Racism: Stacey Dash

[PLAYER57832]

This relates to a poll on voting about race, how, exactly?

[Phatscotty]

This relates to a poll on voting about race, how, exactly?

the poll is too legendary to take down, but this thread is the closest one as far as racism goes, which has a flare up in Wisconsin a few days ago.

[Lootifer]

rac·ism
   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[rey-siz-uhm]
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

I take your necro and throw a useless definition at you.

All three definitions refer to negatives, or use negatives as their typical use or example. Seems pretty clear to me.

[PLAYER57832]

This relates to a poll on voting about race, how, exactly?

the poll is too legendary to take down, but this thread is the closest one as far as racism goes, which has a flare up in Wisconsin a few days ago.

Then start a new thread. Don't try to distort a popular thread into something it was not.

[Phatscotty]

This relates to a poll on voting about race, how, exactly?

the poll is too legendary to take down, but this thread is the closest one as far as racism goes, which has a flare up in Wisconsin a few days ago.

Then start a new thread. Don't try to distort a popular thread into something it was not.

How did you get the power to make it about one specific example of racism, and not racism in general?

Aside from the name of the topic, what do you think about the topic at hand? Did you hear the 911 calls at all?

[PLAYER57832]

This relates to a poll on voting about race, how, exactly?

the poll is too legendary to take down, but this thread is the closest one as far as racism goes, which has a flare up in Wisconsin a few days ago.

Then start a new thread. Don't try to distort a popular thread into something it was not.

How did you get the power to make it about one specific example of racism, and not racism in general?

The original title.

I have no idea you think changing titles instead of just presenting a new topic is a good idea, but, among other things, it makes it hard for anyone really interested in the old topic to find it.. though maybe that is your whole intent.

[Phatscotty]

Well, its my opinion that racism is more a problem now than it was at any time in my life, and I think it's important to discuss it on a myriad of fronts.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, its my opinion that racism is more a problem now than it was at any time in my life, and I think it's important to discuss it on a myriad of fronts.

Yes, but to take a thread with a title "is it as bad to vote for a race as opposed to one" (or something similar) and then try to claim that it is related to a Wisconsin state fair mob violance. Is just stupid.

Seems you really don't want people to find the old thread.

[Phatscotty]

Well, its my opinion that racism is more a problem now than it was at any time in my life, and I think it's important to discuss it on a myriad of fronts.

Yes, but to take a thread with a title "is it as bad to vote for a race as opposed to one" (or something similar) and then try to claim that it is related to a Wisconsin state fair mob violance. Is just stupid.

Seems you really don't want people to find the old thread.

that's not the title of the thread why are you talking about stupid?

the old thread is right here. I found it!

[Woodruff]

Well, its my opinion that racism is more a problem now than it was at any time in my life, and I think it's important to discuss it on a myriad of fronts.

I definitely do not. However, I do think that the blatancy of it has changed...it's become more..."sneaky". But these days, most teenagers don't even recognize race as a determining factor. It's a descriptive indicator ("see the kid next to the black kid in the red hat?"), but that's about it. That's why I believe that racism is less of a problem now.

[Gillipig]

One problem with the word racism is that it means one thing but is used in so many different ways! The DEFINITION of racism goes like this (and read closely): "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others"! Now that seems about what most people would consider racism to be on the surface of it. But let's take an example: I'm looking at the mens finals in the 100 meter race in the Olympics and I can't help to notice that all the runners are black! Now I already know that practicing this sport is common in 99% of the world so there's no difference in society, culture or condition that would benefit runners from Caribbean islands and America. What they all have in common though is that they're all black! Naturally I could make the statement "Blacks are better at running"! That statement is expressing "a belief that inherent differences among various human races determine individual achievement"! The very definition of racism! Yet what I'm saying is just fundamental common sense! No white man have ever ran under 10 seconds in a 100 meter race but plenty of black men has done that. The definitions says that "usually" it's to say one's own race is superior but it's not a requirement. So apparently being racist also sometimes cover having common sense ! I also can't say that a black person is better at withstanding high levels of UV sunlight because they're black. No I'd have to make up some other explanation to why they're better at shielding themselves against the sun than me. And that it's scientifically proven that dark skin protects better against UV sunlight and that skin cancer is much more common in white people than in black people well that I'd have to just completely ignore because otherwise I'm a racist! I express the "belief" or in this case "scientifically proven" idea that one race is better than another at something and that's what the term racism describes. Of course when most people think of the word racism they don't think of someone expressing common sense or scientificly proven facts but apparently the word covers that as well! The statement "I don't like you because your black" would most people consider a racist comment. But it doesn't express anything about one race being better than another and therefore doesn't qualify as a racism. If the black person asked "why don't you like black people?" and he would get the answer "because you're less worth than us" then that would be a racist comment! With this little monologue I hope to shred some light over the differences of what the word racism means and how it's used! It's not a direct response to the title "Wisconsin State Fair Mob Violence" but it's relevant to the original subject.

[Lootifer]

@ Gillipig: Only nit pickers like Scotty refer to racism in the positive sense (ie its just as racist to make a positive assertion based on race as it is a negative one).

Pragmatically this is a failed concept because in the real world seldom is there a negative consequence on anyone because of a positive racist remark. Conversaly there is often signifcant negative consequences for people because of negative racist comments/stances.

For example:
- How many white people are negatively impacted by saying: "Black people are good sprinters"?
vs
- How many black people are negatively impacted by saying: "Black people are less astute buisnesspeople"?

edit: and for some side interest: you're not quite right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Lemaitre

[radiojake]

The concept of 'race' was created some 500 years ago by Europeans as 'legitimate justification' for slavery of Africans and the domination of indigenous populations in colonial lands - In the early years, 'race' was modelled along the lines of the 'closeness' to God, with, ofcourse, white men being on top of the heirarchial order, followed by various other 'races' to fit into agendas of the time.

I've put the word 'race' in quotations because there is no such thing as 'race' - It is a social construct based on arbitary physical differences (mainly skin colour) - There is no scientific basis behind such a conception. If you cut us all open, we all bleed red blood (infact, it makes more sense scientifically to seperate humans based on different blood types; A-, A+, B-, B+, O- etc etc - But ofcourse we know that is stupid, and as blood types cut across different 'races' (or arbitary physical differences) it is not convienient for us to do so. Another way to point out the fallacy of 'race' is the case where many North American Indigenous peoples born in the early 20th century ended up with a different 'race' on their death certificate than they had on their birth certificate. How can one spontaneously change race? Maybe because its a social construct in the first place.

Now - Having said that it is a social construct, we can not ignore the fact that 'race' has had a very real affect on social relations. 500 years of conditioning has created cultures where we believe these inherent differences are based on some kind of fact. You also have to look at the fact that in many cases, different 'races' have ended up indentifying themselves through the stereotypes and assertions placed on them by 500 years of social conditioning.

It's quite rich that 'white' people are now complaining about other 'races' using the race card - Europeans created the environment and social conditioning that created race (and directly benefited for over 450 years) - Now that we are in an era when racist discrimination is no longer tolerated (by in large), we have found other 'races' taking advantage of a 500 year old social construct. Ideally I would love to see an environment where 'race' is completely irrelevant; unfortunately we are not there yet, but in the mean time you can not be suprised when a 'racial' group starts taking advantage of a social construct that was first created to demean, enslave and undermine their very existance.

[john9blue]

the scientific classification of animals is also a human construct. that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or make it less valid as a scientific field of study.

[radiojake]

the scientific classification of animals is also a human construct. that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or make it less valid as a scientific field of study.

It has all to do with 'who' makes the classifications, and for what purpose. Animals do not name themselves - We project a name onto them. In many circumstances, the classifications of animals has stemmed from our interpretation of which animals are to be exploited, eaten, or left alone, all of which is based on a heirarchy created to fulfil the needs and wants of the dominant hegemon.

In many ways, different 'races' did not name themselves, they had the classification projected onto them, also based on the hierarchy created to fulfil the needs and wants of the dominant hegemon.

Yes, the two disciplines are similar - Just because I am pointing out the fallacy in the classification of human 'races' does not mean that there is not inherent domination involved in our classification of other living things (It's just that this domination is harder to be seen and heard, because we are no longer equipped with those sensory abilities)