PERMABANS (though you did not know it!)

[squishyg]

Yes, I do. Sorry if I was unclear. I was contributing to the conversation, not rebutting your point.

good man.

Now I'm rebutting, for I am a good woman

[jiminski]

Yes, I do. Sorry if I was unclear. I was contributing to the conversation, not rebutting your point.

good man.

Now I'm rebutting, for I am a good woman

ahh my favourite kind of rebuttal

[Woodruff]

Also, I find it offensive that you use "White Power" only as an example. It should include other racist statements such as "Black Power" etc. These guidelines should be edited.

but "black power" isn't racist and "white power" is racist... bad example..-0

I believe you're probably aware of this, but The Black Panthers (who were and are a very vocal example of "black power") are quite a racist organization, actually. So I'd have to disagree with you on that one.

[Woodruff]

Also, I find it offensive that you use "White Power" only as an example. It should include other racist statements such as "Black Power" etc. These guidelines should be edited.

but "black power" isn't racist and "white power" is racist... bad example..-0

Nah it's the perfect example.. just as antithesis to Al's point.

i do sort of know what he is aiming for though ... the guidlines are fairly .. well grey and wobbly! i am not sure they can be anything else but the mods have a big responsibility getting the subjective areas right.

Black Power and White Power mean totally different things. White Power originated with Nazis and is associated with racism, anti-Semitism, and hate. Black Power is a political movement against white supremacy. While it did encourage separatism, it did not invoke violence or the extermination of entire cultures of people.

Do some reading on The Black Panther organization.

[squishyg]

Also, I find it offensive that you use "White Power" only as an example. It should include other racist statements such as "Black Power" etc. These guidelines should be edited.

but "black power" isn't racist and "white power" is racist... bad example..-0

Nah it's the perfect example.. just as antithesis to Al's point.

i do sort of know what he is aiming for though ... the guidlines are fairly .. well grey and wobbly! i am not sure they can be anything else but the mods have a big responsibility getting the subjective areas right.

Black Power and White Power mean totally different things. White Power originated with Nazis and is associated with racism, anti-Semitism, and hate. Black Power is a political movement against white supremacy. While it did encourage separatism, it did not invoke violence or the extermination of entire cultures of people.

Do some reading on The Black Panther organization.

They are certainly a provocative and controversial group. I actually had the good fortune to study with one of their defense attorneys. The Panthers were certainly angry and were not necessarily progressive in their thoughts and actions, but are an important part of black and poor rights history. I do not find them the most constructive group that ever came around, but I won't dismiss them as racists.

[Woodruff]

but "black power" isn't racist and "white power" is racist... bad example..-0

Nah it's the perfect example.. just as antithesis to Al's point.

i do sort of know what he is aiming for though ... the guidlines are fairly .. well grey and wobbly! i am not sure they can be anything else but the mods have a big responsibility getting the subjective areas right.

Black Power and White Power mean totally different things. White Power originated with Nazis and is associated with racism, anti-Semitism, and hate. Black Power is a political movement against white supremacy. While it did encourage separatism, it did not invoke violence or the extermination of entire cultures of people.

Do some reading on The Black Panther organization.

They are certainly a provocative and controversial group. I actually had the good fortune to study with one of their defense attorneys. The Panthers were certainly angry and were not necessarily progressive in their thoughts and actions, but are an important part of black and poor rights history. I do not find them the most constructive group that ever came around, but I won't dismiss them as racists.

Please don't misunderstand me. I agree with everything you say here. I'm definitely NOT "dismissing them as racists", but I definitely AM INCLUDING them as racists. They're not JUST racists in any way, because they do a great deal of black community work that is very important. But to say that they are NOT racist (and violent at that) is simply...not looking at them with an eye for reality.

[Georgerx7di]

Ok, this thread keeps popping up, and I've read parts of it at different times, but haven't posted here yet. So here's what I have to say. If you are posting in this thread, you should decide why you are posting.

Are you posting because you want something to happen (rule change etc), if so, do you know the rules and what do you want changed.

Or are you posting to have a more philosophical discussion about what is and is not racist. E.g. the discussion on black panthers etc.

I think this distinction is important, because if your reasoning is the later, then you should not get angry and saying why isn't anything being done. Something can only be done if you state a specific problem. It wouldn't hurt to present a solution too.

So now that I got that out of the way, let me give my opinion on the former, (i.e. what is CC doing/should be doing).

It was posted several times that racist comments are against the rules. When violated the person is disciplined using the step ladder. In one of my teaching classes (I'm a teacher and we're required to take classes to teach us how to teach), I was told that discipline should be fair and progressive; along with a couple of other things that I cannot remember right now. Fair means the same for everyone. Progressive means that if you keep committing offenses, the punishment goes up. When we look at these two categories, then it makes sense that someone gets a warning for breaking the rules, that is CC's first step in terms of discipline. So if you make a racist remark, and have never broken any rules, then according to the policy, your punishment should be a warning.

Ok, having said all that, a new question arises. Are their rules that, if broken, your punishment for a first offense should be worse. So if racist comments fall under the category of flaming, then one may argue that the discipline steps should be the same. On the other hand, one might suggest that racist comments are worse than all of the other forms of flaming (which I believe all get grouped together and get the same punishment), therefore there should be different discipline steps following racist comments.

This I think is where this conversation should be going. Should racist comments receive the same punishments steps. First offense is a warning, second offense is..., or should they have a separate step ladder with more severe punishments for each offense, for racist comments.

Leading the discussion in this direction I believe will make it more productive, (and by productive I mean some change might come from it).


George

[squishyg]

Please don't misunderstand me. I agree with everything you say here. I'm definitely NOT "dismissing them as racists", but I definitely AM INCLUDING them as racists. They're not JUST racists in any way, because they do a great deal of black community work that is very important. But to say that they are NOT racist (and violent at that) is simply...not looking at them with an eye for reality.

I get what you're saying. I think you bring up interesting questions about the very nature of racism. Can the group being treated as "less than" the ruling class be racist? Does power over someone need to be present for racism to occur?

Ok, this thread keeps popping up, and I've read parts of it at different times, but haven't posted here yet. So here's what I have to say. If you are posting in this thread, you should decide why you are posting.

Are you posting because you want something to happen (rule change etc), if so, do you know the rules and what do you want changed.

Or are you posting to have a more philosophical discussion about what is and is not racist. E.g. the discussion on black panthers etc.

I think this distinction is important, because if your reasoning is the later, then you should not get angry and saying why isn't anything being done. Something can only be done if you state a specific problem. It wouldn't hurt to present a solution too.

So now that I got that out of the way, let me give my opinion on the former, (i.e. what is CC doing/should be doing).

It was posted several times that racist comments are against the rules. When violated the person is disciplined using the step ladder. In one of my teaching classes (I'm a teacher and we're required to take classes to teach us how to teach), I was told that discipline should be fair and progressive; along with a couple of other things that I cannot remember right now. Fair means the same for everyone. Progressive means that if you keep committing offenses, the punishment goes up. When we look at these two categories, then it makes sense that someone gets a warning for breaking the rules, that is CC's first step in terms of discipline. So if you make a racist remark, and have never broken any rules, then according to the policy, your punishment should be a warning.

Ok, having said all that, a new question arises. Are their rules that, if broken, your punishment for a first offense should be worse. So if racist comments fall under the category of flaming, then one may argue that the discipline steps should be the same. On the other hand, one might suggest that racist comments are worse than all of the other forms of flaming (which I believe all get grouped together and get the same punishment), therefore there should be different discipline steps following racist comments.

This I think is where this conversation should be going. Should racist comments receive the same punishments steps. First offense is a warning, second offense is..., or should they have a separate step ladder with more severe punishments for each offense, for racist comments.

Leading the discussion in this direction I believe will make it more productive, (and by productive I mean some change might come from it).


George

The original issue actually has been resolved and new rules are in place (Thanks Andy!), which is why some us may feel free to have more of an "off topic" conversation here. Were we still brainstorming how to update the rules, I agree this would be somewhat of a derailment. I find it helpful personally to hear from people who think very differently from me. I found it useful in contributing to the body of ideas.

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

Nah it's the perfect example.. just as antithesis to Al's point.

Black Power and White Power mean totally different things. White Power originated with Nazis and is associated with racism, anti-Semitism, and hate. Black Power is a political movement against white supremacy. While it did encourage separatism, it did not invoke violence or the extermination of entire cultures of people.[/quote]

Do some reading on The Black Panther organization.[/quote]

They are certainly a provocative and controversial group. I actually had the good fortune to study with one of their defense attorneys. The Panthers were certainly angry and were not necessarily progressive in their thoughts and actions, but are an important part of black and poor rights history. I do not find them the most constructive group that ever came around, but I won't dismiss them as racists.[/quote][/quote][/quote]






First of all the Black Panthers don't exist anymore. There may be a copy-cat or two of people calling themselves Black Panthers, but it ends there.

The Black Panthers started as a community improvement group to better their neighborhoods. They actually received funds to better their community and find jobs for the unemployed.

It eventually became a political group hounded by the Chicago Police and the F.B.I.
The Black Panthers became a criminal organization that sold drugs and strong-armed local businesses for "protection." It didn't take long though, for the Chicago police and F.B.I. to start throwing their leaders and cohorts in jail.

Racist's organization, not really. Criminal enterprise, yes.

[Woodruff]

Please don't misunderstand me. I agree with everything you say here. I'm definitely NOT "dismissing them as racists", but I definitely AM INCLUDING them as racists. They're not JUST racists in any way, because they do a great deal of black community work that is very important. But to say that they are NOT racist (and violent at that) is simply...not looking at them with an eye for reality.

I get what you're saying. I think you bring up interesting questions about the very nature of racism. Can the group being treated as "less than" the ruling class be racist? Does power over someone need to be present for racism to occur?

Define "power over someone"...I would say the power over life and death (the ability to kill someone) would fall under the umbrella of "power over someone". Which would essentially mean that pretty much anyone can be racist. I definitely don't believe that you have to be a member of the ruling class to be a racist.

[jiminski]

Please don't misunderstand me. I agree with everything you say here. I'm definitely NOT "dismissing them as racists", but I definitely AM INCLUDING them as racists. They're not JUST racists in any way, because they do a great deal of black community work that is very important. But to say that they are NOT racist (and violent at that) is simply...not looking at them with an eye for reality.

I get what you're saying. I think you bring up interesting questions about the very nature of racism. Can the group being treated as "less than" the ruling class be racist? Does power over someone need to be present for racism to occur?

Define "power over someone"...I would say the power over life and death (the ability to kill someone) would fall under the umbrella of "power over someone". Which would essentially mean that pretty much anyone can be racist. I definitely don't believe that you have to be a member of the ruling class to be a racist.

true enough but if a race is 'in charge', dominant, comparatively powerful over another race historically then it is much more difficult for the subjugated to demean the dominant on the basis of race.

Now think about that sentence above, it is interwoven with subjection and prescribed context but it is also proof in itself. The fact that i can use such clear and definite language in a contemporary setting, in which it is not absolute, reminds us that it was absolute at one time.
We know that race, has a very discernible and quantifiable impact upon our present due to the truth of its past.
Taking this to its blackest and whitest* example, it is obvious that whites enslaved blacks in the not too distant past, in the quest for 'national' and largely incidentally; racial dominance.
(Of course Black people in Africa enslaved other black people, from other nations/tribes but the very visible contrast between 'Black and White' focuses the issue. And because of the contrast it obscures entirely the black on black historical injustice.)

The fact is it is much more difficult for the historically enslaved to land a racial punch; it being the tool of oppression, the oppressed are in no position to pick up the tool.
It's a little like the defeated player in a Risk game wondering around using the defeat as the very tool to verbally attack the victor. One can attack the manner of the 'defeat' and the injustice of it, the immorality etc. but to attack by saying that you actually won the game would be a little quaint.

Naturally we are moving on, the immaturity and evils of Racial dominance are becoming (certainly not become) irrelevant due to many great nations being a grand cocktail of all races. (paradoxically, melting-pot nations often result from the indigenous races' attempts at racial dominance and conquest) But history is the acknowledgement of the past, imperfect though that acknowledgement usually is, and the past leaves its luggage in the present; it is memory in us all and demands space in emotional context.






*this does double-up as metaphor for the various shades of pinks and browns it seeks to describe.

[Woodruff]

I get what you're saying. I think you bring up interesting questions about the very nature of racism. Can the group being treated as "less than" the ruling class be racist? Does power over someone need to be present for racism to occur?

Define "power over someone"...I would say the power over life and death (the ability to kill someone) would fall under the umbrella of "power over someone". Which would essentially mean that pretty much anyone can be racist. I definitely don't believe that you have to be a member of the ruling class to be a racist.

true enough but if a race is 'in charge', dominant, comparatively powerful over another race historically then it is much more difficult for the subjugated to demean the dominant on the basis of race.
Now think about that sentence above, it is interwoven with subjection and prescribed context but it is also proof in itself. The fact that i can use such clear and definite language in a contemporary setting, in which it is not absolute, reminds us that it was absolute at one time.
We know that race, has a very discernible and quantifiable impact upon our present due to the truth of its past.
Taking this to its blackest and whitest* example, it is obvious that whites enslaved blacks in the not too distant past, in the quest for 'national' and largely incidentally; racial dominance.

Certainly it's true that if the racial dominance is strong enough, then the "subjugated" race cannot access the tools to subjugate themselves, and it's certainly true that was the case at one time in the United States. It is not any longer true, however...and hasn't been for a short while.

[jiminski]

I get what you're saying. I think you bring up interesting questions about the very nature of racism. Can the group being treated as "less than" the ruling class be racist? Does power over someone need to be present for racism to occur?

Define "power over someone"...I would say the power over life and death (the ability to kill someone) would fall under the umbrella of "power over someone". Which would essentially mean that pretty much anyone can be racist. I definitely don't believe that you have to be a member of the ruling class to be a racist.

true enough but if a race is 'in charge', dominant, comparatively powerful over another race historically then it is much more difficult for the subjugated to demean the dominant on the basis of race.
Now think about that sentence above, it is interwoven with subjection and prescribed context but it is also proof in itself. The fact that i can use such clear and definite language in a contemporary setting, in which it is not absolute, reminds us that it was absolute at one time.
We know that race, has a very discernible and quantifiable impact upon our present due to the truth of its past.
Taking this to its blackest and whitest* example, it is obvious that whites enslaved blacks in the not too distant past, in the quest for 'national' and largely incidentally; racial dominance.

Certainly it's true that if the racial dominance is strong enough, then the "subjugated" race cannot access the tools to subjugate themselves, and it's certainly true that was the case at one time in the United States. It is not any longer true, however...and hasn't been for a short while.

you will see that my post made that very point, however the resonance is what still imbues words with power and, at present, still makes the belief in equality a hopeful fantasy.

Ask yourself .. i assume you are a white chap (in appearance at least, as we all have a mix in us).. ask yourself what racist slant could possibly upset you.

I am white in appearance and there is no single ethnocentric phrase aimed at my heritage which would genuinely even touch the sides.
Well to be honest i am not even particularly familiar with any phrases in the UK. That tells a story! Within the context of recent history (empire, social integration in a dominant culture and so forth) its much like the poor uneducated kid trying to take the piss out of the star quarterback who has the nice 4 wheel-drive, is banging the prom-queen and has the scholarship to the ivy-league college of his choice.
The poor kid has to get pretty inventive and metaphysical to score a hit.

In America? An old one: Honky, I like it personally. Cracker: from what i can see derived from slavery and cracking the whip.. certainly that could fill one with shame but not insecurity and anger at the speaker. It is the perfect example of what i say above and the echo of the past in the present; the word rebuked the person holding the bloody whip! The person doing the oppressing.

Truly i am at a loss to think of any racial slur which could affect a white person with much more than light reflection or even mild mirth. (taking away the context of the situation, of course if someone is about to beat the crap out of me and calls me "An unpleasant gentleman of pale complexion" i will likely be a little perturbed and in little doubt as to his motivations.)

this is due to the history of the situation and also in no small part to the present iniquity within our societies (you saying USA has equality? really? Excellent you have a Blackish President but we had a Ladyish Prime Minister 30 years ago and women aint even close to equality in the work place). I am pretty sure that 'people of colour' do not share the same experience of racial security in the UK and though it is not easy for me to speak with authority upon the states, I imagine there are quite a few words which would upset Black Americans too.

[Woodruff]

,
Ask yourself .. i assume you are a white chap (in appearance at least, as we all have a mix in us)..

I am, yes.

ask yourself what racist slant could possibly upset you.

I personally am very difficult to "offend", so I'm probably not a good example. I don't think I'd get particularly wrapped up in the N-word if I were black (of course, not BEING black has admittedly affected how my "very difficult to offend" personality has grown, so I admit that's not necessarily hard evidence). I do speak up for what I see as offensive (which is different than my personally being offended).

That being said, I agree with you that there really isn't a term or phrase that bothers me in a racial sensitivity sense. However, I do find myself offended by SOME of the intentions of groups such as The Black Panthers. I don't find them PERSONALLY offensive, but I find them offensive to my desire for racial harmony.

[azezzo]

I've had enough, I'm mad as Hell and I'm not gonna take it any more, I'm not going to be oppressed any longer, and I'm tired of feeling like a lesser human being just because I'm Irish and have been cursed with a small penis. I wasnt blessed with being born african american and and having inherited the donkey schlong gene. From this day forward I will no longer tolerate small penis jokes at my expense, nor will I accept the defamation of my race as being drunkin' potato eaters. Enough is enough!

[jiminski]

I've had enough, I'm mad as Hell and I'm not gonna take it any more, I'm not going to be oppressed any longer, and I'm tired of feeling like a lesser human being just because I'm Irish and have been cursed with a small penis. I wasnt blessed with being born african american and and having inherited the donkey schlong gene. From this day forward I will no longer tolerate small penis jokes at my expense, nor will I accept the defamation of my race as being drunkin' potato eaters. Enough is enough!

yeah funny isn't, i've actually heard people say that saying black fellas have larger than average winky's is racist against black people.. Again a good example of positive as opposed to negative racial stereotyping i would imagine. I am sure that a good argument about 1 dimensional and demeaning categorisation etc could be made but probably by a Harvard educated African American with a bazooka in his slacks and a knowing smile.

[tyche73]

I've had enough, I'm mad as Hell and I'm not gonna take it any more, I'm not going to be oppressed any longer, and I'm tired of feeling like a lesser human being just because I'm Irish and have been cursed with a small penis. I wasnt blessed with being born african american and and having inherited the donkey schlong gene. From this day forward I will no longer tolerate small penis jokes at my expense, nor will I accept the defamation of my race as being drunkin' potato eaters. Enough is enough!

stoopid wanta be american throw that bigot in the paddy wagon and be done with him

[2dimes]

Pardon me, I thought it said Bigamy. I'll go now.