Racial Domination/Subjugation

[Madspirit]

I love bell hooks, just btw...Lee

THE MYTH OF REVERSE RACISM

REVERSE RACISM?
"Why is it so difficult for many white folks to understand that racism is oppressive not because white folks have prejudicial feelings about blacks, but because it is a system that promotes domination and subjugation? The prejudicial feelings some blacks may express about whites are in no way linked to a system of domination the affords us any power to coercively control the lives and well-being of white folks. That needs to be understood" (bell hooks 1995: 154).

SEPARATISM?
"Concurrently, all social manifestations of black separatism are often seen by whites as a sign of anti-white racism, when they usually represent an attempt by black people to construct places of political sanctuary where we can escape, if only for a time, white domination" (bell hooks 1995: p155).

BLAMING THE VICTIM
“People who have not thought about or refuse to acknowledge this imbalance of power/privilege often want to talk about the racism of people of color. But then, that is one of the ways racism is able to continue to function. You look for someone to blame and you blame the victim, who will nine times out of ten accept the blame out of habit” (Gloria Yamato 2001: p93).


References:
hooks, bell. Killing Rage: Ending Racism. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1995.

Yamoto, Gloria. "Something About the Subject Makes it Hard to Name" in in Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology, 4th Edition. by Margaret L. Andersen, and Patricia Hill Collins, eds. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2001.
Brought to you by Claremont SCRAP – Students Challenging Racism and (White) Privilege. http://www.canopyweb.com/racism

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaysunb]

2. I will join you....K&R

LOTS of folks here need to read this.

[blondeatlast]

3. Exactly, it's so pervasive in white culture that we often CAN'T see why it's offensive.

I'd LIKE to think I'm not racist, but I don't think it's possible to grow up white in this culture and not be affected by the hidden racism in it to some degree.

I say that as a white woman married to a brown man and mother of a brown child.

I struggle against the "hidden" racism, but I know I fail. And I do apologize.

[Karenina]

89. What you've said here

has opened the door of trust for me. Thank you Bal!

[kiahzero]

4. That has implications I don't think you'd accept

There are plenty of white people who have no "power to coercively control the lives and well-being of black folks" ... is their racism perfectly acceptable, then?

Racism is both subjugation and classification. To ignore one is to ignore part of the problem.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. It's an extreme form of semantics.

Of course what you're saying is true, but they'd define that as "bigotry", "prejudice", or something else. The point remains the same, however, that racism, bigotry, and prejudice are ALL unacceptable. I think those that wish to play this semantical game are either justifying ignorant attitudes by using alternative terms or are just ignorant themselves to the fact that they're undermining their own issue.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. While I agree with points 2 and 3, I don't agree in any way with #1

Believe it or not, there ARE very many black Americans with a significant amount of personal power, whether they are owners, employers, professors, lawyers, leasing agents, bankers, etc. Claiming otherwise is, in and of itself, a racist statement (the statement being that a black person cannot attain a status of power). So then, how can you possibly not claim it racist when a black owner/employer/professor/etc. denies opportunities, rights, or basic dignities to a white subordinate on the basis of race alone? Just because one has been oppressed, that does not give him/her the right to oppress in turn.

At best, claiming that "reverse racism" doesn't exist is a horrible practice in semantics. And perhaps the term is poorly chosen, but the spirit BEHIND the term is undeniable, and that concept is not in any way invalid because of a poor choice in terms.

At worst, it's justification of the same atrocious kind of behavior that should be eradicated in the first place.

[bryant69]

7. Basically if you are white and you don't hate yourself you haven't been paying attention

Simple as that.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Madspirit]

10. Self-Hate

Is not what this is about. It's about recognizing racism, internalized and institutionalized. Self-hate is non-productive. Owning our un-level playing field is not about self hate. It IS about moving forward. You can't change something if you won't even see it.
Lee

[bryant69]

11. I do see it and I do hate myself

Admittedly I have lots of reasons to hate myself beyond the color of my skin.

At any rate, if there's one thing both the arguments you've posted, as well as the comments by other DUers make clear, it's that you can't change it. I'm going to be the beneficiary of white privilege until I die.

Bryant

[Madspirit]

14. Bryant, Bryant, Bryant...

Do not hate yourself. You are a progressive. You are on the righteous side of the fight. Hating oneself just drags you down. Hate the "ism" not yourself.
Lee

[treestar]

8. I think women would understand that

Women of any race.

But the thing is, what do you want the white people to do about it? The average American of any race doesn't want to hear how evil they are just for existing. They want to know what they can do about it. Now we know not to say a black person is articulate. Is that going to help? What else?

There a black people in Congress and on the Supreme Court now. So it's hard for say a blue collar white person to hear about how he's oppressing blacks.

Ultimately it's all group judgment, and that never works. Once you attack a group for anything, its members howl. In fact, even complimenting a group gets its individual members angry.

[Madspirit]

16. Treestar

People can't change things until they acknowledge the problem.

...and yes, the ruling class does pit poor whites against blacks. It's the divide and conquer strategy. ...but still, blacks are on the very bottom.
Lee

[Madspirit]

9. Read bell hooks

If y'all haven't read any of bell's...(she doesn't capitalize the "b" or the "h")...you really should. She is incredible.
Lee

[blondeatlast]

12. Yes, indeed. Every woman should read her. nt

[Madspirit]

13. Yes!

She even has a book teaching others how to write. I have an almost crush on her...<g> I love women who are OUT THERE.
Lee

[blondeatlast]

15. She's often quite funny, too. A great boss I had turned me on to her. Love her. nt

[Karenina]

17. 2 questions from another "out there" woman

I posted these on your other thread and only got exploded brain matter stuck on my monitor...


1. Have black people as a "group" ever done anything historically to white people to warrant their contempt, ill-will or mistrust?

2. Have white people as a "group" ever done anything historically to black people to warrant their contempt, ill-will or mistrust?

[Madspirit]

18. The Answers

1.) No
2.) Oh yeah...big time.

Lee

[Karenina]

19. See how easy that was?

Thanx, Lee! ;-)

[Karenina]

23. I finally got a yes and yes on the other thread!

Getting past the denial is tough work. ;-)

[kiahzero]

50. Depends on how you define "group"

As the level of abstraction goes up (are we talking about in a town? a state? the nation? worldwide?) the answer leans more towards "no" in the first case and "yes" in the second.

[Karenina]

65. These days, it would behoove us all

to really take a close look at the BIG PICTURE. WHY are Americans killing and being killed by Iraqis? Start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x274052

When you get to the point of asking HOW this has been so easily accomplished, DO get back to me.

[Karenina]

84. I'm talking about the BIG PICTURE

and that those who are unable to suss it out in my two question will NEVER be able to see it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x274052

[Forkboy]

64. Does the Jackson Five count?

;)

[Karenina]

69. Michael was SUCH a cute kid!!!

WHA HOPPEN??? :wow:

[Forkboy]

71. He was told plastic surgery was as easy as 123.

Poor rube.

[Karenina]

82. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

:spray:

[happydreams]

20. What a crock of shit!

The prejudicial feelings some blacks may express about whites are in no way linked to a system of domination the affords us any power to coercively control the lives and well-being of white folks. That needs to be understood"

Tell that to the white truck driver who was murdered and the other one who got his head stove in during the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict. :eyes:

[Morgana LaFey]

21. No. That was an isolated incident, not a WHOLE FUCKING SYSTEM

of oppression. It was grotesque and horrible, but NOT a whole fucking system of oppression.

[kiahzero]

25. So racism is OK so long as it's isolated?

I fail to see how blacks murdering whites on the basis of their race is any less racist than whites murdering blacks on the basis of their race.

[Morgana LaFey]

62. It's certainly not okay, but it's not racism -- it's bigotry

You can keep INSISTING that anti-white bigotry is something other than what it is, but you can't MAKE it what you would like to insist it is, no matter how long you bleat about it. It's BIGOTRY, not racism. RACISM is a whole system of oppression affecting whole classes of people in a thousand ways, day in and day out. The unfortunate beating was NOT racism. It was an isolated incident of anti-white rage.

[kiahzero]

68. Semantic wordplay.

You agree that it was discrimination on the basis of race, yes?

[Morgana LaFey]

90. Yeah, but I'd not characterize it that way exactly

By which I mean that I'd not on my own describe it that way, under the circumstances of rioting, etc. The guy was attacked because he was white -- yes. In a very bad, highly charged environment of an inner city riot.

I guess I'm quibbling here because I'd use the word "discrimination" in the context of denying someone a JOB, but something a little different in the context of "I'm gonna kill you, you white mf-er." Ya know?

But yes, anti-white BIGOTRY = anti-white discrimination.

[kiahzero]

93. So it's racial bigotry, yes?

What does the language gain by use of such a fine distinction, and why is one presumed to be a racist for disagreeing with said distinction?

[Morgana LaFey]

102. Let me just share this with you

it's from the OP -- did you read the OP? Did it make any sense to you?


REVERSE RACISM?
"Why is it so difficult for many white folks to understand that racism is oppressive not because white folks have prejudicial feelings about blacks, but because it is a system that promotes domination and subjugation? The prejudicial feelings some blacks may express about whites are in no way linked to a system of domination the affords us any power to coercively control the lives and well-being of white folks. That needs to be understood" (bell hooks 1995: 154).

I really can't say it any better than that. Racism is a SYSTEM that promotes domination (of whites over blacks and other minorities) and subjugation (of those minorities). It's not just "prejudicial feelings" about blacks which might hurt their widdow feewings.

Yes, that beating was anti-white or racial bigotry. It was NOT racism since it was not part of a system of oppression by blacks against whites. There IS no possibility of whites being oppressed by blacks -- that's not even possible in South Africa where blacks severely outnumber whites, and that's because even tho apartheid has ended, whites still maintain most of the power.

[kiahzero]

103. Like I said... semantic wordplay.

What benefit does the nitpick between "racial bigotry" and "racism" provide to the language? Why cut so fine a distinction?

[Morgana LaFey]

114. Because it is of enormous value TO that society for it to be

forced to recognize, acknowledge and then try to FIX the fact that there are systems in place that end up keeping people from fulfilling their God-given talents and abilities, their hopes and dreams; systems that end up ending their lives prematurely and sometimes violently; systems that degrade and demean ALL of us, including the dominant culture.

All that should be patnetly self-evident to anyone who considers himself a progressive or liberal or Democrat or just plain ole left-leaning whatever.

[happydreams]

111. YOU said "whole" system. Bell said "a system". See my reply below.

[jonnyblitz]

24. THAT incident did not happen in a void either. bad example

for what you are trying to prove.

[Madspirit]

26. With all due respect

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. No one ever said black people don't ever commit any crimes and that was an isolated incident that happened BECAUSE of a horrible injustice against a black man.

We're talking about a BIG thing here. Institutional, societal, historical, etc. racism. Didja read any of the articles that came through about this? No? Surprise surprise?

Jeez....
Lee

[Madspirit]

27. I'll see your one and raise you 2,548

"According to the FBI report, "Hate Crime Statistics 2003," hate crimes against African Americans were nearly twice that of all other race groups combined. Overall, nearly 2,548 total hate crimes were motivated by anti-Black sentiments."


Before you holler..."link link". Go google yourself. "Hate Crime Statistics 2003 FBI".
Lee

[kiahzero]

28. With all due respect, you claimed that black-on-white racism doesn't exist.

That's just begging for someone to provide a counter-example.

[Madspirit]

29. It's not True Racism

It's a reaction to True Racism. If they hadn't given those idiot pig Pigs a free walk for beating Rodney King it wouldn't have happened.
With all due respect and all..
Lee

[kiahzero]

34. No True Scotsman fallacy.

Semantic wordplay only serves to weaken your argument.

[Karenina]

45. We need a more precise vocabulary.

Can you answer the questions in my post #17?

[MAGICBULLET]

72. I definitely can and it's simple

1) no

2) uhh yes, read certain books to find out.

I guess it's human nature for people to get defensive and be overwhelmed with guilt when they look at this -

<http://www.americanlynching.com/photos-old.htm>

[MAGICBULLET]

67. so basically you're saying

that it is the hate that hate made? I agree wholeheartedly and only parents can control how their children grow up respecting others and to not fear what's foreign to you.

[Big Pappa]

97. No if those

asshats had not assaulted those men it would not have happened. Are you trying to say that because of the verdict, these thugs were unable to control themselves. If that is true sir, then they are nothing but animals. You control your own behavior. No one had a Vulcan mind meld on these criminals.

[happydreams]

112. So am I now free to go attack those who killed the truckers?

"I wouldn't have if they hadn't killed those white truckers".

[sandnsea]

31. That didn't happen out of racism

It was a backlash against racism and oppression. Not the same thing at all and it makes me sick to my stomach when people want to rant about an isolated incident and ignore 400 years of history that led to the incident.

[kiahzero]

36. Wha?

That's a truly absurd argument... the whites in question were killed because of an accident of birth gave them the "wrong" skin color, in exactly the same sense as blacks being discriminated against because of an accident of birth giving them the "wrong" skin color.

Killing someone on the basis of being white is just as morally reprehensible as killing someone on the basis of being black. Both situations leave you with a dead victim and a live racist.

[sandnsea]

38. It was backlash

Not racism. When white people are having churches burned and men lynched and women raped - come talk to me.

That was violent backlash against racism - not racism in and of it self.

I suppose you think Indians killing white people was racism too. :eyes:

[kiahzero]

42. I think killing people because of the hue of their skin is racist.

An innocent man was murdered because of an accident of birth. How is that not bigotry? How is it not discrimination on the basis of race? Given those, how in any rational vocabulary is it not racism?

[sandnsea]

46. It's self-defense

If purple martians are killing me, that's who I'm going to attack back. Has nothing to do with whether I want to set up a system that subjects them and places me at the top of the pack. Whether I want to hunt them down for the mere reason that they're purple.

You are so accustomed to being at the top of the pack, that you don't understand that reality is different for everybody else. You deny being at the top of the pack because if you acknowledged it, you'd have to advocate for change and deep within you, you're scared of what you would lose.

I really do know you.

[slowry]

51. Air-tight.

Then, when you're done killing purple martians and their children, the surviving ones, who were caught in the crossfire, who sympathized with you, who harbored no ill will, have every right to gun you down. According to your logic at least.

This is simplistic thinking and will not solve anything, however just one side's rage might be, both historically and in the present day.

Here's the logical extension of your lunacy:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IN5StQAr7n0">http://youtube.com/watch?v=IN5StQAr7n0

[sandnsea]

53. Maybe you really can't read

I specifically said the difference between self-defense and racism is whether a system is created to hunt them down for the mere reason that they're purple. Did you miss that?

[kiahzero]

52. Bullshit.

You're advocating killing innocent people. Some "progressive."

[sandnsea]

54. Advocating??

Where did I advocate killing anybody?

I specifically said hunting people due to their skin color would be racism and wrong.

[kiahzero]

58. Do you agree with this statement?

"Killing someone on the basis of being white is just as morally reprehensible as killing someone on the basis of being black. Both situations leave you with a dead victim and a live racist."

[sandnsea]

60. No

I already explained it. You don't get it because you don't want to. You want to make excuses for white racists and shift blame when victims defend themselves.

[kiahzero]

66. How is that not racist?

You think murdering random white people is more moral than murdering random black people.

Let me make sure I've got the contours of this accurately mapped out:
* Blacks are more moral in holding racial animus towards whites than the other way around.
* Murders based on racial animus should be judged morally based on the morality of the motivating animus
* Therefore, blacks randomly murdering whites are more moral than whites randomly murdering blacks.

Is that accurate? If not, where did I err?

[sandnsea]

70. More moral?

Who said that?

I said it's not racist. RACISM. "Black Rage" is not based on racism. It's based on getting sick and fucking tired of white men saying stupid ass shit like "nappy headed hos" and other white men defending them.

One can be brought to a murderous rage living with bigotry - but not be racist against white people at all.

It's not the same thing. That's the point.

[kiahzero]

80. So, they're morally equivalent?

You said: "Killing someone on the basis of being white is just as morally reprehensible as killing someone on the basis of being black. Both situations leave you with a dead victim and a live racist" was not true. Let me reduce it a little bit.

"Killing someone on the basis of being white is just as morally reprehensible as killing someone on the basis of being black."

Is that statement true?

[sandnsea]

83. Fact not in evidence

Murders between the races are not necessarily due to racism. Consequently, there's no fact in your statement with which to come to a moral conclusion. In the examples given, the white people were not killed due to racism.

Murder is always immoral, that goes without saying.

[kiahzero]

86. You're not answering the question that was asked

"Killing someone on the basis of being white is just as morally reprehensible as killing someone on the basis of being black."

Nowhere in that sentence did I refer to racism, to avoid precisely the semantic nitpick you're making.

Two hypotheticals:
1) A black person sees a white person, and decides to kill him because he is white.
2) A white person sees a black person, and decides to kill him because he is black.

Is one more or less moral than the other, or are they equivalent?

[sandnsea]

92. That's not the debate

The debate is whether every murder committed by whatever race, in the heat of a racial incident, is necessarily racism. It's not.

Nice try changing the subject thought.

[kiahzero]

94. How is it changing the subject?

The issue is murders based on race. Are you saying that a murder is more justifiable if you're really pissed off at a group? Were Arabs and Muslims who were murdered in the days after September 11th not victims of racism and religious bigotry? If not, what's the relevant difference?

[sandnsea]

95. No it isn't

It's racism. Which you choose to ignore.

No, we are not talking about 9/11 either.

Blowing your top over institutionalized racism does not automatically make one a racist. It is possible for some scared little old lady to freak out and kill a Muslim out of fear, even never having had a racist bone in her body her entire life.

[kiahzero]

96. Wow.

Just... wow.

I would never expect someone at a liberal / progressive website to justify the racist killings that happened after September 11th. I'm surprised that you're withholding judgment here, after calling me a racist for thinking that classification racism is a bad thing, but that surprise pales in comparison to the astonishment that you could actually defend a murderer who killed on the basis of their victim's dark skin.

[sandnsea]

98. I didn't justify anything

I said I could think of circumstances where racism wouldn't enter the equation at all. It's called reasonable doubt.

If you really are in law school, you need to seriously hone your critical thinking skills. In a word, they currently SUCK.

[kiahzero]

99. Yes, yes, I suck.

I'm not capable enough to understand how murdering someone because they share the same skin color as someone you dislike isn't racist. I'll never pass the bar.

:rofl:

[sandnsea]

100. Killing someone you dislike is racism?

Just because they have a different skin color than yours? Is that what you're saying? Every time there is dislike and skin color - you've got instant racism. Is that it?

YOU don't suck, your critical thinking skills suck. Don't you remember your mommy explaining that you weren't bad, you just did a bad thing. Geesh.

[kiahzero]

101. So... theoretically

Michael Richards might not actually be a racist... he just overreacted to his hecklers, right?

Yes, I do think that whenever someone murders someone on the basis of their skin color, it is by definition discrimination on the basis of race, and therefore racism.

[sandnsea]

104. "n*****" is a racist word

murder isn't a racist act.

Racism is an institution of hate, opression, marginalization, degradation. Murder that comes from that place is a racist act.

A black guy killed my sister and I thought I was retaliating against that specific black guy - has to do with color but may or my not be racism.

If Imus had said 'nappy headed ho' and had never said another degrading or demeaning thing in his entire life, I might reasonably think he thought he was repeating conventional slang. Michael Richards has apologized and not offered any rationalization, so I'll let him speak for himself.

[kiahzero]

105. Killing someone for killing your sister isn't "on the basis of race."

In your hypothetical, it wasn't the guy's skin color that led to you murdering him.

[sandnsea]

106. Yeah it was

Identify a black man and kill him. Just like people identified Arabs after 9/11 and killed them. We can't leap to any conclusion on racism without the facts of each specific case. Maybe the guy paying back the sister's death wouldn't have done that if it were a white murderer. Maybe it's pure revenge, maybe it's a little racism, maybe it's all racism disguised as revenge. Kind of like some of those murders after Katrina, you could just tell some of those white guys were dying to kill them a "n*****". Some were just protecting their property, even some of the racists.

You just can't look at color, and think you've got all the motivations behind a specific act.

[kiahzero]

108. I feel like I've gone down the rabbit hole.

After accusing me of racism, you're now arguing that hate crimes aren't racist.

:crazy:

[sandnsea]

109. Back at the beginning

I never said hate crimes aren't racist. Time after time after time, you take the various situations behind a crime - and attempt a blanked statement that I'm justifying racist and now hate crimes. It's just not true.

You won't answer any of my questions. Were Native Americans guilty of hate crimes in the 1800's?? Was a slave who killed his master necessarily a racist? Does someone who kills someone in the midst of a race riot necessarily a racist?? Can one not be mad in the moment, but not hold the specific belief that people of a different color need to be degraded, segregated, beaten or exterminated?

[sandnsea]

30. *sigh*

Let's say there was a town where every single man beat their wife. Every single one.

A handful of women band together and decide to fight back. They have a meeting in secret. They hint around to their husbands. They try to go to a city government meeting. They are beaten at every turn. They keep fighting, get more vocal, more women join them. Finally there's a violent clash. A man ends up dead.

And you want to blame the women???

[Madspirit]

32. I like your example!... n/t

[slowry]

33. Super amazing example.

Except not everyone is racist and you're apologizing for certain forms of bigotry based on race. The lesser of two evils is still evil. This massive problem isn't going to be solved by your guys' hateful BS.

[sandnsea]

35. Excuse me?

What bigotry am I apologizing for?

The example is in the extreme to illustrate where various minority groups are coming from, African Americans having it the worst due to slavery and Jim Crow.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slowry]

44. Crack a book?

That's rich. I've read the articles you've posted and there isn't much in them I find disagreeable. You, however, take it one or two steps further with your commentary, as this comment of yours illustrates. You're hateful.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

37. Your analogy isn't apt.

Is there any evidence that the man in the original example was attacking blacks, or did his murderers simply judge him as guilty on account of his race?

[sandnsea]

40. heh

I know you. Never notice anything that goes on until it happens to a white man. Funny how these Imus type incidents always draw white men back into their clannish group to protect their position at the top of the heap.

[kiahzero]

43. Please.

You don't know me at all.

Ad hominem attacks just show that you have run out of logical support for your position.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

55. That's rich.

If you knew me, you'd know that I'm studying employment discrimination in law school to fight racism. If you knew me, you'd know that I don't think Brown went far enough in eliminating racism, by focusing only on de jure segregation rather than de facto, and not reaching economic harms, or that I find Washington v. Davis to be wrongly decided because it allows the government to have policies with disparate impact on the basis of race, so long as they're "facially neutral."

On the mere fact that I think fighting classification racism is important (in addition to fighting subjugation racism), my actual views on race disappear and I become a "white racist in denial."

:crazy:

[verse18]

56. And I bet you have Black friends, too.

[kiahzero]

57. That's right, I'd forgotten.

One isn't allowed to say anything to defend one's self from the charge that one is a racist. Doing so merely indicates that one is a racist and in denial about it.

A: "You're an alcoholic!"
B: "But... I never drink."
A: "See... you're in denial about it."

Unfalsifiable theories are fun, aren't they?

[verse18]

59. Exactly.

As a Black person reading through your post it's clear to see that your a LEAST a racist apologist, which is just as bad as being a racist yourself.

[kiahzero]

63. Let's try and use reason.

Is "separate but equal" acceptable? If you have solely an anti-subjugation view, like is being espoused in this thread, you have to say yes; if there's no subjugation, there's no problem. In order to reach the result that "separate but equal" is inherently problematic, one must accept an anti-classification view as well.

My view is that both aspects of racism (subjugation and classification) need to be fought, because both are problematic. I fail to see how fighting racism on a more comprehensive makes me a racist... would you care to explain?

[verse18]

76. I never called you a racist..

And I agree with you, I'm all for fighting racism comprehensively. However, as a Black person reading your post the perception I get of you is as a racist apologist. It's like you don't get IT, and you don't care to. You just refer to your actions as if that is enough. Your intentions might be one thing, but it is the perception is what matters.

[kiahzero]

79. Do you have suggestions on how to better discuss the issue, then?

I'm more than willing to change my language to better express the ideas behind the language. However, it seems that some feel there is no way to rationally discuss the ideas the OP presented without being a racist; if you disagree, then you must necessarily be doing so out of racial animus.

On the issue of the charge of racism, allow me to illustrate my thinking. When my parents would get into a heated discussion, my mother would occasionally tell my father, "Stop being so defensive." His general reaction would be to say, "I'm not being defensive!" She would just look at him and say, "See, see, you're doing it right now."

My point in bringing this up is: I don't see how one can acceptably defend oneself from the claim that one is a racist? Generally, actions impute intent. For instance, we presume that someone that gives to charity is generous. If one is attacked as being miserly, that person could point to their charitable giving and say, "I'm not miserly... look at my charity." However, in the specific case of being attacked as being racist, doing so apparently seals the fate of the accused.

Getting past that, is there any way to discuss this without the perception of racism? Did my post in #4 read as racist apologia, or was it just once I came into this subthread?

[sandnsea]

61. I don't believe you

And if it's true, find a new field. You'll do more harm than good because you clearly do not get it.

[Karenina]

73. With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

:silly:

[kiahzero]

77. What a surprise, more personal attacks.

Now I'm not only a racist, I'm a lying / incompetent racist. Yay.

[sandnsea]

78. I'm not free to discern

fact from fiction??

Your comments sit on their own. You made them. People can decide for themselves whether they're racist or not.

I didn't call you a liar. I said I don't believe you. I'm still allowed to decide fact from fiction, for myself, correct?

[kiahzero]

81. Wheee.. more splitting hairs in definitions.

"I didn't say you're a liar, I just said that I think you're lying."

If you don't believe that I'm telling the truth, that necessarily means you believe that I'm telling non-truth. Presumably, you also believe that I'm not insane and think that I'm in law school when I'm not, so that rules out unintentional deception. That only leaves intentional deception - lying.

[sandnsea]

85. Oh, I said what *I* believe

I can't call you a liar because I don't have all the facts. Based on the facts I do have, I can say I don't believe you. Big difference.

[kiahzero]

87. If you believe I'm not telling the truth, you necessarily believe I'm lying.

Is there some alternative I've neglected?

[Karenina]

88. A look inside to ask if there's just maybe

somrthing you're not getting? :shrug:

[sandnsea]

91. I'm wrong

As a parent, I have learned to always allow that possibility. My beliefs aren't necessarily facts.

[happydreams]

113. If they killed the guy, yes I blame the women. It is a tough situation

but inevitably, if you follow your reasoning, things quickly revert to the law of the jungle.

There is a process, a legal process, that must be followed. In the hypothetical case you cite these women took no other action except brute force.

[happydreams]

110. I was unable to get back for a couple of days.

Black people, on occasion, do "systematically" in thought and deed take violent action against whites. In this case these people coordinated their efforts to commit these crimes as has happened in other cases.

Bell is a charlatan IMHO.

[Morgana LaFey]

22. Keep 'em comin', MadSpirit

I'm lovin' yours (spirit)!!

You go, girl!!

[Bluerthanblue]

107. I agree!! eom

[genie_weenie]

41. I still don't understand, what is a white person?

Is it based on how others perceive you? Does one have to be pale enough to pass muster? Does genetics play any role?

[Madspirit]

49. I never even understand your questions....n/t

[Karenina]

75. YES. YES. QUESTIONABLE...

[Forkboy]

74. Troublemaker

:spank:

:)