action?

Ever heard of Appalachia, or the Rust Belt?

I didn't say white people aren't poor on a wide scale. I said can you demonstrate where affluent blacks are being favored over poor whites with any regularity. Your response has no relation to the question.

I didn't say white people aren't poor on a wide scale. I said can you demonstrate where affluent blacks are being favored over poor whites with any regularity. Your response has no relation to the question.

Ah, I see. My mistake.

Considering a lot of blacks name their kids with white names nowadays, how would this be an issue? Stating race outright is almost an invitation to discriminate, either way.

It is one of many ways in which you are wrong in assuming that if race was not checked on a form, there would be no racism. That is just silly.

And without tracking race, how would we know if racism was occurring? Should we assume it simply vanishes if we don't keep track of it?

Nice strawman.
Never was it my intention to create one.

And poverty and racism are linked, but separate problems.
Perhaps. My point is that the disadvantaged should be aided regardless of their race, gender, sexuality and so on.

Never was it my intention to create one.

Just because it was inadvertant does not make it not a fallacy.


Perhaps. My point is that the disadvantaged should be aided regardless of their race, gender, sexuality and so on.

I agree.

But I also think we should fight racism, sexism, etc. Don't you?

It is one of many ways in which you are wrong in assuming that if race was not checked on a form, there would be no racism. That is just silly.
When did I ever say it would eliminate it?

And without tracking race, how would we know if racism was occurring? Should we assume it simply vanishes if we don't keep track of it?
Assuming those responsible for watching over it even care. It is naive to assume that all governments aim to reduce inequality, even if they use it as an election gimmick. So what could happen, in effect, is those responsible for processing the paperwork can now discriminate more easily, and the whole thing can be covered up.

It is one of many ways in which you are wrong in assuming that if race was not checked on a form, there would be no racism. That is just silly.

And without tracking race, how would we know if racism was occurring? Should we assume it simply vanishes if we don't keep track of it?

That's the amusing part of that point. Will we all walk around wearing special glasses making it impossible to identify race?

Racism can occur in selection for college, it can occur in grading, it can occur in selection for majors, it can occur councelor support, it can occur in job selection, it can occur in job promotion, it can occur in sales, it can occur in purchasing, it can occur accusation of crimes, in suspicion of crimes, in being penalized for crime, both in severity and in likelihood, it can occur in everyday treatment, it can occur in violence, it can occur in political opportunity, etc.

Someone please explain how keep race off forms will solve all of those problems? And in absense of solving them, how does one propose we examine them if we don't collect the information?

When did I ever say it would eliminate it?


Assuming those responsible for watching over it even care. It is naive to assume that all governments aim to reduce inequality, even if they use it as an election gimmick. So what could happen, in effect, is those responsible for processing the paperwork can now discriminate more easily, and the whole thing can be covered up.

Evidence, please. Because it appears to me to be counterintutive and mostly just a rant because you feel like it's unfair to you.

I wonder what the races of people posting on this forum are. I've seen loads of 'what age are you' and 'what's your sexuality' etc, but never race.

Just because it was inadvertant does not make it not a fallacy.
I was asking a question. Not trying to corner you or anyone else.

I agree.

But I also think we should fight racism, sexism, etc. Don't you?
Via the proper means. Giving some free right to be as racist and sexist as they want, simply because they are disadvantaged, is not the way to go about this. It will only eventually result in a reversal of tables. Targetting poverty directly and granting more opportunities to the disenfranchised are solutions. There is no such thing as positive discrimination. There is the creation of opportunities though.

Just because it was inadvertant does not make it not a fallacy.




I agree.

But I also think we should fight racism, sexism, etc. Don't you?

Do you notice how often we get treated like it's a zero sum game? Like if we suggest one is a problem we must be endorsing the other problems or something?

I was asking a question. Not trying to corner you or anyone else.


Via the proper means. Giving some free right to be as racist and sexist as they want, simply because they are disadvantaged, is not the way to go about this. It will only eventually result in a reversal of tables. Targetting poverty directly and granting more opportunities to the disenfranchised are solutions. There is no such thing as positive discrimination. There is the creation of opportunities though.

Another strawman. Who here is advocated allowing people to be as racist and sexist as they want if they are disadvantaged? Quote the post, because I must have missed it.

Evidence, please. Because it appears to me to be counterintutive and mostly just a rant because you feel like it's unfair to you.
I am arguing on a hypothetical basis.

And, how exactly would it be unfair to me if people decided to discriminate for gay people, seeing as I am one?

When did I ever say it would eliminate it?

So we just give up?

Assuming those responsible for watching over it even care. It is naive to assume that all governments aim to reduce inequality, even if they use it as an election gimmick. So what could happen, in effect, is those responsible for processing the paperwork can now discriminate more easily, and the whole thing can be covered up.

Assuming one wants to intentionally discriminate despite the law and one has the power to do so and to cover it up, how will they be unable to accomplish this if we merely leave a box of a census form?

Again, it is naive to assume racism will cure itself. It is wrong to simply concede to it.

Another strawman. Who here is advocated allowing people to be as racist and sexist as they want if they are disadvantaged? Quote the post, because I must have missed it.
The strawmen are your own implication. As I said, I am arguing from a hypothetical view point, a vacuum.

Via the proper means. Giving some free right to be as racist and sexist as they want, simply because they are disadvantaged, is not the way to go about this. It will only eventually result in a reversal of tables. Targetting poverty directly and granting more opportunities to the disenfranchised are solutions. There is no such thing as positive discrimination. There is the creation of opportunities though.

Again with the strawmen. Affirmative action is not "[g]iving some free right to be as racist and sexist as they want."

We've been over this before. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463872

So we just give up?
I suggested this? :confused:

Assuming one wants to intentionally discriminate despite the law and one has the power to do so and to cover it up, how will they be unable to accomplish this if we merely leave a box of a census form?

Again, it is naive to assume racism will cure itself. It is wrong to simply concede to it.
All I am saying is that discriminating either way is wrong. Giving someone a grant simply because they are white, or black, is wrong from the very outset in my view. The best solution, I suppose, would be to ensure that civil servants are as free of bias as possible, but they being human, I see this as an unlikely scenario.

I am arguing on a hypothetical basis.

And, how exactly would it be unfair to me if people decided to discriminate for gay people, seeing as I am one?

They actively discriminate against you and, magically, they manage to do so without anything on forms to allow them to do it. It actually defeats your point, no?

Once active discrimination was addressed, gay people would not have the same problems as ethnic minorites, because gays are generally not easily visually identified and often there is no way to know for most coworkers, bosses, interviewers, etc., and gays are not born to other gays so there is no way to argue that their disadvantages are a compound result of generations of disadvantages.

Without active discrimination there is very little likelihood of a general problem in homosexuality. This is not true of race.

I am arguing on a hypothetical basis.

And, how exactly would it be unfair to me if people decided to discriminate for gay people, seeing as I am one?

Then the answer to your hypothetical is simple: no.

We should not give anyone the "free right to be as racist and sexist as they want"

If you want to talk about the real world and actual affirmative action, that is a different subject entirely.

The strawmen are your own implication. As I said, I am arguing from a hypothetical view point, a vacuum.

Pardon? You are arguing a strawman and we are noting it. Are you suggesting your replies are non sequiters?

Why are you arguing with us about hypothetical solutions that no one advocates? Especially, why would you argue them as if we would support those hypothetical solutions? The answer is STRAWMAN.

Pardon? You are arguing a strawman and we are noting it. Are you suggesting your replies are non sequiters?
So I assume all hypothetical questions are strawmen then?

Then the answer to your hypothetical is simple: no.

We should not give anyone the "free right to be as racist and sexist as they want"

If you want to talk about the real world and actual affirmative action, that is a different subject entirely.
Depending on where it takes place. In the USA it has a different meaning to what goes on in South Africa, where there is active reverse discrimination. That is why I am arguing on a hypothetical basis, because facts change as things go along.

They actively discriminate against you and, magically, they manage to do so without anything on forms to allow them to do it. It actually defeats your point, no?
How?

Once active discrimination was addressed, gay people would not have the same problems as ethnic minorites, because gays are generally not easily visually identified and often there is no way to know for most coworkers, bosses, interviewers, etc., and gays are not born to other gays so there is no way to argue that their disadvantages are a compound result of generations of disadvantages.

Without active discrimination there is very little likelihood of a general problem in homosexuality. This is not true of race.
Racism is easier practised than sexuality based discrimination, true, but if you honestly think that it is easy nowadays to simply be out with your sexuality, you are wrong.

So I assume all hypothetical questions are strawmen then?

If I say them as if they are a position you hold and they cannot reasonably be extrapolated from your position? Yup. Go right ahead.

Let me give you an example.

"I thing we need to combat racism and sexism."
"Yes, but we need to do it in the right way, not just allow people to be as racist and sexist as they like if they happen to be more disadvantaged."
Strawman. Why? Because not only is the first person not advocating such a thing, but they said the opposite and you stated your reply as if they said something other than they are arguing.

Second example:
"I think we need to combat racism and sexism."
"Well, what do you think we should do in the case of people who are disadvantaged because of their race but who are also racist?"
That's simply asking a hypothetical question to further understand the first speaker.

Your point assume the position of the first speaker instead of seeking to explore it. I hate this kind of weak argument. You argue using strawmen and then try to play games like we're not intelligent enough to recognize what you're doing.

Depending on where it takes place. In the USA it has a different meaning to what goes on in South Africa, where there is active reverse discrimination. That is why I am arguing on a hypothetical basis, because facts change as things go along.

It is much easier to be "pure" with your principles if you don't get your hands dirty with reality.

Again, how would you make racism disappear without actively fighting it?

It is much easier to be "pure" with your principles if you don't get your hands dirty with reality.

Again, how would you make racism disappear without actively fighting it?
By stop practising it altogether. If you think South Africa is attempting to end it, that isn't so. It is reversing the way it takes place, if only with a little more subtlety.

So I assume all hypothetical questions are strawmen then?

No. Hypothetical questions that assume facts such that they are a based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position are strawmen.

How?

Hmmm... I guess I'll just quote you.

Assuming those responsible for watching over it even care. It is naive to assume that all governments aim to reduce inequality, even if they use it as an election gimmick. So what could happen, in effect, is those responsible for processing the paperwork can now discriminate more easily, and the whole thing can be covered up.
The fact that LGBT discrimination is not abated by the fact that no evidence of their sexuality or gender identity appears on a form is evidence that the forms are not the problem as you have claimed several times in this thread.

Racism is easier practised than sexuality based discrimination, true, but if you honestly think that it is easy nowadays to simply be out with your sexuality, you are wrong.
I didn't say that. Nor did I imply it. I said you are actively discriminated against. Black discrimination is more nefarious because in addition to the forms of discrimination that gays face, it is also passed down from generation to generation, e.g. if your father was denied social mobility this will affect your children to a degree, and visual. One kind of discrimination that gays face that minorities generally don't anymore, is that gays are still openly attacked even by the government (the marriage amendment, laws against adoption, and DOMA).

So that you don't make any more silly assumptions, TCT and myself are both involved in an equal rights group for all gender identities and sexualities. Our issue with discrimination is not limited to race.

Your point assume the position of the first speaker instead of seeking to explore it. I hate this kind of weak argument. You argue using strawmen and then try to play games like we're not intelligent enough to recognize what you're doing.
I am not playing games nor am I trying to corner anyone. They are strawmen, in your opinion. If it is my style that bothers you, then I will ask them outright in future, helping you avoid relying on assumptions as to what my intentions are.

No. Hypothetical questions that assume facts such that they are a based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position are strawmen.
Assuming my intention was to misrepresent your position. Which it was not. As I said, if it is my style that bothers you two, I will pose hypothetical scenarios more directly in future.

Black man is because Hate crimes aren't cool.

By stop practising it altogether. If you think South Africa is attempting to end it, that isn't so. It is reversing the way it takes place, if only with a little more subtlety.

I cannot speak to what South Africa is or is not doing. I am ignorant.

Affirmative action in the US is accused of being reverse discrimination, but it is not.

Thus, I cannot simply accept your assertion that South Africa practices reverse discrimination.

Depending on the facts, it may be that South Africa is pursuing a bad policy. It may also be that you have bad objections to a good policy.

I am not playing games nor am I trying to corner anyone. They are strawmen, in your opinion. If it is my style that bothers you, then I will ask them outright in future, helping you avoid relying on assumptions as to what my intentions are.

Intent is not a requirement of a strawman. Meanwhile, I have watched you debate too much to believe you can't recognize the implications of your statements. I simply don't think you're that poor of a debator.

Yes, that's a backhanded compliment.

Assuming my intention was to misrepresent your position. Which it was not. As I said, if it is my style that bothers you two, I pose hypothetical scenarios more directly in future.

You need not intend to misrepresent your opponent's position in order to do so.

I look forward to your improved hypotheticals.

The fact that LGBT discrimination is not abated by the fact that no evidence of their sexuality or gender identity appears on a form is evidence that the forms are not the problem as you have claimed several times in this thread.
Point conceded, for now.


So that you don't make any more silly assumptions, TCT and myself are both involved in an equal rights group for all gender identities and sexualities. Our issue with discrimination is not limited to race.
I made no assumptions. Either way, interesting to know.

Black man is because Hate crimes aren't cool.

If that is an answer to the original question, how did the black man commit a hate crime by complaining about a racist statement?

Or are you trying to say there should be no such thing as hate crimes? Is the black man then racist simply for objecting to a racist statement?

I cannot speak to what South Africa is or is not doing. I am ignorant.

Depending on the facts, it may be that South Africa is pursuing a bad policy. It may also be that you have bad objections to a good policy.
I can see the need in South Africa for greater equality, and I endorse it, but the current government is following bad policies in my view.

Also, affirmative action in South Africa is a euphemism for what it does. People are both fired and rejected from job positions, regardless of merit, simply because of colour.

I can see the need in South Africa for greater equality, and I endorse it, but the current government is following bad policies in my view.

Also, affirmative action in South Africa is a euphemism for what it does. People are both fired and rejected from job positions, regardless of merit, simply because of colour.

If true, that is wrong. It is not permitted under US affirmative action programs (but that accusation is still commonly falsely made against US affirmative action programs).

If that is an answer to the original question, how did the black man commit a hate crime by complaining about a racist statement?

Or are you trying to say there should be no such thing as hate crimes? Is the black man then racist simply for objecting to a racist statement?
Yes, i am saying Hate crimes are BS a crime is a crime irrespective of who does it.

Yes, i am saying Hate crimes are BS a crime is a crime irrespective of who does it.

I am unsure of hate crime law in New Zealand.

In the US, hate crime legislation merely increases the penalty for some crimes when the motivation was discriminatory hatred. Discriminatory hatred -- such as making racist comments -- is not in and of itself a crime. Hate crimes do not depend on the race of the perpetrator. Blacks can commit hate crimes against whites or even other blacks.

You still have yet to explain how objecting to a racist statement makes one worse than the racist.

Yes, i am saying Hate crimes are BS a crime is a crime irrespective of who does it.

So one should not be punished differently if the nature of their crime makes it worse?

Hate crimes are such because they make people of the targetted group feel much less safe in their community. The victim wasn't chosen randomly and the act was just a random act. The victim was chosen because of belonging to a certain minority group and leaves the community with the feeling that anyone within the same minority is a likely target. It's a different form of murder or assault because it instills fear in a different way and has a different effect on the community. Much like terrorism.

If I genuinely am inadvertent in seriously offending you, I shouldn't even apologize?

As long as I didn't know I was doing something wrong, I was not doing anything that I should even apologize for.

Sorry about the delay (RL interfered)

If I offend you in some way that I could not predict or anticipate, then I have nothing to apologize for. I should apologize because you took offense at something? No. If anything you should apologize for being touchy.

If I did something that is not wrong, but you take as being wrong, then the problem is with you, not with me. If I do something and you can show me that what I did was wrong, beyond simply offending your sensibilities, then I should apologize true, but so far no one has shown that this teacher did anythingwrong in any way. People have claimed that he should have been aware of a racist implication, but others have clearly indicated that this is not a universal interpretation.

Of course, if he wishes to, he may apologize, but that is for him to decide and not for others to demand. My objection is with the idea that he is obliged to apologize, regardless of his being innocent of any wrong doing.

Sorry about the delay (RL interfered)

If I offend you in some way that I could not predict or anticipate, then I have nothing to apologize for. I should apologize because you took offense at something? No. If anything you should apologize for being touchy.

If I did something that is not wrong, but you take as being wrong, then the problem is with you, not with me. If I do something and you can show me that what I did was wrong, beyond simply offending your sensibilities, then I should apologize true, but so far no one has shown that this teacher did anythingwrong in any way. People have claimed that he should have been aware of a racist implication, but others have clearly indicated that this is not a universal interpretation.

Of course, if he wishes to, he may apologize, but that is for him to decide and not for others to demand. My objection is with the idea that he is obliged to apologize, regardless of his being innocent of any wrong doing.

It is a universal interpretation in America. It is highly unlikely that the teacher was unaware of the stereotype and I have seen nothing that suggests that he was.

He is not innocent. He was guilty of being racially insensitive. It's not a crime, but it is just as reasonable to ask him to apologize as it would be if he flipped off one of his students (a sign that is not universal).

Ok, heres a better scenario...

Who's more racist?

The white student who formally protests being refused a place in a major university, a place he earned and deserved, because the university had to meet racial quotas.

OR

The black student who freely took the white student's place, on a full ride scholarship from the Rainbow Push Coalition, even though he did not have the grades for the university and knew that a white student was screwed out of that spot.

It is a universal interpretation in America. It is highly unlikely that the teacher was unaware of the stereotype and I have seen nothing that suggests that he was.

He is not innocent. He was guilty of being racially insensitive. It's not a crime, but it is just as reasonable to ask him to apologize as it would be if he flipped off one of his students (a sign that is not universal).

If he was aware, as you are claiming he was, of the interpretation, then he is guilty of racism. Simple. So punish him, don't just ask for an apology. The fact that you seem to think an apology is sufficient implies, to me, that you are not certain that he was aware of the offense he would cause with this question. In which case it is not as universal as you claim.

You can't have it both ways.

Sorry about the delay (RL interfered)

If I offend you in some way that I could not predict or anticipate, then I have nothing to apologize for. I should apologize because you took offense at something? No. If anything you should apologize for being touchy.

If I did something that is not wrong, but you take as being wrong, then the problem is with you, not with me. If I do something and you can show me that what I did was wrong, beyond simply offending your sensibilities, then I should apologize true, but so far no one has shown that this teacher did anythingwrong in any way. People have claimed that he should have been aware of a racist implication, but others have clearly indicated that this is not a universal interpretation.

Of course, if he wishes to, he may apologize, but that is for him to decide and not for others to demand. My objection is with the idea that he is obliged to apologize, regardless of his being innocent of any wrong doing.

1. So long as some claim it wasn't offensive to anyone, then it wasn't?
So long as a majority agrees with something, it cannot be wrong?

2. You mix and match the underlying case and the hypothetical, adding and substracting facts from one to the other.

3. It seems to me to be common decency to apologize for sincerely offending someone, whether or not you intended to offend them.

4. You seem to imply there is an objective criteria for whether something is offensive. Pray tell, where do we find that criteria?

5. You may not have been aware of the stereotypes concerning watermelon and blacks in America. That does not mean that a 60-year old American that has taught college for more than 25 years should not have been aware. He himself has admitted an "egregious error." Why do you contend that what he says was an error is not?

6. I find it funny that conservatives in the US have jumped all over this claiming that the statement is "left wing racism." They claim the question was viewed as not offensive because it is about Condaleeza Rice. This is also the take of what the media has reportered as the "civil rights leader" that has led the protests against the "racial double standard."
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004972.htm
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004980.htm
http://lonestartimes.com/2006/04/13/left-wing-racism-and-hypocrisy/

If he was aware, as you are claiming he was, of the interpretation, then he is guilty of racism. Simple. So punish him, don't just ask for an apology. The fact that you seem to think an apology is sufficient implies, to me, that you are not certain that he was aware of the offense he would cause with this question. In which case it is not as universal as you claim.

You can't have it both ways.

Ah, but there is a difference between was aware of the offense and should have been aware.

Not knowing that the offense was knowing -- and assuming it was not intentional -- one is willing to accept an apology.

Because the offense was genuine and should have been avoided, the apology is due.

If he was aware, as you are claiming he was, of the interpretation, then he is guilty of racism. Simple. So punish him, don't just ask for an apology. The fact that you seem to think an apology is sufficient implies, to me, that you are not certain that he was aware of the offense he would cause with this question. In which case it is not as universal as you claim.

You can't have it both ways.

He doesn't HAVE to be guilty of racism. Not being sensitive to a stereotype is not the same as being a racist. If you swing open your car door without looking, do you apologize? You should. A lack of intent doesn't mean you should not or could not have avoided the situation with a little forethought.

Ok, heres a better scenario...

Who's more racist?

The white student who formally protests being refused a place in a major university, a place he earned and deserved, because the university had to meet racial quotas.

OR

The black student who freely took the white student's place, on a full ride scholarship from the Rainbow Push Coalition, even though he did not have the grades for the university and knew that a white student was screwed out of that spot.

Let us be clear that your hypothetical has no relation to reality. Racial quotas are not only not required, they are verboten.

But taking your hypothetical on its face:

The white student is clearly not racist. He is protesting an injustice.

The black student may be profiting from an injustice, but it is unclear why that makes him racist. Is every white person in the US racist because they benefit from racism -- both past and current?

Ok, heres a better scenario...

Who's more racist?

The white student who formally protests being refused a place in a major university, a place he earned and deserved, because the university had to meet racial quotas.

OR

The black student who freely took the white student's place, on a full ride scholarship from the Rainbow Push Coalition, even though he did not have the grades for the university and knew that a white student was screwed out of that spot.

If you are talking about the US, then quotas are illegal, so it's a fictional complaint based on urban legend.

He doesn't HAVE to be guilty of racism. Not being sensitive to a stereotype is not the same as being a racist. If you swing open your car door without looking, do you apologize? You should. A lack of intent doesn't mean you should not or could not have avoided the situation with a little forethought.

Exactly. If I accidently cause someone harm, I should apologize. I did not do so deliberately, but I still caused them harm. It is a question of common decency and respect. Not whether or not I was intentially wrongdoing.

Exactly. If I accidently cause someone harm, I should apologize. I did not do so deliberately, but I still caused them harm. It is a question of common decency and respect. Not whether or not I was intentially wrongdoing.

According to him it has to be assault or I did nothing wrong. "You can't have it both ways".