Racism, facists, and seperatist movements.

Not in your opinion, but in the dictionary.

Humanity as in the act of being human, not benevolent. As is, what being a human is open to debate. I tend to agree with to err is human.
 
mad pierrot said:
Humanity as in the act of being human, not benevolent. As is, what being a human is open to debate. I tend to agree with to err is human.

I was going to add that I thought you might be referring to "human nature," but wasn't sure if I needed to clarify. I was actually referring to a person's humanity, such as their heart, compassion, and ability to feel for their fellow human being. According to the dictionary, "humanity" is defined as: 1) the human race; 2) the condition or quality of being human or humane. The dictionary defines "humane" as: characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for human beings and animals. So that's what I was referring to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you were referring more to human nature--that it's human nature to err and make mistakes. Did that make sense? :?
 
Sadly...

Sadly I used to be racist from the time I was about 10 to the time I was 17 I didnt go out doing hate crimes or anything dont get me wrong I just strongly looked down on other races and the reason for this was my brother and his bestfriend were shot and killed on mothers day and I was young at the time and my anger clouded my judgement for 7 long years. Then I got into some trouble and had to be sent to a boys reform home where I would have no contact with my family and when I got there, there were only 5 white kids (including myself) the rest were black or hispanic well when I got there I wouldnt talk to anyone the first few days and I would only make sarcastic comments to people that others who were not on the recieving end found funny. Then one day when I was curled up in a chair in the corner and a group of black and hispanic kids walked up to me and asked "Do you want to play some ball?" and I was like "Who all is comming?" and they said "Just us" (I was kind of hoping there would have been some whit kids) I was bored anyway so I said ok so I went out and we balled and they gave me the nickname shaq and a few others after that and after awhile we started to become really good friends and then when my court date came and they told me I had to stay a little longer I was crushed but when I got back to the facility I was welcomed back by people that called me their friend. They would say stuff like "Tim is my boi!" or "Tim is my young bull" (I think that is how you pronounce it lol :D ) But then the day I left I everyone was really sad saying stuff like "Its going to be dull around her without you." and then hugs and handshakes were given (when I fist came in I never dreamed I would have huged a black or hispanic person) and to this day I think about my friends I met in that facility everyday thinking about how much I miss them and how I would have never known what true friendship was if I didnt go there. So I guess what I am trying to say is "People dont hate other people they might just turn out to be the best friends you could ever ask for." So anyway thanks for listening.
 
King of Tokyo said:
My mom is half caucasian and half african-american and my dad is caucasian, So I'm a quarter,

I feel sorry for you. You shouldn't say that your "quarter".
Just to correct you, you should say that your MIXED raced.
Mixed race people don't like to be called quarter or half caste cause it makes them feel half a person and its wrong in this day and age.

If you say that you "quarter" then it sounds like your a quarter of a person.
and this goes beyond race, if you think about it really deeply it will make much more sense.
(Do you or anyone else understand this?)

Mixed race is the right way.

And you might be asking yourself how would a white boy know this?
well to answer this. I have been raised in a "Mixed" family and i know the right terms to use and or terms which i hear alot of people use which i don't use cause their the wrong terms.

So King of Tokyo you should give yourself more respect.

And if you do not already know am not a racist and i don't like racist.
 
Well most considered mixed are half. And since I'm not fully half I was simply explaining that I am technically a quarter. But I do consider myself mixed, I just may use a different term in different situations. Even though this has nothing to do with the current topic being discussed between me and RockLee.. Heh.
 
TimF said:
Sadly I used to be racist from the time I was about 10 to the time I was 17 I didnt go out doing hate crimes or anything dont get me wrong I just strongly looked down on other races and the reason for this was my brother and his bestfriend were shot and killed on mothers day and I was young at the time and my anger clouded my judgement for 7 long years. Then I got into some trouble and had to be sent to a boys reform home where I would have no contact with my family and when I got there, there were only 5 white kids (including myself) the rest were black or hispanic well when I got there I wouldnt talk to anyone the first few days and I would only make sarcastic comments to people that others who were not on the recieving end found funny. Then one day when I was curled up in a chair in the corner and a group of black and hispanic kids walked up to me and asked "Do you want to play some ball?" and I was like "Who all is comming?" and they said "Just us" (I was kind of hoping there would have been some whit kids) I was bored anyway so I said ok so I went out and we balled and they gave me the nickname shaq and a few others after that and after awhile we started to become really good friends and then when my court date came and they told me I had to stay a little longer I was crushed but when I got back to the facility I was welcomed back by people that called me their friend. They would say stuff like "Tim is my boi!" or "Tim is my young bull" (I think that is how you pronounce it lol :D ) But then the day I left I everyone was really sad saying stuff like "Its going to be dull around her without you." and then hugs and handshakes were given (when I fist came in I never dreamed I would have huged a black or hispanic person) and to this day I think about my friends I met in that facility everyday thinking about how much I miss them and how I would have never known what true friendship was if I didnt go there. So I guess what I am trying to say is "People dont hate other people they might just turn out to be the best friends you could ever ask for." So anyway thanks for listening.

What a wonderful story! Thanks for sharing it with us!! I love stories like that. :)
 
King of Tokyo said:
And I hope this isn't locked as is every thread where I start to form a solid opinion and people deem it getting "out of control".

The opinion isn't the problem; it's the way in which you and, for some reason, everyone I've ever seen arguing with you go about it. There is no need for personal attacks. I don't mean this just against you, by the way. I think that both you and RockLee need to take a step back and try to be more respectful of each other and the other members of the forum. It seems as though you don't think that this is getting out of control. This makes me wonder what you think out of control is.

I don't want this thread to be locked; I do want people to comment on Winter's points about being close-minded. However, if people are going to continue to attack each other, then this thread will be locked.
 
Glenn said:
The opinion isn't the problem; it's the way in which you and, for some reason, everyone I've ever seen arguing with you go about it. There is no need for personal attacks. I don't mean this just against you, by the way. I think that both you and RockLee need to take a step back and try to be more respectful of each other and the other members of the forum. It seems as though you don't think that this is getting out of control. This makes me wonder what you think out of control is.

I don't want this thread to be locked; I do want people to comment on Winter's points about being close-minded. However, if people are going to continue to attack each other, then this thread will be locked.

Ok.. But I haven't made any personal attacks, maybe RockLee has, but I haven't. Plus he is so arrogant in thinking he is right, when clearly he is not, I can understand when someone says something and proves me wrong, but he is just responding for the sake of responding, it's not actually debunking anything I'm saying.. He sounds more racist-supporting with each post he makes.. Bit annoying. But I will keep this civil, as I don't believe I have turned this thread into personal attacks.

:)
 
Alright, back to the discussion. Are people who are intolerant of racists close-minded in the same way that racists are? I suppose that some could be. However, I think that being intolerant of some things is a good thing. For example, should we be tolerant of rapists? I doubt that anyone would think so.

So, why should we tolerate racists? I guess it depends on the racist. It seems that from what both Winter and MP have said, there are some people who just believe that the different races should live separately. I don't agree with that, and would argue with them on that, so perhaps that makes me intolerant of that viewpoint. Do I think that they shouldn't have it? Sure I do. There are just too many things that we can gain from working together as a species that I believe would be lost if we just split up. Also, it seems to me that this is logistically impossible. There are so many people of mixed race in today's world that it would be extremely difficult to split us up into the "big three." Does that make me a bigot? Perhaps tolerating a racist and agreeing with one are two different things.

Now, as for racism, I think that that should not be tolerated. Why? Because as far as I can see, it is ugly and causes nothing but hurt. To me, that means that it falls under the "should not be tolerated" category.
 
Glenn said:
Alright, back to the discussion. Are people who are intolerant of racists close-minded in the same way that racists are?

I can only speak for myself, but just because I recognize another's intolerance does not mean that I am intolerant myself. For instance, the KKK would be considered intolerant of blacks, gays, etc., but that does not mean that those of us who recognize their intolerance are necessarily intolerant of them and the views they hold. Those of us who believe in the First Amendment and free speech will still defend the views of those we disagree with, no matter how outrageous. That is why the ACLU has even defended the KKK on various occasions.

I'm all for keeping freedom of speech in this country the way it is under the First Amendment:

Freedom of speech means that we have a right to advocate ideas. This guarantee is not confined to an expression of ideas that are conventional or shared by the majority. Freedom of speech and of the press permit us to exchange ideas for bringing about political and social changes desired by the people and to keep the people fully informed about the acts or misconduct of public officials. All ideas must be protected, no matter how unpopular they may be. An unorthodox or controversial idea is entitled to as much protection as any other, unless it conflicts directly and immediately with vital national interests. All persons living under our legal system have the right to hold, express, teach or advocate any opinion, and to join with others to express it, although the opinion may be repugnant to the vast majority of the citizens.

However, this right is not an absolute right. The first amendment does not give anyone the right to speak or write in a way that injures another person or his property, that corrupts public morals, that incites criminal activity, or that advocates a specific action for overthrowing the government by force....
The Meaning of the Constitution, 2d Ed. (1987), p. 59


There are even exceptions to the free speech amendment. For instance, one is not allowed to incite immediate criminal activity:

Although a person may express any political theory he wishes, speech or writing that incites others to acts of violence is not protected by the Constitution if it is likely that violence will result. Speech of this type is known as "seditious speech." However, the advocated act must be specific and immediate in order to constitute sedition. In order for speech to be restricted in the national interest, there must be a "clear and present danger" to an interest the government must protect, such as defense of the country, and it must be shown that the speech would have incited direct and illegal action.

Examples: 1. Henry Hoe stands on the street corner and makes a speech objecting to our government's policy in Latin America. He says that the President is a nitwit. This is permissible, because freedom of speech is designed to protect anyone's right to criticize the actions of the government.

2. Joe also stands on the corner and also makes a speech protesting the government's activities in Latin America. He says that the way to end the problem is to shoot everyone who works for the National Security Council. This speech is also not seditious because Joe has not advocated any immediate and specific act of violence.

3. In the example above, Joe continues by saying that he has guns and ammunition at his house on the corner and that his listeners must come with him, get the guns, and be off on his bus to Washington. He says that they will be on their way in half an hour to kill everyone who works for the National Security Council. Joe may be arrested for sedition.
The Meaning of the Constitution, 2d Ed. (1987), pp. 59-60


So while I may find another person's opinions repugnant, I will absolutely protect their right to express those opinions. In my opinion, when we start restricting free speech, we embark upon a very slippery slope.

I'm with the ACLU -- speech, unless specifically and reasonably related to the incitement of a specific unlawful act must be protected from any and all government prohibitions.

The classic ACLU case was its support of the Neo-Nazi parade through Skokie, Illinois -- the home of many survivors of the Holocaust. And yes, as vile, hateful and spiteful as the parade was, the ACLU was right in supporting their right to assemble, speak and "petition their government" even though it hurt the residents of Skokie.

Here's a link to an article on the ACLU's representation of the KKK in another case:

http://archive.aclu.org/news/w032197a.html

And here is what the ACLU had to say on the matter:

"What people need to understand," said Witold Walczak, Executive Director of the Pittsburgh ACLU chapter, "is that a few hateful, reprehensible, offensive comments are a small price to pay for First Amendment freedoms.

"The answer for hateful speech is more speech," Walczak told the Post-Gazette. "And that's exactly what the good citizens of Pittsburgh are doing. They're organizing these wonderful rallies.

"That's the beauty of this country," he added. "If you don't like what somebody else is saying, raise your own voice in opposition."


I remembered this case because I was so shocked that the ACLU would have represented a group like the KKK, but as you can see from the article, it was to protect our freedoms.

So to say that those of us who recognize the intolerance of racists and fascists are intolerant ourselves is simply not true. Sure, there may be a few exceptions, but to make a blanket statement like that is not a fair assessment, IMO.
 
I'm about as leftist, liberal, hippy etc as they come.


I'm DEFINATELY not a fan of racism. No way. Especially institutionalised racism.
But I have a few questions for those who detest racists:

1) What are your views on religion. Especially Islam or Christianity. I've met a few people who are very anti-racism but say some of the most horrifying things about muslims or christians. Is this intolerance of organised religion any different to intolerance based on race?

2) What about reverse racism? Is it right that the majority should be treated unfairly to ultimately make things easier for a minority?

3) Extending on Rocklee's post. Is racism ever justified? Now I believe RockLees example isn't justified. But I will give you an example.
The Sydney gang rapes in Australia.
A few girls in their teens (13-18) were abducted by lebonese/turkish gangs in the sydeny area and taken to multiple locations were they were repeatedly raped by many men.
One girl, 14, was taken to 4 or so locations in one day. Each location had at least 3 guys waiting for her.
The accused admitted the girls were selected because they were blonde caucasians and some of the girls testified that they were only getting raped because they were white girls and this was some odd form of 'revenge'.
When arrested the lebonese community around Sydney flocked to the boys defence desptie overwhelming evidence of guilt, stating that the arrests were just racist police picking on Muslims. When most of the guys were convicted there was near riots on the streets.
Now does this justify ME hating Lebonese? Hell no.
But the does justify the victims hating and mistrusting Lebonese/turkish? Huge life altering and severly traumatic events were inflicted on the girls by members of one community (racial community in this instance) and the girls were told it was happening because of race. Then these girls were called sluts and whores by a community that tried to free the rapists.
Can anyone then fault these girls if their perceptions towards lebonese are far less than positive?
Is racist thought in this case justified much the same way as people justify a persons fear and mistrust of the church if they were abused by a priest when younger.

4) Is saying you don't members of the opposite sex of certain ethnic/racial persuassions racsim or personal choice?

5) Japan. Its been established that there is DEFINATELY racism in effect in Japan. Banning gaijins from establishments, difficulties gaijin have getting accomodation, percieving Gaijin (especially Chinese and Koreans) as criminals or people worthy of mistrust. Even minor things like assuming I can't use chopsticks because I'm not Japanese.
For those that severly dislike racism and racists how do you reconcile this with your interest in Japan? Do you defended Japanese racism as a 'cultural' thing? Is it wrong to decry Japanese racists and racism?
Or is a Japanese racist jsut as bad as an American racist, an Aussie racist or a British racist?
 
King of Tokyo said:
Sorry, If someone is going to believe they have a superior race or make broad generalizations about races then I simply cannot agree with them.

Do you agree that some people are superior to others (within any ethnic group) ?

If races were kept separate, then I doubt anyone of the forum would be alive, no one is 'pure' one race.

Very well said. Everyone is unique genetically. There are genetical differences between all humans, although some are closer together (inside the same family, or distant relatives). What is certain is that major differences exist within the main "races" (Caucasian, African, etc.) to say that "white" or "black" people are 2 races. They may each be hundreds, or thousands, or millions or races, especially if we include "mixed blood" people.

As genetical science progresses and people are slowly become more educated and better aware of those genetical differences, could it be that a new form of racism develops, based on the individual's genes - a racism that could exist even within the same family ? Do you believe in what Nietsche call "uebermenschen" ("superhumans") ? This would be "scientifically approved" racism, and could lead to eugenism. But which form of racism (primitive or scientific) do you think is "better" ? (just to see your reasoning)

FirstHousePooka said:
1) What are your views on religion. Especially Islam or Christianity. I've met a few people who are very anti-racism but say some of the most horrifying things about muslims or christians. Is this intolerance of organised religion any different to intolerance based on race?

Racism is based on "race" or "genes", not religion, culture or ideas (as these can change and be adapted). What you describe is just called intolerance (a word which has a wide meaning and also includes racism, but I don't think we have any single word to describe "religious intolerance" or "cultural intolerance").

2) What about reverse racism? Is it right that the majority should be treated unfairly to ultimately make things easier for a minority?

Why should racism always be the majority oppressing the minority ? History has many cases of minorities (at the government or upper-classes of a society) oppressing the majority. Look at colonialism, look at the Aryans in India who create the caste system to stay at the top of society, while the dark-skinned Dravidian majority stayed at the bottom.

3) Extending on Rocklee's post. Is racism ever justified? Now I believe RockLees example isn't justified. But I will give you an example.
The Sydney gang rapes in Australia.
...
When arrested the lebonese community around Sydney flocked to the boys defence desptie overwhelming evidence of guilt, stating that the arrests were just racist police picking on Muslims.

Racism cannot be based on religion or nationality, as each religious or national group can be mixed ethnically (and Turkish people certainly are very mixed). Maybe we should invent new words for "hate toward a national or religious group" (not just intolerance, in this case).

5) Japan. Its been established that there is DEFINATELY racism in effect in Japan. Banning gaijins from establishments, difficulties gaijin have getting accomodation, percieving Gaijin (especially Chinese and Koreans) as criminals or people worthy of mistrust. Even minor things like assuming I can't use chopsticks because I'm not Japanese.

Japan is an interesting case because most of the racism is tacit and non violent. We could call it "discrimination toward foreigners". It it not only based on race (as Japanese can't even tell a Korean or Chinese from a Japanese if they have Japanese names and speak Japanese without accent), but on prejudice toward national groups. More interestingly, Japanese also discriminate among themselves with the Burakumin, and have done it for centuries (they were formerly known as "Eta"). So you can't call that racism, but "intolerance and discrimination toward people who are different or outside the approved group." There should also be a name for that ("outsider discrimination" ?).

Glenn said:
Are people who are intolerant of racists close-minded in the same way that racists are? I suppose that some could be. However, I think that being intolerant of some things is a good thing. For example, should we be tolerant of rapists? I doubt that anyone would think so.
So, why should we tolerate racists?

"Intolerance" is not a bad thing in itself. It is actually a good thing to be intolerant of certain matters. Being intolerant of errors we commit ourselves (so as to try not to make any), being intolerant of cruelty, unfairness, corruption, bad governments or discrimination are all praiseworthy attitudes. Being tolerant of such things as a bad government or corruption could only make the problem persist, instead of inciting change. Taken to the extreme of tolerance, we could even say that a girl who hates her rapist is not being tolerant of his need to satisfy his hormonal impulses and instincts, which is part of his nature. There are always ways of justifying deeds. That is why it is dangerous to think that tolerance is always good, and intolerance necessarily bad, when very often it is the opposite.
 
Racism, besides being wrong etc etc, is of course negative because it causes useless conflicts and disagreements between people. People that otherwise would get along perfectly together or could be very productive if they worked by joining forces, would uselessly be hating and despizing each other. All the negative energy that racism causes is futile, it doesn't serve any purpose, and could be instead used to achieve something productive instead of being wasted like that. Also generalizing some attributes to a certain group of people is also very negative, be these an ethnicity or a religious group.
 
Extending on Rocklee's post. Is racism ever justified? Now I believe RockLees example isn't justified.
Look, I'd appreciate it if you read what I write WITH BOTH EYES; I posted several times that RASCISM isn't only hating the whole group!!!Hating an individual of that ethnic group is enough to call rascism.You can hate people of a certain nationality, even a group....but it doesn't automatically means you hate EVERYONE OF THEM !!...you see my point??I never said anything in the sort of rascism is justified, but you could end up hating a other nationality's person, without hating all of them...you people jump to conclusions too fast. :eek:kashii: (ps. there ain't much left of my posts, but in NONE of them I stated Rascism was good,nor I'm in favor of it.I don't like it myself, just was giving examples.so I'd appreciate it if you would read what I write, and in doubt ask what I mean with it, not just attack me w/o a reason(like some persons did)).
 
Duo said:
Racism, besides being wrong etc etc, is of course negative because it causes useless conflicts and disagreements between people. People that otherwise would get along perfectly together or could be very productive if they worked by joining forces, would uselessly be hating and despizing each other.

I think one of the main causes of racism is justly the differences of productivity and way people think and work or behave. Sometimes people with the purest ideals about human equality have to admit they were wrong once they start interacting (eg. in business situations) with people that are really different.


All the negative energy that racism causes is futile, it doesn't serve any purpose, and could be instead used to achieve something productive instead of being wasted like that.

Very often, racism is an emotional reaction to a frustration, fear or hate caused by some personal events. If it isn't, it may be due to indoctrination by the environment (family, school, local folks...). It is usually easier to change the latter by having people to travel or interact with people from other "races" in a positive context (if it is negative, however, that will only confirm the racist's expectations).
 
Maciamo said:
I think one of the main causes of racism is justly the differences of productivity and way people think and work or behave. Sometimes people with the purest ideals about human equality have to admit they were wrong once they start interacting (eg. in business situations) with people that are really different.

Very true, I have seen that happen personally. Still, you shouldn't be prejudiced about let's say a new collegaue that will come in the work place because he is like this or he is from there. Even if you have witnessed that people "like him" aren't very good at the work in your field, you should first see how your new co-worker will perform, then make your judgments.


Maciamo said:
Very often, racism is an emotional reaction to a frustration, fear or hate caused by some personal events. If it isn't, it may be due to indoctrination by the environment (family, school, local folks...). It is usually easier to change the latter by having people to travel or interact with people from other "races" in a positive context (if it is negative, however, that will only confirm the racist's expectations).

Well sometimes some people are so indoctrinated by their beleifs, that they will fail to notice the postive aspect of other cultures, and will right down deny them and only complain about their negative aspects. However, I agree, seeing the world, is the best way to open minded.
 
RockLee said:
Look, I'd appreciate it if you read what I write WITH BOTH EYES; I posted several times that RASCISM isn't only hating the whole group!!!Hating an individual of that ethnic group is enough to call rascism.You can hate people of a certain nationality, even a group....but it doesn't automatically means you hate EVERYONE OF THEM !!...you see my point??I never said anything in the sort of rascism is justified, but you could end up hating a other nationality's person, without hating all of them...you people jump to conclusions too fast. :eek:kashii: (ps. there ain't much left of my posts, but in NONE of them I stated Rascism was good,nor I'm in favor of it.I don't like it myself, just was giving examples.so I'd appreciate it if you would read what I write, and in doubt ask what I mean with it, not just attack me w/o a reason(like some persons did)).

It appears as though there is a misunderstanding of what racism is. Here is the definition given by Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: rac?ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Here is the definition of racial:
Main Entry: ra?cial
Pronunciation: 'rA-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or based on a race
2 : existing or occurring between races

This means that to be racist is to discriminate against an entire population solely due to their race. So just being discriminatory towards one or two people of a particular race is not racism. For example, I don't like some white people. That doesn't make me racist against whites. It just means that there are some white people whom I dislike. According to the definitions of the word "racism," it is impossible to be racist against a select few of a certain racial group.
 
well it still is used in court as arguements, and every day you see ppl getting called a racist because they dislike a few ppl who are from a different nationality....so what could you name it then ? :?
 
RockLee said:
well it still is used in court as arguements, and every day you see ppl getting called a racist because they dislike a few ppl who are from a different nationality....so what could you name it then ? :?
Hatred of another person.


Heh it cracks me up when people call me racist because I hate Jennifer Lopez or Cathry Freeman. My reasons for hating them have nothing to do with their race, but thats the label I'm given if I say 'I hate that Jennifer Lopez'.
 
RockLee said:
well it still is used in court as arguements, and every day you see ppl getting called a racist because they dislike a few ppl who are from a different nationality....so what could you name it then ? :?

I remember as a kid, we called those people 'jerks'.

Meh...
 

This thread has been viewed 111606 times.

Back
Top