# Is this bloke a bigot?



## .   1

Hello forum
Another thread has raised a difficult question for me and I seek clarification.
 
Dreadful allegations of bigotry have been made against a news commentator and a link posted to the offending video.
The supposedly offensive words were quoted and the commentator was not only accused of being a racist but a fucking racist.  So there is no doubt as to the opinion of the poster with regards to the intentions of the commentator.
 
I slipped over to the link and found that the quotes had been truncated but the last remark which was quoted was highly prescient - "and this is going to raise lots of questions for people who are watching this story unfold". That is not the comment of a racist - overt or subconscious!
 
http://www.theplacewithnoname.com/blogs/k/p/051013.htm
 
I this bloke a bigot or a human?
 
.,,


----------



## maxiogee

.,,
Should I sue for plagiarism?


----------



## ireney

hmmmm found and saw the video. I think this man goes beyond a talking head. He doesn't even know what he's saying. Most news "reporters" in TV are like this I'm afraid. They talk just to talk and they talk idiotic rubbish anyway (of the "The building you see on the back is the building in which the heads of the states are who are currently in the building you see on the back" kind).

I am currently not sure. There's always the chance that this was a slip of the tongue revealing his true thoughts (in another words his bigotry).
However, I think it's more probable that he was in the "they are so" mode, couldn't find anything else than "so poor" to say so he used the "so black" comment. I mean it doesn't make any sense does it?  What is the meaning of "so black"? If he had said "and they are black" that would have been a racist remark without a doubt. This one is, for me, a case of complete and utter idiocy


----------



## GenJen54

Ireney said:
			
		

> However, I think it's more probable that he was in the "they are so" mode, couldn't find anything else than "so poor" to say so he used the "so black" comment. I mean it doesn't make any sense does it? What is the meaning of "so black"? If he had said "and they are black" that would have been a racist remark without a doubt. This one is, for me, a case of complete and utter idiocy


I agree with this totally.  To me, he was trying to make some type of illiteration, or repeated thought, in order to make his reporting sound more profound.  To "sell the story" as it were.  I doubt very highly he is a racist.  I certainly doubt he is a f*cking racist. 

The reporters who were racist seemed to me to be the ones who were showing pictures of white people taking what they needed "to survive," then reporting on black people doing the same thing, and calling it "looting."


----------



## timpeac

GenJen54 said:


> The reporters who were racist seemed to me to be the ones who were showing pictures of white people taking what they needed "to survive," then reporting on black people doing the same thing, and calling it "looting."


Brilliant distinction!!


----------



## Everness

Let's set the record straight. I didn't pass judgment on Wolfy. I simply asked a question and asked for people's opinions.



Everness said:


> I have some problems classifiying this one. Did Wolf Blitzer from CNN make a slip or is he a f*cking racist? As always, I'd appreciate any help solving this one.
> 
> http://www.devilducky.com/media/38857/



Second, I thought that a Katrina evacuee had more authority to pass judgment on Wolfy than most of us so I simply quoted him. It was Shane who called Wolfy a *damned racist.* If I have to choose between the opinion of a couple of white guys who live in other countries and the opinion of a Katrina refugee who happens to be black and who finds Wolfy's comment offensive well... it's a no brainer...  



Everness said:


> How did a Katrina refugee react to Wolf's remarks?
> 
> _I must have missed this one.  I know the screen capture is hard to see, but scenes are being played.  On the left, a body is being recovered.  On the right, a man is walking through flood waters.  As you can read on the closed captioning, Wolf is saying, "All of them that we se, are soo poor, and they are so black, and..."  I know what 'so poor' means.  What the hell does, 'so black' mean?  Damned racist, that what I think.  _
> 
> http://www.theplacewithnoname.com/blogs/k/p/051013.htm
> 
> I'm with you brother...



I just hope that Wolfy learned his lesson. As I stated in another thread, we are all racists. The only difference is that some of us are in denial and some of us are in recovery.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Let's set the record straight. I didn't pass judgment on Wolfy. I simply asked a question and asked for people's opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> Second, I thought that a Katrina evacuee had more authority to pass judgment on Wolfy than most of us so I simply quoted him. It was Shane who called Wolfy a *damned racist.* If I have to choose between the opinion of a couple of white guys who live in other countries and the opinion of a Katrina refugee who happens to be black and who finds Wolfy's comment offensive well... it's a no brainer...
> 
> 
> 
> I just hope that Wolfy learned his lesson. As I stated in another thread, we are all racists. The only difference is that some of us are in denial and some of us are in recovery.


You posted a provocative thread with a truncated quote asking an ugly question in which you swore making an allegation of the most base vile human trait. I am not sure that I have ever read a more biased question and now my opinions are to be dismissed and the emotional response of some poor bugger with a microphone stuck up his nose within minutes of calamity are to be preferred.
I did not refer to you in this thread and said not one thing about you in this thread yet you feel the need to use my thread to bolster your position on a different thread with equivocation and self misquoting. I prefer the opinion of a pet rock to the opinions of a person with such a basis.

Everness.
Did you just call me a racist?
I wish a clear and unadulterated response?
Did you call me a racist?

.,,


----------



## papillon

ireney said:


> What is the meaning of "so black"? If he had said "and they are black" that would have been a racist remark without a doubt. This one is, for me, a case of complete and utter idiocy



I think "so black" was a bad choice of words but I don't understand how this is racist! The whole point is that the federal government did NOTHING in the first week to help people in NO exactly because they are poor and exactly because they are black. He just said it "like it is". Had they been white and well-off, they probably wouldn't be in this mess.


----------



## Everness

. said:


> Everness.
> Did you just call me a racist?
> I wish a clear and unadulterated response?
> Did you call me a racist?
> .,,



No. Clear and unadultrated enough?


----------



## ireney

Everness said:


> As I stated in another thread, we are all racists. The only difference is that some of us are in denial and some of us are in recovery.


----------



## Everness

papillon said:


> I think "so black" was a bad choice of words but I don't understand how this is racist! The whole point is that the federal government did NOTHING in the first week to help people in NO exactly because they are poor and exactly because they are black. He just said it "like it is". Had they been white and well-off, they probably wouldn't be in this mess.



What is it of the "so black" that you don't see as racist? If he wanted to say that the poorest and blackest you are in America, the more f*cked up you are, he should have worked a bit more on the wording of his ideas. By the way, other people have used the words poor and black as synonyms. 

_We done solved that poverty problem! With most of the poorest (read: blackest) citizens forced to seek shelter elsewhere, New Orleans is now far more affluent and far whiter than it has been in almost 200 years. _http://politrants.blogspot.com/2006/07/those-people-dont-count.html

Not being a racist isn't enough; you shouldn't appear to be one either, especially if you're a journalist. It's interesting that no one ever asked Wolfy if he regreted what he said or, most importantly, what the hell was he trying to say. Again, as a recovering racist myself, I'm not into passing judgment on fellow racists in denial or in recovery. 

I hope that at least you agree that it was a stupid thing to say. Actually, his remark made the list of *25 Mind-Numbingly Stupid Quotes About Hurricane Katrina And Its Aftermath
*http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/currentevents/a/katrinaquotes.htm

Let's go back to the topic of this thread.


----------



## Everness

Ok, ireney, I see were he's coming from. Thank you. The only thing I can say is that people shouldn't take my classification of human beings too personally. After all, nothing is more than 80% true! I'm not trying to label anyone racist. I'm just trying to help us understand that there's a racist gnome within all of us that we need to monitor and keep under control. There's a parallel between alcoholism and racism. First, both are diseases. Racism is a disease of the soul. Second, racism, like alcoholism, is treatable and controllable, but not curable.


----------



## danielfranco

I think he's a bigot, in some way, somehow, evidently or privately, sometimes...
Was his comment unfortunate? Sure, it was even offensive, if you wish to be offended.
But is he a "racialistic" and "prejudicial" bigot? That, I don't think can be said for certain with a single quote without context.
Now, I haven't taken the time to review the *whole* transcript of the whole segment in which he was commenting, so I don't know if the rest of his comments were equally colored... Erm... Strike that... were equally improperly articulated.
Maybe, he should have not made a comment as to what ethnic background were all those victims at all. It was there for all of us to see...


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> No. Clear and unadultrated enough?


Thank you.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> we are all racists.


I would ask you for some proof that I fall into your all embracing classification there please, or a retraction.

and as for this comment…
[quote[The only difference is that some of us are in denial and some of us are in recovery.[/quote]
There is no way to deny that statement without 'proving' that one is in denial. It is a tactic which can be used in any pathetic argument alleging something nasty about other people.

But, I would be interested in seeing how you back it up — please provide me with a rough guide to how one makes such a judgement about people you have never met.


----------



## Sallyb36

I agree Maxiogee, my instinct when I read Everness' post about us all being racist was what a load of codswallop!  I for one am not.


----------



## danielfranco

Everness might be on to something... 
I have decided that I am a racist:
I can't stand chihuahua dogs, and the little beta fish make me positively nauseous.
On the other hand, I was spared the ignominy of descending into the absurdity of human racism, because there's only one human race! So I can't be intolerant of people based on race, unless I am *doubly* stupid.

But as Mr. Long-shorts-squared wrote very precisely, it's a question of bigotry. Is that bloke a bigot?


----------



## .   1

danielfranco said:


> Everness might be on to something...
> I have decided that I am a racist:
> I can't stand chihuahua dogs, and the little beta fish make me positively nauseous.
> On the other hand, I was spared the ignominy of descending into the absurdity of human racism, because there's only one human race! So I can't be intolerant of people based on race, unless I am *doubly* stupid.
> 
> But as Mr. Long-shorts-squared wrote very precisely, it's a question of bigotry. Is that bloke a bigot?


Thanks mate.  It's a pleasure to meet a like mind and I must agree on those little mutts with the pop eyes.  They look like thay want to steal my wallet.

.,,


----------



## bernik

papillon said:


> The whole point is that the federal government did NOTHING in the first week to help people in NO exactly because they are poor and exactly because they are black.



I agree that the federal government was not up to the task, but local government was even worse. And in a democracy, I think you should rely mostly on local government. Centralization, as you have in France and England, is undemocratic.

George Bush is a supporter of massive immigration. It is clear that he does not want the US to remain a European country. The same is true of the "news" media. So I think it makes no sense to say the US government has some kind of secret agenda against black people. In the United States (and Western Europe) the fact is that racial discrimination by the administration always favors non-Europeans. At the same time, false accusations are systematically made against the Europeans. I think it isn't right.



danielfranco said:


> Maybe, he should have not made a comment as to what ethnic background were all those victims at all. It was there for all of us to see...



I don't know who made a comment. I haven't read everything in this thread. But about Katrina's victims, here is an article I read 6 months ago :

Most media got Katrina wrong
By John Leo
Monday, January 9, 2006

Did New Orleans blacks die at a higher rate than whites in the wake of Hurricane Katrina? On the evidence so far, the answer is no. Of the 1,100 bodies recovered in Louisiana after Katrina, 836 were found in New Orleans, and the state has released data on 568 of those that were judged to be storm-related. As of last week, blacks, which were 67.2 percent of the pre-storm population of New Orleans, account for 50.9 percent of the city victims so far identified by race. It was New Orleans Caucasians who died way out of proportion to their numbers-28 percent of the population, 45.6 percent of the city’s known Katrina deaths by race.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnLeo/2006/01/09/most_media_got_katrina_wrong


----------



## cuchuflete

bernik said:


> Did New Orleans blacks die at a higher rate than whites in the wake of Hurricane Katrina? On the evidence so far, the answer is no. Of the 1,100 bodies recovered in Louisiana after Katrina, 836 were found in New Orleans, and the state has released data on 568 of those that were judged to be storm-related. As of last week, blacks, which were 67.2 percent of the pre-storm population of New Orleans, account for 50.9 percent of the city victims so far identified by race. It was New Orleans Caucasians who died way out of proportion to their numbers-28 percent of the population, 45.6 percent of the city’s known Katrina deaths by race.
> 
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnLeo/2006/01/09/most_media_got_katrina_wrong





Unless we have some way to determine if the 568 are a statistically representative sample of either the 836 or of the 1100--the wording is ambiguous on that point--these numbers may suggest what the author inferred.  They may also suggest that bodies of Black people were more decomposed, and not identifiable by race.   It's speculative.


----------



## LV4-26

Not everybody seems to agree on the blame that's to be put on the journalist.
The comment underneath the video says :


> During a CNN broadcast about hurricane Katrina, with a slip of the tongue, Wolf Blitzer juxtaposes being black with being poor.


So what? I don't see what's racist there. Unless ones considers that being poor is a flaw. 

On the other hand, on the blog, you can read


> I know     what 'so poor' means.  What the hell does, 'so black' mean?


That's something different.

I agree with GenJen that he sort of got lost in his own sentence.
I also agree with .,,


> "and this is going to raise lots of questions for people who are watching this story unfold". That is not the comment of a racist - overt or subconscious!



Well maybe, as an outside chance, the fact of saying "sooo black" could be a Freudian slip that would reveal some sort of subconscious concealed racism. But I think it's far more important to deal with overt racism and leave the others the benefit of doubt. This kind of political correctness, obsessively trying to smoke out racism everywhere, might very well have an opposite effect and actually breed racism in the end.

Lastly, I agree with Everness that, as humans, we have a "natural" tendency to distrust all that is different, all that doesn't belong to our own group. But, also as humans, we have the power to fight that tendency. Who knows? I might have become a racist myself, had I not been educated otherwise, had I not met the right people at the right moment.


----------



## natasha2000

LV4-26 said:


> Lastly, I agree with Everness that, as humans, we have a "natural" tendency to distrust all that is different, all that doesn't belong to our own group. But, also as humans, we have the power to fight that tendency. Who knows? I might have become a racist myself, had I not been educated otherwise, had I not met the right people at the right moment.


 I would agree with this, generally speaking, but I still cannot opine about that Mr. Wolf yet. I simply cannot find this video!  WHERE IS IT? 

I opened all links you put here, but no video I found, whatsoever. 
It also seems to me as if this subject was already discussed in some other thread, and that you all have already participated in it, so you know what is it about, but I don't, since I came too late to the party.


----------



## ireney

this
is one of the links that surely works


----------



## natasha2000

Thanks Ireney...

Well... What I see from this video, is what Ireney said:


> They talk just to talk and they talk idiotic rubbish anyway (of the "The building you see on the back is the building in which the heads of the states are who are currently in the building you see on the back" kind).


I think that he really did not know exactly what to say, and maybe he wanted to say they are all black and they are so poor... Instead, from his mouth came out the "so poor and so black" - lapsus lingue. I really do not see any racism in those words, since this would be very close to the truth. Maybe the "political kerrektness" (I adore this Cuchu's expression, jeej) in EEUU is making people to see the racism where there is none of it. Judging by this video, I would say he could have prepared better, could have behaved more professionally, but that he is a racist, of course not. I wouldn't dare to claim this in general for Mr. Wolf, since I do not know anything about his work, but in this perticular video, I do not see him as a racist.

On the other hand, I did notice this what Jen Gen says: 



> ..... the ones who were showing pictures of white people taking what they needed "to survive," then reporting on black people doing the same thing, and calling it "looting."


 
I was really annoyed by this, couldn't stand it, really. It seemed to me so unblieveble what was going on in New Orleans, and that actually it was happening in one POWERFUL and RICH country, and not in a third-world country. And thinking that only with one-days military  budget in Iraq, this desaster in New Orleans could have been avoided....


----------



## Tsoman

How do you avoid a hurricane??


----------



## natasha2000

Tsoman said:


> How do you avoid a hurricane??


 
Yo do not avoid hurricane, but it could have been avoided a complete innundation that New Orleans suffered, because of the dikes that protect the city broke. There wouldn't have been so many people left without anything.


----------



## Tsoman

natasha2000 said:


> Yo do not avoid hurricane, but it could have been avoided a complete innundation that New Orleans suffered, because of the dikes that protect the city broke. There wouldn't have been so many people left without anything.



...which is the responsibility of the state and local governments. Evacuation plans (especially with a city that is so vulnerable to flooding) are also the responsibility of the local governments.


----------



## natasha2000

Tsoman said:


> ...which is the responsibility of the state and local governments. Evacuation plans (especially with a city that is so vulnerable to flooding) are also the responsibility of the local governments.


 
I wouldn't know about the distribution of the money and budgeting in the USA, and I assume that it is a more complicated problem to resolve than it appears at the first sight. But New Orleans IS the part of The USA, isn't it? So I find horrible the fact that the desaster could have been avoided with the money that the US spends for only one day of troops maintenance in Iraq. I would not like to enter into domestic affairs of the USA, which BTW is not the topic of this thread.


----------



## Brioche

Of course he's a racist and a bigot!

He's *white *and *male*, and in the USA. 
QED

Almost certainly a sexist, too.


----------



## Everness

> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would ask you for some proof that I fall into your all embracing classification there please, or a retraction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tony, if natural born non-racist individuals existed, you'd be one. And I'm not kidding. Happy? I'd also be happy to share my theory on why I consider that all human beings are racists. Some choose to remain racists throughout their lives (consciously or unconsciously) and others choose to move away from racism and adopt a non-racist attitude. Can I make this type of statements about people I haven't met? If you allow me to extrapolate this discussion to another topic, I would argue that I don't need to meet anyone personally to state that he/she is somewhat *neurotic *(the old classification that DSM-IV unfortunately took away) or comes from or is currently living in a somewhat *dysfunctional *family. I yet have to meet an individual or a family that isn't somewhat neurotic or dysfunctional respectively. Ah, and if we look at human beings from a theological perspective, I would also argue that I don't need to meet anyone to state that he/she is a *sinner*. In Paul's words, "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" Romans 6.24. Did I tell you that Calvin has made an impression on me?
Click to expand...


----------



## Tsoman

natasha2000 said:


> I wouldn't know about the distribution of the money and budgeting in the USA, and I assume that it is a more complicated problem to resolve than it appears at the first sight. But New Orleans IS the part of The USA, isn't it? So I find horrible the fact that the desaster could have been avoided with the money that the US spends for only one day of troops maintenance in Iraq. I would not like to enter into domestic affairs of the USA, which BTW is not the topic of this thread.


 
yes, but money isn't the issue -- planning is. And that is a louisianna and New orleans affair.


----------



## Everness

Brioche said:


> Of course he's a racist and a bigot!
> 
> He's *white *and *male*, and in the USA.
> QED
> 
> Almost certainly a sexist, too.



Oh, all this time I was under the wrong impression that they were confined to Australia. Thank you for the info!


----------



## natasha2000

Tsoman said:


> yes, but money isn't the issue -- planning is. And that is a louisianna and New orleans affair.


 
Exactly my point. I am sure that the USA does not lack of money. I would say it lacks of planning and correct determination of priorities.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> Tony, if natural born non-racist individuals existed,



Whoa there. What do you mean by "if". You are making an unfounded supposition to prove your point.
I see children of many races playing together without concern. Racism is not "natural born" — it is learnt.

I will ask again for "proof" - you gave me personal bias. Which is strongly backed by your introduction of the word "sinner".


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:


> I see children of many races playing together without concern. Racism is not "natural born" — it is learnt.


 
This is so true. Children born like tabula rasa as far as moral is concerned. We, adults have the whole resposibility for what will be written in that board during the life of a new-born. We, adults, put in chldren our own racist or filantropic ideas, and they soak them as sponges, since we are adults, we know the best... Maybe we should look better into their unstained souls and try to learn something from them...


----------



## french4beth

I'm hoping that the speaker meant the following definition of _black_:
From thefreedictionary.com:


> Cheerless and depressing; gloomy: _black thoughts._


 
There are many people that feel that the poor black people living in New Orleans had been abandoned by local, state, and federal governments a long time ago... 

I have much more of a problem with Barbara Bush, who made some bizarre comment about people that had been evacuated to the stadiums to the effect of (found here):

<B>





> *Barbara Bush on Hurricane Katrina Refugees*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is, without doubt, the quote of the hour — a remark attributed to ex-first lady and mother-of-the-president Barbara Bush during a visit to the Hurricane Katrina refugee shelter in the Houston Astrodome:_What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them.  _​


That is a _f*cking racist_ comment if ever I heard one...


----------



## natasha2000

french4beth said:


> <B>That is a _f*cking racist_ comment if ever I heard one...


 
She is not the only person who thinks that poor people should stay poor and suffer forever as if the poverty is their own guilt. But she is a VERY public person and at least she shouldn't say everything she thinks...

Outrageous and disgusting comment, anyway.


----------



## Everness

natasha2000 said:


> This is so true. Children born like tabula rasa as far as moral is concerned. We, adults have the whole resposibility for what will be written in that board during the life of a new-born. We, adults, put in chldren our own racist or filantropic ideas, and they soak them as sponges, since we are adults, we know the best... Maybe we should look better into their unstained souls and try to learn something from them...



Natasha,

Some adults are seriously trying to be part of the solution. Hopefully you can open this link.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...06/08/21/religious_differences_unite_campers/


----------



## natasha2000

Everness said:


> Natasha,
> 
> Some adults are seriously trying to be part of the solution. Hopefully you can open this link.
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...06/08/21/religious_differences_unite_campers/


 
Then, how do you explain this link of yours and the former claim that we are all racists? They are incompatible.. . One negates the other...


----------



## Tsoman

Barbara Bush didn't even mention race in her comment, so how can it be racist?

Blackl people weren't the only poor people devestated by katrina


----------



## Everness

natasha2000 said:


> Then, how do you explain this link of yours and the former claim that we are all racists? They are incompatible.. . One negates the other...



Absolutely not. I might be discussing this in another thread. I drew a parallel between alcoholism and racism. a) Both of them are diseases. b) Both of them can't be cured, just treated. The biggest difference is that not all individuals are alcoholics but I argue that all human beings are infected through acculturation with this disease of the soul. 

Adults who run this camp are racists in recovery. The fact that one developed a non-racist outlook on life, doesn't mean that one can't relapse. Again, racism can be treated but not cured. It's always trying to rear its ugly head. 

So I stick by my 3 categories of human beings when it comes to racism: 

1. Racists in recovery
2. Racists in denial
3. F*cking racists


----------



## natasha2000

Everness said:


> Absolutely not. I might be discussing this in another thread. I drew a parallel between alcoholism and racism. a) Both of them are diseases. b) Both of them can't be cured, just treated. The biggest difference is that not all individuals are alcoholics but I argue that all human beings are infected through acculturation with this disease of the soul.
> 
> Adults who run this camp are racists in recovery. The fact that one developed a non-racist outlook on life, doesn't mean that one can't relapse. Again, racism can be treated but not cured. It's always trying to rear its ugly head.
> 
> So I stick by my 3 categories of human beings when it comes to racism:
> 
> 1. Racists in recovery
> 2. Racists in denial
> 3. F*cking racists


 
Where are the proofs that people who run this camp are "racists in recovery"? Can you prove that they had earlier racistic behavior? I am sure that they would be very offended if they heard how you classify them.. And they would have complete right.

I do not like the way you think. Actually, I find it very tragic and misanthropic one. It is not that I am very phylanthropic, nor I think that a human is a wonderful being (a s a matter of fact, I think it is rather selfish and mean), but for sure I still have some faith in human being left. And hope is what keeps us alive.

(Sorry for bad spelling of misanthropic and phylantropic words. I really do not know how to spell them.)

EDIT: And for sure I am not with you that alcoholism is a born-in desease (if I understood it well).


----------



## GenJen54

Everness said:
			
		

> I argue that all human beings are infected through acculturation with this disease of the soul.


 I would agree with you to the extent that everyone has a bit of "racist" tendancies. I don't necessary call it "racist," however, so much as "differentist." We, as humans, do tend to be more inclined to commune with those we see as "like ourselves." This could be manifested in having friends of the same religion (even from the same church), friends who share like values, friends who attended the same schools, friends who are in the same profession. We're constantly reassigning members of our own personal "cliques," whatever those might be. The fact remains, however, that skin color can play a great role in this a bigger part of the problem.

We have a friend, a black man, Ph.D., college professor, whom we associate with at parties and in a film group we are part of. He teaches English and Literature, mostly AA literature, at an all-black University. He is by far one of the most intelligent and well-spoken individuals I have ever met in my life. His level of vocabulary is intimidating even to me. His current girlfriend is Latina, although he usually prefers dating "non-blacks." So my question is this. Is he, too, "racist," because he socialized primarily with non-blacks, or are we racist for socializing with him?

I once read some matierals about the "7 Levels of Racism" or something to that effect. I tried unsuccessfully to look it up on the web. In short, it was a program sponsored by a privately-funded institution that discussed the many different ways "racism" can manifest itself.

One of the things in particular that stuck out to me is that even "positive" comments can be seen as racist. For example, if I, a white female, were to comment on how I really liked someone's hairstyle (i.e. braids) - because this hairstyle might be seen as "typical" among certain ethnic groups, then this is a racist comment, even though to me it is a compliment. The same could be said if I were to make a comment about someone wearing ethnic garb, which I find particularly attractive.

Even going out of your way to make certain someone of a "minority" was made to feel welcome or included was seen as racist.

Some forms of racism are obvious. Others less so. It is these "less so" incidences that cause so many problems, and I have yet to see anyone willing to step up and examine them in an HONEST manner. They're downright confusing.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Absolutely not. I might be discussing this in another thread. I drew a parallel between alcoholism and racism. a) Both of them are diseases. b) Both of them can't be cured, just treated. The biggest difference is that not all individuals are alcoholics but I argue that all human beings are infected through acculturation with this disease of the soul.
> 
> Adults who run this camp are racists in recovery. The fact that one developed a non-racist outlook on life, doesn't mean that one can't relapse. Again, racism can be treated but not cured. It's always trying to rear its ugly head.
> 
> So I stick by my 3 categories of human beings when it comes to racism:
> 
> 1. Racists in recovery
> 2. Racists in denial
> 3. F*cking racists


I deny that I am a fucking racist and I deny that I am a sinner.  A careful persual of posts reveals to me that I am not Robinson Crusoe in WR.

.,,


----------



## natasha2000

. said:


> I deny that I am a fucking racist and I deny that I am a sinner. A careful persual of posts reveals to me that I am not Robinson Crusoe in WR.
> 
> .,,


 

Of course you're not.

And besides, what is a definition of a sinner? Which definition we ahould take? Christian? Budhist, hindu, muslim? Please....  Who in this world will judge me if I am a sinner or not? What is a sin at all? Being gay? Being poor? To commit adultery? Or to abort? What? there are aother cultures where these things were and are normal. I think that the word sinner is very anticuated, and ahould be banned from the moder language as to be a word to qualify anyone.


----------



## Everness

natasha2000 said:


> I do not like the way you think. Actually, I find it very tragic and misanthropic one.



Natasha, help me out here. What meaning of misanthropical describes me best?



> misanthropical
> 
> adj 1: believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. selflessness of others [syn: cynical, misanthropic] 2: hating mankind in general [syn: misanthropic]
> 
> 
> Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=misanthropical


Is it 1) Believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. selflessness of others or 2) Hating mankind in general?

Thank you! (I can live with #1 but it's #2, just lie to me, ok? You already told me that you don't like how I think. There's only so much beating a guy can take)


----------



## natasha2000

Everness said:


> Natasha, help me out here. What meaning of misanthropical describes me best?
> 
> 
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=misanthropical
> 
> 
> Is it 1) Believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. selflessness of others or 2) Hating mankind in general?
> 
> Thank you! (I can live with #1 but it's #2, just lie to me, ok? You already told me that you don't like how I think. There's only so much beating a guy can take)


 
So, I have to agree with you in order not to hurt your feelings? Hmm.... I don't think so. I just said what I think, as you said, too. you said that all human beings are racist, and even you gave the division of it. If you think that having this opinion about human race is not misanthropic, then I do not know what to say. Really.
Remembeer that many of what you say offended too many people here, and nobody is saying: Ok, It is abeating that a guy /girl can take. 

And yes, I think what you've said about the human beings is a wording of a person who is:
1: believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. selflessness of others [syn: cynical, misanthropic] 
2: hating mankind in general [syn: misanthropic]

Sorry if this hurts you. I only say what I mean. Just as you did. And you hurt somebody's feelings, too.


----------



## Tsoman

I don't think that prejudice based on race and racism are the same thing.

for it to be racism, I believe you have to act on it.


----------



## cirrus

Tsoman said:


> I don't think that prejudice based on race and racism are the same thing.
> 
> for it to be racism, I believe you have to act on it.



Can you expand on that a little more?  I don't understand the distinction.  Do you mean that unless we express it we aren't racist?


----------



## natasha2000

cirrus said:


> Originally Posted by *Tsoman* [URL]http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
> I don't think that prejudice based on race and racism are the same thing.
> 
> for it to be racism, I believe you have to act on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you expand on that a little more? I don't understand the distinction. Do you mean that unless we express it we aren't racist?
Click to expand...

 
Yes, please, Tsoman. Could you elaborate on this a little bit more? 
So if I think that I am a superior race, but do not actually attack anyone, I am not a racist? I don't think so.


----------



## .   1

natasha2000 said:


> Yes, please, Tsoman. Could you elaborate on this a little bit more?
> So if I think that I am a superior race, but do not actually attack anyone, I am not racist? I don't think so.


I too will stand in line waiting for the defense of the apparently indefensable.

.,,


----------



## Tsoman

Ok

Let's say you work in a jewelry store and there are certain types of jewelry that certain types of people like. You see that there is a group of oriental people entering the store and you have observed that people who look oriental seem to buy a certain style of jewerly more frequently than other people. so you take the jewelry that you think they like and put it in plain view.

That is prejudice based on race but not racism.

Or. You are on an airplane and you see a middle easter looking person doing things that are out of the ordinary and you decide to be scared and observe more closely.

Or. let's say you are a black person in the south and you decide not to move to a certain town because it is made up of all white people and you are afraid that you and your family may experience racism because you are black.


Or. You are a white person who lives in the city and you have been mugged several times, every time by a black person. You see a group of young ghetto looking black people walking down the street towards you, so you avoid them because you are afraid.

Or you are a white person working in a store. A black family comes to the store and you are extra nice to them because you want to show them that you are not a racist.

In the examples I have listed, the motivation for using prejudice is pragmatic, not idealogical. The point isn't to use prejudice to treat another person unfairly, but to make a better decision. Is it really a better decision? I don't know. sometimes people can be irrational. But other times it can be smart to notice race and act accordingly.

I don't think any of those examples are racism. I think it's normal behavior. race is something that you can't help but notice, and just because you let race sometimes be a factor into your decision making does not make you a racist. Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but I can tell you that I do notice people's race. How can I not?


----------



## ireney

Ah! So maybe it was a somewhat unfortunate choice of wording when you said 



> for it to be racism, I believe you have to act on it



I do believe there is a different name for what you describe; If I remember my (buried) notes from my Social Justice and Inclusion course, this "prejudice" falls under the general definition of racism. However there are 5, I think, "degrees of severity" of racism and that is not the worse or the second worse (which I believe is acting on your beliefs that someone is inferior [often using violence] and #2  thinking that someone is inferior but not "acting" on your beliefs)


----------



## Tsoman

My first post was confusing. The second, long one, I explained what I mean better


----------



## danielfranco

The politically correct term for what Tsoman is describing has been gleefully adopted by law enforcement agencies in the USA, and I would be surprised if it has not been adopted in one form or another in the rest of the world. They call it:
"Profiling".

So, a black/latino/other minority young man who earns a very good living as a professional something or other goes to the gym to work out and on the way home he's pulled over by the police because he "fits the profile" (he's not neatly groomed and looks out of breath, besides the distinguishable genetic traits), and the car he is driving is entirely too nice for anyone "like him" to afford. Is that an act of racism? Good heavens, no! It's just "profiling".


----------



## Tsoman

how often does that actually happen?


----------



## natasha2000

Tsoman said:


> I don't think any of those examples are racism. I think it's normal behavior. race is something that you can't help but notice, and just because you let race sometimes be a factor into your decision making does not make you a racist. Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but I can tell you that I do notice people's race. How can I not?


 
Thank you very much, Tsoman, for your explanation. This makes very much sense. And I agree with you on this one. We ARE different. And in this difference there is a beauty of the human race. Famous american invention of "political correctness" tries to erase thede beautiful differences among us, and in a very wrong way. Prohibition and punishment never gave as good results as teaching and making public aware. And sometimes, with the aim to protect one part, it harresses the other one.



Tsoman said:


> how often does that actually happen?


 
Have you seen "Crash"? There you can see exactly what Daniel has just described. And some of your examples, too...
"Profiling" seems more like "prejudice" to me, not only concerning the race, but in general.


----------



## LV4-26

Tsoman said:


> Or. You are a white person who lives in the city and you have been mugged several times, every time by a black person. You see a group of young ghetto looking black people walking down the street towards you, so you avoid them because you are afraid.


That is an interesting example. I was personnally mugged twice in my adult life by.....*white* people. 

I don't go along avoiding groups of white people.

As an antiracist, I believe I would do exactly the same, had those muggers been black people or Arabs....But I'd like to be 100% sure of it.


----------



## Everness

GenJen54 said:


> I would agree with you to the extent that everyone has a bit of "racist" tendancies. I don't necessary call it "racist," however, so much as "differentist." We, as humans, do tend to be more inclined to commune with those we see as "like ourselves." This could be manifested in having friends of the same religion (even from the same church), friends who share like values, friends who attended the same schools, friends who are in the same profession. We're constantly reassigning members of our own personal "cliques," whatever those might be. The fact remains, however, that skin color can play a great role in this a bigger part of the problem.
> 
> We have a friend, a black man, Ph.D., college professor, whom we associate with at parties and in a film group we are part of. He teaches English and Literature, mostly AA literature, at an all-black University. He is by far one of the most intelligent and well-spoken individuals I have ever met in my life. His level of vocabulary is intimidating even to me. His current girlfriend is Latina, although he usually prefers dating "non-blacks." So my question is this. Is he, too, "racist," because he socialized primarily with non-blacks, or are we racist for socializing with him?
> 
> I once read some matierals about the "7 Levels of Racism" or something to that effect. I tried unsuccessfully to look it up on the web. In short, it was a program sponsored by a privately-funded institution that discussed the many different ways "racism" can manifest itself.
> 
> One of the things in particular that stuck out to me is that even "positive" comments can be seen as racist. For example, if I, a white female, were to comment on how I really liked someone's hairstyle (i.e. braids) - because this hairstyle might be seen as "typical" among certain ethnic groups, then this is a racist comment, even though to me it is a compliment. The same could be said if I were to make a comment about someone wearing ethnic garb, which I find particularly attractive.
> 
> Even going out of your way to make certain someone of a "minority" was made to feel welcome or included was seen as racist.
> 
> Some forms of racism are obvious. Others less so. It is these "less so" incidences that cause so many problems, and I have yet to see anyone willing to step up and examine them in an HONEST manner. They're downright confusing.



Right on the money! I think that the *7 levels of racism *you're referring to might be connected to the concept of *stages of racial identity development.* I found plenty of material on the internet. This is the best summary I found. 

http://www.pierce.ctc.edu/tlink/development/theme_identity_and_cohort/race_stages.html

There are stages for Minority Identity Development and stages for White/Majority Identity Development. Where am I in my pilgrimage toward a non-racist outlook on life? Which stage describes my situation best? Am I stuck at a particular stage?


----------



## Outsider

Tsoman said:


> Let's say you work in a jewelry store and there are certain types of jewelry that certain types of people like. You see that there is a group of oriental people entering the store and you have observed that people who look oriental seem to buy a certain style of jewerly more frequently than other people. so you take the jewelry that you think they like and put it in plain view.
> 
> That is prejudice based on race but not racism.
> 
> Or. You are on an airplane and you see a middle easter looking person doing things that are out of the ordinary and you decide to be scared and observe more closely.
> 
> Or. let's say you are a black person in the south and you decide not to move to a certain town because it is made up of all white people and you are afraid that you and your family may experience racism because you are black.
> 
> Or. You are a white person who lives in the city and you have been mugged several times, every time by a black person. You see a group of young ghetto looking black people walking down the street towards you, so you avoid them because you are afraid.
> 
> Or you are a white person working in a store. A black family comes to the store and you are extra nice to them because you want to show them that you are not a racist.


I would describe each of those situations as 'racism', even though some of them are harmless. Racism is the assumption that what someone looks like tells you something more fundamental about who they are.


----------



## Brioche

Tsoman said:


> Barbara Bush didn't even mention race in her comment, so how can it be racist?
> 
> Blackl people weren't the only poor people devestated by katrina


 
Barbara Bush is white, therefore she is racist.
Anyone who has been paying attention to PC politics knows this.
It's a genetic trait, whites are racist.


----------



## Outsider

Tsoman said:


> Barbara Bush didn't even mention race in her comment, so how can it be racist?
> 
> Blackl people weren't the only poor people devestated by katrina


It may not have been openly racist, but it did sound rather classist. And in a society where class and race are strongly intertwined...


----------



## french4beth

I pick my friends according to what they are inside; my best friend in junior high happened to be from Jamaica. A very dear friend is from Ecuador, another extremely close friend is from Chile. I have very dear friends who are Jewish, buddhist, Wiccan, Catholic, Protestant, Quakers, etc., etc., and have a lovely range of skin colors.

Although my mother is extremely racist (but would never admit to it), I have chosen not to be one. And I am white. My anthropology professor stated it the best: there is 1 race, the human race. Forget the rest!

I think that Morgan Freeman said it best (interview on _Actor's Studio_ with James Lipton) which I will paraphase: Let's stop talking about black actors and white actors & just call everyone _actors_.


----------



## Tsoman

Outsider said:


> I would describe each of those situations as 'racism', even though some of them are harmless. Racism is the assumption that what someone looks like tells you something more fundamental about who they are.



Most people know that race doesn't affect personality, nor does it make someone better than another person. In that respect, race means nothing at all.

What I am talking about is this: using race as a indicater of culture. It is the culture of a person that helps determine fundamentally who they are. Usually someone's race somewhat correleates with their culture. In the US, many times this isn't true, so in order to tell if someone is culturally different, you can look for other indicators such as clothing, speech, mannerisms. That's what my examples were about. Race as a possible indicator of culture. It comes in handy while working with people from many countries, in order prepare for the possibilities.


It's in human nature to categorize and create patterns in an attempt to make a somewhat more informed decision than using no info at all. I won't fight my nature, but learn what it is good for.

To be honest, where I live race means nothing. Everyone is pretty much plain old 'american' so I don't care what people look like. But I had a job for a few years where I was constantly interacting with foreigners and you can predict how they will act (and what they like to buy) by guessing what country they are from.


----------



## maxiogee

GenJen54 said:


> I once read some matierals about the "7 Levels of Racism" or something to that effect. I tried unsuccessfully to look it up on the web. In short, it was a program sponsored by a privately-funded institution that discussed the many different ways "racism" can manifest itself.
> 
> One of the things in particular that stuck out to me is that even "positive" comments can be seen as racist. For example, if I, a white female, were to comment on how I really liked someone's hairstyle (i.e. braids) - because this hairstyle might be seen as "typical" among certain ethnic groups, then this is a racist comment, even though to me it is a compliment. The same could be said if I were to make a comment about someone wearing ethnic garb, which I find particularly attractive.
> 
> Even going out of your way to make certain someone of a "minority" was made to feel welcome or included was seen as racist.
> 
> Some forms of racism are obvious. Others less so. It is these "less so" incidences that cause so many problems, and I have yet to see anyone willing to step up and examine them in an HONEST manner. They're downright confusing.



This strikes me as unutterably sad - and as blatant tosh!

When anyone new (an X) comes into any group I am a part of I go out of my to see to it that they are comfortable and made to feel welcomed. If they don't know that I always do this are they right to perceive me as being X-ist? What if I am driven by years of having been made to feel unwelcome and a childhood bedevilled by shyness to ensure that if there is a problem with welcomeness then it is not stemming from my side of a relationship?

As to the 'I really like your hairstyle' comment — are you really likely to only make the comment on race grounds? Don't you make the comment mainly because it is something you find pretty? I find it incredible to think that anyone would only say that on the grounds of race.

Let me say that I believe that just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, (and we can all try to enhance out own beauty, and others' perception of it), so too is offence in the perception of the observer and we can enhance or diminish others' perception of our offensiveness.

That said, I would point out that there are always those who have (compared to society as a whole) a perverted sense of what is beautiful, and there are those who see offence in much which others find reasonable comment.


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:


> As to the 'I really like your hairstyle' comment — are you really likely to only make the comment on race grounds? Don't you make the comment mainly because it is something you find pretty? I find it incredible to think that anyone would only say that on the grounds of race.


Context is important. There is a history of telling black women they have ugly hair. So, a statement like "You have nice hair" can be easily interpreted as "You have nice hair [for a black woman]", which would obviously be a veiled insult, or at best condescending.

Here's a link to clear the air: Black People Love Us.


----------



## LV4-26

I think we shouldn't waste too much time trying to trace vague hints of supposed racial prejudices in ourselves or in others. That time should be spared for fighting real harmful, hateful racism hand in hand with those, black, or white, or whatever, who may be not completely "cured" yet. Who cares? We'll recover in the process.


----------



## Everness

Brioche said:


> Barbara Bush is white, therefore she is racist.
> Anyone who has been paying attention to PC politics knows this.
> It's a genetic trait, whites are racist.



Wow! It takes a lot of courage to make this type of public acknowledgments. However, you might have already realized that people don't like to get bunched into categories. Ah, and the fact that it's a genetic trait would explain why it dies hard. Makes a lot of sense!


----------



## Tsoman

I'm 99% sure that he was being sarcastic...


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Wow! It takes a lot of courage to make this type of public acknowledgments. However, you might have already realized that people don't like to get bunched into categories. Ah, and the fact that it's a genetic trait would explain why it dies hard. Makes a lot of sense!


 
Tsoman said


> I'm 99% sure that he was being sarcastic...


This makes Tsoman *at least *1% smarter than Everness and *at most *99% closer to being a mate of mine.

Outsider said


> Context is important. There is a history of telling black women they have ugly hair. So, a statement like "You have nice hair" can be easily interpreted as "You have nice hair [for a black woman]", which would obviously be a veiled insult, or at best condescending.


I had no idea of this veiled insult thing about dark skinned head hair and I am at a loss to understand how such a positive comment about a woman's hair could carry negative implications.  Some people are hard to please.

.,,


----------



## natasha2000

LV4-26 said:


> I think we shouldn't waste too much time trying to trace vague hints of supposed racial prejudices in ourselves or in others. That time should be spared for fighting real harmful, hateful racism hand in hand with those, black, or white, or whatever, who may be not completely "cured" yet. Who cares? We'll recover in the process.


 
I agree a hundred percent with this statement. If something must be fought, that is a real racism, and not only a white one, but all kinds of racism, because racism has all colors, not only white. And it shoud be beated first in peoples minds and hearts, and not in their actions. In fact, if it is beaten in peoples minds and hearts, there won't be necessary to beat it in their actions, simply because it will not exist! I somehow have an impression that some here see the racism where there isn't any. These exaggeratings remind me of another thread where a forero saw racism in a Spainsh teacher drawing a Chinese person on the board. Since he didn't answer to my question if the teacher was trying to teach them a word CHINO, I assume I was right. But somehow I wasn't too surprised with this comment considering that a forero was coming from the only country in the world where "political kerrektness" exists.



. said:


> I had no idea of this veiled insult thing about dark skinned head hair and I am at a loss to understand how such a positive comment about a woman's hair could carry negative implications. Some people are hard to please.
> .,,


I am with you here. But, have you ever thought... Maybe they don't want to be pleased?
If someone is determined to find maliciousness in something, he will find it, no matter whether this malicousness really exists in this thing or not. And then, we maybe we should ask ourselves: Who is really a bad guy in this case?


----------



## ireney

GenJen54 said:


> We have a friend, a black man, Ph.D., college professor, whom we associate with at parties and in a film group we are part of. He teaches English and Literature, mostly AA literature, at an all-black University. He is by far one of the most intelligent and well-spoken individuals I have ever met in my life. His level of vocabulary is intimidating even to me. His current girlfriend is Latina, although he usually prefers dating "non-blacks." So my question is this. Is he, too, "racist," because he socialized primarily with non-blacks, or are we racist for socializing with him?


 
Are Latinos and Latinas considered black? I didn't know that (unless they are black Latinos and Latinas)
By the way your question, as far as I know, has come up before (I remember the "The Emperor of Ocean Park"). Some would say that yes he is.
Anyway, if you socialize with him because of his education level some would say that yes you are racist 



GenJen54 said:


> I once read some matierals about the "7 Levels of Racism" or something to that effect. I tried unsuccessfully to look it up on the web. In short, it was a program sponsored by a privately-funded institution that discussed the many different ways "racism" can manifest itself.
> 
> One of the things in particular that stuck out to me is that even "positive" comments can be seen as racist. For example, if I, a white female, were to comment on how I really liked someone's hairstyle (i.e. braids) - because this hairstyle might be seen as "typical" among certain ethnic groups, then this is a racist comment, even though to me it is a compliment. The same could be said if I were to make a comment about someone wearing ethnic garb, which I find particularly attractive.
> 
> Even going out of your way to make certain someone of a "minority" was made to feel welcome or included was seen as racist.
> 
> Some forms of racism are obvious. Others less so. It is these "less so" incidences that cause so many problems, and I have yet to see anyone willing to step up and examine them in an HONEST manner. They're downright confusing.


 
a) As other people before me have stated, I too believe that this may be taking things to extremes. Not only in cases when you go out of your way just because that's how you are raised to treat any foreigner (that does not mean non native); there are even cases when going out of your way to make someone comfortable _because_ of his/her race is not racist.
b) No one is expected to know all the things one may take offence of! We should stop complimenting people of other races and/or countries/cultures just to be sure we are not perceived as racist?
Should I never hear a compliment on my looks again because someone is afraid I might consider it sexual harassment or something?



Tsoman said:


> What I am talking about is this: using race as a indicater of culture. It is the culture of a person that helps determine fundamentally who they are. Usually someone's race somewhat correleates with their culture. In the US, many times this isn't true, so in order to tell if someone is culturally different, you can look for other indicators such as clothing, speech, mannerisms. That's what my examples were about. Race as a possible indicator of culture. It comes in handy while working with people from many countries, in order prepare for the possibilities.
> 
> It's in human nature to categorize and create patterns in an attempt to make a somewhat more informed decision than using no info at all. I won't fight my nature, but learn what it is good for.
> 
> To be honest, where I live race means nothing. Everyone is pretty much plain old 'american' so I don't care what people look like. But I had a job for a few years where I was constantly interacting with foreigners and you can predict how they will act (and what they like to buy) by guessing what country they are from.


 
a) Are we talking about race as i.e. black/white? A black person from the USA, Cuba, Nigeria or Ethiopia behaves the same has the same cultural background and has the same taste in things? An Irish, a German, a Polish and a Greek?

b) So would you be able to guess my taste just by looking at the clothes I am wearing at the moment and my being Greek?


----------



## Tsoman

ireney said:


> a) Are we talking about race as i.e. black/white? A black person from the USA, Cuba, Nigeria or Ethiopia behaves the same has the same cultural background and has the same taste in things? An Irish, a German, a Polish and a Greek?
> 
> b) So would you be able to guess my taste just by looking at the clothes I am wearing at the moment and my being Greek?



a)
we're talking about black people in the USA, the ones that are descended from the slaves. I have no clue how a nigerian or ethiopian behaves? Obviously, every person is an individual. But are you trying to tell me that people's tastes aren't at all affected by their culture? Because they are. 

b) I have no idea what your tastes would be because I don't meet large numbers of greek people (like I do asian people). I'm sure if I worked in a shop with where large amount of greek people came, I could predict what items would be popular and in style for greeks. not that every one of them will pick the same thing, but there are undeniable trends.

we don't need to make this difficult. It's quite simple.

probability


----------



## Everness

Tsoman said:


> To be honest, where I live race means nothing. Everyone is pretty much plain old 'american' so I don't care what people look like. But I had a job for a few years where I was constantly interacting with foreigners and you can predict how they will act (and what they like to buy) by guessing what country they are from.



Would you mind if I piss you off with some questions and observations? 

First, you say that where you live race means nothing. But then you say you live in Corning, NJ. I always thought that only in heaven race would become meaningless and racism would be completely eradicated. But it seems that we don't need to die to experience the new heavens and the new earth Isaiah talks about. We can just move to Corning, NJ! By the way, I live in a city where race means too much. Cops stop you if your skin is on the darker side and the rest of us have learned to do the same but discreetly. It's all about appearances! 

Second, you say that everyone in your town is pretty much plain old 'american' and that's why you don't care what people look like.  What do you mean with plain old 'american'? My assumption is that down in Jersey you're all white and that's why race means nothing. That would make sense. 

As you might already know, I am a misanthrope and cynic. However, this time I want to believe that you are saying that you live in a racially and ethnically diverse town that has learned to deal with diversity drawing upon tolerance and respect. Please don't prove me wrong!


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Would you mind if I piss you off with some questions and observations?
> 
> First, you say that where you live race means nothing. But then you say you live in Corning, NJ. I always thought that only in heaven race would become meaningless and racism would be completely eradicated. But it seems that we don't need to die to experience the new heavens and the new earth Isaiah talks about. We can just move to Corning, NJ! By the way, I live in a city where race means too much. Cops stop you if your skin is on the darker side and the rest of us have learned to do the same but discreetly. It's all about appearances!
> 
> Second, you say that everyone in your town is pretty much plain old 'american' and that's why you don't care what people look like. What do you mean with plain old 'american'? My assumption is that down in Jersey you're all white and that's why race means nothing. That would make sense.
> 
> As you might already know, I am a misanthrope and cynic. However, this time I want to believe that you are saying that you live in a racially and ethnically diverse town that has learned to deal with diversity drawing upon tolerance and respect. Please don't prove me wrong!


I live in Melbourne and ethnicity means nothing here.
At one point there were more Greek people in Melbourne than in any other city except Athens.  The place is now full of every differing nationality you could imagine.  It would be rather difficult to form too much of a power clique because there is not one ethnicity in the majority.

I have a question for you Everness.

What does an Australian look like?

.,,


----------



## Everness

. said:


> I have a question for you Everness.
> 
> What does an Australian look like?
> .,,



According to the CIA - The World Factbook the following is the racial makeup of Australia: Caucasian 92%, Asian 7%, aboriginal and other 1%. 

The logical answer would be that an Australian is a white individual. However, the existence of a prototypical Australian based on stats leaves all other racial and ethnic groups out, and I don't think that Asians or Australian Aborigines are less Australians than white folks. 

As I argued in another thread, when you ask people abroad that same question: What does an American look like? I'm pretty sure that the picture of a black or Latina woman is the last thing to pop un in their minds. But black or Latina women don't feel less American than their white counterparts. Actually, that's not quite sure because Institutionalized racism is still rampant in our midst and ethnic and racial minorities get the message.  

However, I must confess that when I read your question, the image of Crocodile Dundee popped up in my mind! Ah, these shallow Americans that ingest too much junk food and watch too many movies!


----------



## Tsoman

Everness said:


> Would you mind if I piss you off with some questions and observations?
> 
> First, you say that where you live race means nothing. But then you say you live in Corning, NJ. I always thought that only in heaven race would become meaningless and racism would be completely eradicated. But it seems that we don't need to die to experience the new heavens and the new earth Isaiah talks about. We can just move to Corning, NJ! By the way, I live in a city where race means too much. Cops stop you if your skin is on the darker side and the rest of us have learned to do the same but discreetly. It's all about appearances!
> 
> Second, you say that everyone in your town is pretty much plain old 'american' and that's why you don't care what people look like.  What do you mean with plain old 'american'? My assumption is that down in Jersey you're all white and that's why race means nothing. That would make sense.
> 
> As you might already know, I am a misanthrope and cynic. However, this time I want to believe that you are saying that you live in a racially and ethnically diverse town that has learned to deal with diversity drawing upon tolerance and respect. Please don't prove me wrong!



you don't piss me off, don't worry

and actually, it's Corning NY. Most people are white, true. There are some minorities who simply just live among us as just another community member. Maybe race does mean something here, but all I ever see is harmony and people working together and interacting. I'm not trying to say I don't notice people who look nonwhite -- I do. In fact they stick out. But the ones I've met and worked with could have been anyone, white or black. It probably helps that the town is small and relatively prosperous (we make your dishes lol).


But I also think you misunderstood me when I say that race means nothing. I said that race can be an indicator, but in itself does not mean anything.  Race can indicate a difference in culture (which is why race can be used for profiling). If everyone of different colors were the same underneath their skin, I think there would be far far fewer racial problems.You say that in your town, there are lots of problems between people of different races. Race isn't the reason for the problems. I think it's what people see. It's the skin of the problems.


edit:

but yes, slavery and jim crow were completely based on nothing more than race, and could be the cause of some of our problems to this day


----------



## danielfranco

Tsoman said:


> ... If everyone of different colors were the same underneath their skin, I think there would be far far fewer racial problems.


 
Hi, forum-brethren!
Sorry to intrude again, but I just couldn't understand this selection from Tsoman's last post.
I thought that *ethnic* differences between people of this planet are actually so superficial that we often use the phrase "skin-deep" to mean the utmost superficiallity.
I've read before in some book or other that, if you go deep down into the nitty-gritty of chromosomes and DNA, then only one human race can be said to exist. Can anyone guess which skin color is the "default" *human* color?

That's right! If you absolutely had to *name* the human race, it would have to be the *BLACK race*!

How 'bout that, friends and neighbors?

Supposedly, there's more genetic differences between men and women than between all the ethnic groups in the planet... [and, off-topic, there's less genetic divergence between humans and chimpanzees than between men and women!!!!!!!]


----------



## Tsoman

I don't mean genetics or anything physical. Simply that many times, people of different races are also socially or culturally different as well, and that is what causes most of the misunderstandings and problems. race is just the visible part.

I'm not saying that one race is better than another at something -- that's blatant racism and I am no racist.


----------



## danielfranco

Ah, I get it now. Thanks for the prompt reply.
Perhaps, then, it's up to us - who are very interested in languages and their cultural context - to begin doing our part in educating our friends and neighbors. We can insist in saying "ethnic background" instead of "race" (pretty much like we get small children to stop saying "I *hurted* my hand!" and insist they say "hurt").
We are not going to change the world, that's for sure, but if we can make a few people *pause* for a minute and think before saying "race", we can all start facing the right path towards more tolerance.
Personally, I've tried to do just that for several years now. The only success I've had so far, that I can tell, is with my children: they are never allowed to use skin color or ethnicity to describe or make reference to a person, and they don't.
The people at work and friends, I haven't changed much... at least they know we'll be having an argument if they wish to speak of "races" around me.
But, hey, it's a start, no?


----------



## Outsider

Everness said:


> As I argued in another thread, when you ask people abroad that same question: What does an American look like? I'm pretty sure that the picture of a black or Latina woman is the last thing to pop un in their minds.


Don't be so sure. When I think of the US lately, Condoleezza Rice is one of the faces that pop up in my mind. Often the first.


----------



## natasha2000

Tsoman said:


> If everyone of different colors were the same underneath their skin, I think there would be far far fewer racial problems


 
I uderstood this perfectly well. I do not see why this sentence would need further explanation. It's just a figurative way to say that there are no two same persons in this world, and that this huge amount of differences among us is the cause of racism. If we were all same in our souls and our minds, we would all think the same and there would not be any racial or other problems. But, this is not the case. Nothing to do with chromosomes.



danielfranco said:


> ... they are never allowed to use skin color or ethnicity to describe or make reference to a person, and they don't.


 
Why? I really do not understand why mantioning that someone is black, or white, or Inidan, or Hindu, or Mexican would be offensive, if you just say it? It is the truth, isn't it? I think that very often it is how we say things and not what we say. So, Daniel, if I said, I met a great guy on WR, he is so funny and amusing, he is a Mexican, but he lives in the USA, you would get offended? Sorry for my stupidity, limited mind or whatever, but I really do not see anything offensive in saying that someone is black or Chinese.


----------



## danielfranco

Hi, there!
I don't think that fellow forer@'s point of view is stupid, or narrow-minded, or nothing whatever, and if that's what seemed to be implied in my other posts, then I apologize, but I must have not been clear in what I wrote.

However, I truly believe we can disagree, even vehemently and heatedly, if we don't see eye to eye, right?
In this case, I truly believe there's a big difference in describing your acquaintance as a Mexican (or Chinese or whatever, if you know that for a fact) to actually describe him physically. Whereas a nationality is hardly ever viewed as a negative description (unless that was the express purpose of mentioning it, to deride the person), a physical description can be impolite, or even hurtful.
What I am saying is that, if this person were to be described as, let's say, a fat pimply _Mexican _bastard, I think he would have no problem with the Mexican part of the description.
But, see? This must be part of the problem, too, that we fail to see eye to eye because of the different ways in which we relate to each other even _*inside*_ the same society: In this society where I live, often (or mostly) physical descriptions are derogatory and pejorative. 
In teaching my kids to avoid such easy and convenient ways to "label" other people, I believe they (we) are learning to think of anyone around us  like absolute equals.
Which nicely dove-tails back to *Mr ,..'s* question of "Is this bloke a bigot?", because, in considering whether or not he's a bigot, I have to be introspective and ask myself, "yeah, but, am I, too?"


----------



## natasha2000

danielfranco said:


> Hi, there!
> I don't think that fellow forer@'s point of view is stupid, or narrow-minded, or nothing whatever, and if that's what seemed to be implied in my other posts, then I apologize, but I must have not been clear in what I wrote.
> 
> No, you did not tell that, and I know you do not think this, I just put this just in case someone thinks like this. This part of my post does not have anything to do with you personally.
> 
> However, I truly believe we can disagree, even vehemently and heatedly, if we don't see eye to eye, right?
> In this case, I truly believe there's a big difference in describing your acquaintance as a Mexican (or Chinese or whatever, if you know that for a fact) to actually describe him physically.
> I agree with you. There are many other characteristics besides physical ones to describe a person. But I met even worse cases. Describing person's clothes, without mentioning anything more!
> Whereas a nationality is hardly ever viewed as a negative description (unless that was the express purpose of mentioning it, to deride the person), a physical description can be impolite, or even hurtful.
> What I am saying is that, if this person were to be described as, let's say, a fat pimply _Mexican _bastard, I think he would have no problem with the Mexican part of the description.
> Here in this example of yours, even if we avoided "Mexican", it would still be a very offensive description. If you teach your children not to describe persons like this, I agree with you, completely. Furthermore, it is offensive for Mexicans in general, since it is said "Mexican bastard". But what if I say: He is a Mexican, a little bit overweight, moodish, and with not so pleasant temperament? Would I still be offending Mexicans in general? I repeat, usually it is more important how you express your thoughts, and not what you say.
> 
> But, see? This must be part of the problem, too, that we fail to see eye to eye because of the different ways in which we relate to each other even _*inside*_ the same society: In this society where I live, often (or mostly) physical descriptions are derogatory and pejorative.
> 
> This came accross to my mind while I was writing the answer. I am sure that if you lived in some other part of the world, you wouldn't be thinking so much about this, you would be more relaxed. Recently in another thread I discovered the clear difference between the US society and the others: An Afroamerican found himself very offended because some Spanish ladies called to some black girfriends of his "negritas". All non-US participants in that thread did not se what was so inslutling there, since in Spanish speaking countries the word "black" does not have any pejorative connotations. Even black people in Caribbian islands call each other Negro, or even Blanquita (obviously her skin was a little bit more fair than the others), and nobody gets offended. But, I am sure you know that better than I.
> 
> In teaching my kids to avoid such easy and convenient ways to "label" other people, I believe they (we) are learning to think of anyone around us like absolute equals.
> 
> I have to disagree with you here. Prohibiting never gave any results. So if you prohibit to your child to say, You know, dad, the black guy that came yesterday, how would you know if yesterday came more thanone guy knocking on your door? I can even go further and say that I see the very same people who are very careful not to pronounce BLACK are racist,  only because being black is considered ugly, like bastard, or big nose, or whatever offensife word. boy, this IS really offensive.
> 
> Which nicely dove-tails back to *Mr ,..'s* question of "Is this bloke a bigot?", because, in considering whether or not he's a bigot, I have to be introspective and ask myself, "yeah, but, am I, too?"
> 
> I rarely ask myself like this, since I was taught to appreciate people what they are, and not what color or nation they belong. to see, as Tsoman desciribed so beautifully, "under skin". And skin or nation is just another characteristic of people, like their clothes, or way of speaking, or color of their eyes.


----------



## danielfranco

First, let me assure Tsoman that I'm not posting this excerpt again to belabor the point he wanted to make. I just need to quote it again this time, and that'll be the last, I promise.



Tsoman said:


> ... If everyone of different colors were the same underneath their skin, I think there would be far far fewer racial problems.





> Originally posted by Natasha
> ...to see, as Tsoman desciribed so beautifully, "under skin".



Oh, miss Natasha... You are just not "feeling" me today. Or maybe I'm just too sleepy, or something, and not making much sense... I don't know which.
As you can see, the original quote says [paraphrased] "... If everyone _*were*_ the same underneath the skin...", implying that they *are not.* And that's why I did the double-take and muttered, "excuse me?" That is why I posted that long and rambling "we are all the same down to the last gene" rant.
Please tell me how I read it wrong.



> Originally posted by Natasha
> I have to disagree with you here. Prohibiting never gave any results. So if you prohibit to your child to say, You know, dad, the black guy that came yesterday, how would you know if yesterday came more thanone guy knocking on your door? I can even go further and say that I see the very same people who are very careful not to pronounce BLACK are racist, only because being black is considered ugly, like bastard, or big nose, or whatever offensife word. boy, this IS really offensive.



And, obviously, we all have our personal opinions and experiences as to what actually works with child-rearing, which is a subject that can hardly be universally agreed upon anyways, would you agree?
So, this is another instance where I might be misreading or misunderstanding or mis-something or other... 
Because: if you say "black" carelessly and without weighing how it might hurt the sensibilities of your listeners you can be seen as a racist, no?
And: if you *do not* say "black" because you are weighing how it might hurt the sensibilities of your listeners you can be seen as a racist, yes?

Well, I would like to stick my neck out for a moment and propose that might as well I should just clam up and say nothing... unless that could be construed as racist for not uttering words that everybody else is sure _*I *_consider ugly or offensive. 
Anyway, I thought I owed it to you to explain myself fully, instead of doing what I always do: turn tail and log off.
Laters!


----------



## maxwels

. said:


> Hello forum
> Another thread has raised a difficult question for me and I seek clarification.
> 
> Dreadful allegations of bigotry have been made against a news commentator and a link posted to the offending video.
> The supposedly offensive words were quoted and the commentator was not only accused of being a racist but a fucking racist. So there is no doubt as to the opinion of the poster with regards to the intentions of the commentator.
> 
> I slipped over to the link and found that the quotes had been truncated but the last remark which was quoted was highly prescient - "and this is going to raise lots of questions for people who are watching this story unfold". That is not the comment of a racist - overt or subconscious!
> 
> http://www.theplacewithnoname.com/blogs/k/p/051013.htm
> 
> I this bloke a bigot or a human?
> 
> .,,


 
There were multitude of distractions in life.At time you must turn a blind eye to such allegations attempting to warp your ideas. don't get bogged down by all such allegations!
be brave..ok


----------



## natasha2000

danielfranco said:


> Oh, miss Natasha... You are just not "feeling" me today. Or maybe I'm just too sleepy, or something, and not making much sense... I don't know which.
> Maybe I "do not feel" you today, but I just think that maybe today you see the things in more general terms than I do. How? I'll try to explain.
> 
> As you can see, the original quote says [paraphrased] "... If everyone _*were*_ the same underneath the skin...", implying that they *are not.* And that's why I did the double-take and muttered, "excuse me?" That is why I posted that long and rambling "we are all the same down to the last gene" rant.
> Please tell me how I read it wrong.
> 
> I wasn't referring to you here, I just wanted to use Tsoman's phrase, because I liked it. Sorry if it sounded differently.
> 
> 
> 
> And, obviously, we all have our personal opinions and experiences as to what actually works with child-rearing, which is a subject that can hardly be universally agreed upon anyways, would you agree?
> Daniel, I really do not want to quarrel with you nor I ever said that you 're doing anything wrong, expecially not with your kids. Besides, I wouldn't have any right to do so, even if I wanted, which I, really do not want.
> 
> So, this is another instance where I might be misreading or misunderstanding or mis-something or other...
> Because: if you say "black" carelessly and without weighing how it might hurt the sensibilities of your listeners you can be seen as a racist, no?
> And: if you *do not* say "black" because you are weighing how it might hurt the sensibilities of your listeners you can be seen as a racist, yes?
> Every word, depending on the context and way it is pronounced, what accompanies it, can be offensive. There is no such word that NEVER can be offensive. Therefore, the word BLACK used as neutral describing a person of that color of the skin cannot simply be offensive. But I realize now that not all people in the world see the things as I see them, and for sure if I met an Afroamerican, I would try not to say in front of him that he is BLACK, nor I will speak about BLACK African illegal immigrants that come each day to the coasts from Africa. (Just a question, how would you say who is coming from Africa if you do not say black people? If I say African, it can mean also white African from Southafrican Republic, and as far as I know, there were not white folks on those boats. I am aware that with this question someone can consider me racist, which I am not, I just simply expose the facts).
> 
> On the other hand, why does someone avoid BAD words? Because they are BAD and they can offend someone. Therefore, if you avoid saying BLACK (in a normal and neutral way, of course, and not in the offensive context) that means you think being black is bad. Therefore, if you think that being black is bad, then, what are you if not racist? (Note: using the pronoun YOU does not mean I reffer to you personally, please do not take anything of what I said personally, because it is not. I could have used the pronoun "one" but I feel more comfortable and more "English correct" if I use "you").
> 
> So, as you see, nothing is only black or only white. There are a lot of greys between those two. There I go! Again! Does this sentence I hjust said is racist?
> You have to understand that people who do not live in a place where "political kerrektness" is so important, do not see the things as you, Americans see, and that something that you might consier offensive for one person, the very same person does not even notice. how would you say in Cuba that a man called Negro came and brougt som grocceries, without using his name? And do you think that this Negro would take an offense if you called him by his name? By the name that probably also used his mother to call him, too? Tell me, I am very curious to know.
> 
> Well, I would like to stick my neck out for a moment and propose that might as well I should just clam up and say nothing... unless that could be construed as racist for not uttering words that everybody else is sure _*I *_consider ugly or offensive.
> Anyway, I thought I owed it to you to explain myself fully, instead of doing what I always do: turn tail and log off.
> Laters!
> I repeat, I did not understand this little dialog of ours as any kind of confrontation. We just did what is expected to do here, in WR, interchanging the opinions. If we do not always agree, it does not mean we should stop to respect and like each other. At least, I did not stop it.
> And I appreciate you trying to explain yourself, even though normally you wouldn't do this, but as you say you would "turn tail and log off". This shows me that you do care about my opinion, and I thank you for it.


----------



## danielfranco

Sure, no biggie. 
And no worries there about confrontations, either: If I ever posted anything you didn't agree with, as in the present thread, of course you should confront me about it! How else are we supposed to find a middle ground, then, no?
But, like I mentioned already, maybe I'm just too sleepy to make sense of it all: when I saw that you named me I thought you were addressing your concerns directly and personally. So I responded. I hope I wasn't harsh or anything. I was just trying to be direct and drop all the silly jokes I usually do instead.
So, a parting shot before I fall asleep on the keyboard:



> Originally posted by Natasha, true friend and nemesis!
> ... how would you say in Cuba that a man called Negro came and brought some groceries, without using his name? And do you think that this Negro would take an offense if you called him by his name? By the name that probably also used his mother to call him, too? Tell me, I am very curious to know.


"The man himself brought the grub, ya dig?"

ZZZZzzzzzzz..........




EDIT - I'm awake, I'm awake!
Ah, almost forgot to mention that:



> Originally posted by Natasha & Dan
> And, obviously, we all have our personal opinions and experiences as to what actually works with child-rearing, which is a subject that can hardly be universally agreed upon anyways, would you agree?
> Daniel, I really do not want to quarrel with you nor I ever said that you 're doing anything wrong, expecially not with your kids. Besides, I wouldn't have any right to do so, even if I wanted, which I, really do not want.




I wasn't getting my undies up in a bunch, there... I was being cheeky! "No one can agree... do you agree?" Eh? Eh?
Right... Not funny... Bad joke... ZZZzzzz... (for reals, this time)


----------



## ireney

Tsoman said:


> a)
> we're talking about black people in the USA, the ones that are descended from the slaves. I have no clue how a nigerian or ethiopian behaves? Obviously, every person is an individual. But are you trying to tell me that people's tastes aren't at all affected by their culture? Because they are.
> 
> b) I have no idea what your tastes would be because I don't meet large numbers of greek people (like I do asian people). I'm sure if I worked in a shop with where large amount of greek people came, I could predict what items would be popular and in style for greeks. not that every one of them will pick the same thing, but there are undeniable trends.
> 
> we don't need to make this difficult. It's quite simple.


 
Tsoman I think you and I have a serious problem of communication. I just don't get what you mean I think.

a & b ) If we are talking only about black citizens of the USA and in particular those who are the descendants of slaves we can't use the word race can we? When we are talking about race we are talking about the black, the white etc.
Cultures do indeed create some trends in taste. However, i) that has nothing to do with race most of the times ii) there are other things equally important in the cultivation of one's personal taste iii) if you showed me something thinking that I might like it because I am Greek I would be offended (or more possibly nowadays really irritated come to think of it) just as I roll my eyes when people assume that I must like fish just because most Greeks do. 



Tsoman said:


> I don't mean genetics or anything physical. Simply that many times, people of different races are also socially or culturally different as well, and that is what causes most of the misunderstandings and problems. race is just the visible part.
> 
> I'm not saying that one race is better than another at something -- that's blatant racism and I am no racist.


 

People of different _cultures_ are different. My friend Stella is black so we belong to different races. However, since we are both Greek and share similar educational and family background etc there's no cultural or social difference between us. She has more in common with me than with any African-American (if this term is still OK to use) or any Somalian i.e. and I have more in common with her than I have with my German friends or even with my Greek friend Eugenia who are both white.




Tsoman said:


> If everyone of different colors were the same underneath their skin, I think there would be far far fewer racial problems.You say that in your town, there are lots of problems between people of different races. Race isn't the reason for the problems. I think it's what people see. It's the skin of the problems.


 
Underneath the skin we all are muscles, bones and yucky stuff. If you mean that we should all think the same well that would be REALLY boring wouldn't it? We are all the same from a biological point of view. We are not all the same from a cultural point of view. That's good. It's called diversity. Becoming the same is not the solution. Embracing diversity (although for some reason I really don't like this phrase) is


----------



## natasha2000

ireney said:


> We are all the same from a biological point of view. We are not all the same from a cultural point of view. That's good. It's called diversity. Becoming the same is not the solution. Embracing diversity (although for some reason I really don't like this phrase) is


 
Ireney, I am afraid you misunderstood Tsoman. This what you said is the same thing what Tsoman said, only in another way. At least I understood it in that way. He is saying the same thing, but using different words.



> Originally Posted by *Tsoman* http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=1361894#post1361894
> If everyone of different colors were the same underneath their skin, I think there would be far far fewer racial problems.You say that in your town, there are lots of problems between people of different races. Race isn't the reason for the problems. I think it's what people see. It's the skin of the problems.


----------

