Racism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

Obviously lost the argument.




You really should stop believing popular misconceptions and get to grips with the facts. Hitler came to power when emergency powers, known as an enabling act, giving virtual dictatorial powers to the Chancellor, had already been enacted under former Chancellor General Schleicher. He couldn't deal with the communists until after he had been elected. There is some doubt about the "big lie" theory as to whether it was uttered by Hitler or Goebels but, like so much attributed to those times, it may be apochryphal.
Whether you, or anybody else, like it, he came to power legally due to the extreme conditions of the early 1930s.

---

Funny that, the popular misconceptions I seem to have come from my eminently qualified lecturers and text books on the subject. I'm sure they don't deal in facts, but must bow to your superior knowledge. Hitler was dealing with any opposition to him even before he was "elected". His method was to wipe out any opposition, by having his bully boys, the SA, "help" any of the public who didn't go along with him, by persuading them otherwise. It's easy to get elected when you've used strongarm tactics on a massive scale to help ease your way. As for the quote, well, of course if it wasn't Hitler but Goebbels, well that makes everything alright then doesn't it, citing it to one evil psychopath instead of another?

Quote:

---

He couldn't deal with the communists until after he had been elected

---

Of course Hitler (I guess you mean pars pro toto the nazis) dealt with communists before he was elected. Street disorders between SA and NSDAP members and communists/socialdemocrats, among them the paramilitary communist Rotfrontkaempferbund, were quite normal from the late 1920s on.

But I suppose my opinion is completely superfluous here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

The argument was about the extent to which the principle of free speech ought to be mitigated by circumstances - which began with your absurd assertion that no one should try to persuade anyone of anything. That argument seems still to be going on.

The argument about Hitler coming to power is a side issue, and what was silly was your suggestion that you have some kind of insight because you knew a German bloke once who thought something. If that were any way to run an argument, I'd simply cite my time in Germany and I'd quote another couple of Germans who think something else. And where would that get us?

---

There is nothing silly about a statement of fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

Of course Hitler (I guess you mean pars pro toto the nazis) dealt with communists before he was elected. Street disorders between SA and NSDAP members and communists/socialdemocrats, among them the paramilitary communist Rotfrontkaempferbund, were quite normal from the late 1920s on.

But I suppose my opinion is completely superfluous here.

---

You have explained the situation admirably and saved me the trouble of answering for myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

Of course Hitler (I guess you mean pars pro toto the nazis) dealt with communists before he was elected. Street disorders between SA and NSDAP members and communists/socialdemocrats, among them the paramilitary communist Rotfrontkaempferbund, were quite normal from the late 1920s on.

But I suppose my opinion is completely superfluous here.

---

No, your opinion is not superfluous amarna, and I agree with you. The Munich Putsch was in 1923, when Hitler and his thugs attempted a coup with intimidation. Just one example of his dealing with opponents long before his "legitimate" election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

There is nothing silly about a statement of fact.

---

If it were a statement of fact, I think you'd have a better support for it than some bloke you knew once. Actually, it's an interpretation of events - and many others are possible.

Your notion of what constitutes a 'fact' is telling though. I quote established figures figures from the Office of National Statistics which contradict your argument, and you dismiss them with a cliche, saying you prefer to rely on the evidence of your own eyes. So - statistics aren't facts. However, an interpretation of history expressed by a German you worked for once - that apparently is a fact. Though it's not, actually, the evidence of your own eyes.

Joined-up debate is not your long suit, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

After a dispute with the staff at my usual pub, I have recently been drinking at various other venues...

---

Then again, this is becoming more and more self-explanatory...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

The Munich Putsch was in 1923, when Hitler and his thugs attempted a coup with intimidation. Just one example of his dealing with opponents long before his "legitimate" election.

---

Prior to the Munich putsch. the communists, led by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, had attempted to overthrow the Weimar republic by their putsch of 1918 which resulted in over 1000 people being killed. In 1920 Wolfgang Kapp, a right-wing journalist, attempted to do likewise using elements of the Freikorps. So, clearly, it wasn't only Hitler who was using bully boy tactics to gain power. Factions from all the political parties were engaged in street fighting throughout the 1920s and it ended when Hitler came to power and was able to use exisiting emergeny powers legislation to ban the communist and other parties.

As to the racism of the german nazis, it was a derivate from French and British racial theories of the 19th century, "Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines" by Arthur de Gobineau for instance, which assumed an inferiority of africans and asians and served as a legitimation for colonial ambitions of the "whites". German nazi ideologists (actually the racial theory of the German nazis was invented by a British citizen, Houston Stewart Chamberlain) expanded the existing racial theories by the idea that the hegemony of the "white race" should exclude jews and slavs. Ideologically this was fitting much better now for the colonisation of eastern europe the nazi gouvernment planned. (Germany had lost all its overseas colonies in 1918 and was looking for new ones) Nazi Germany wasn't a closed system, as it is considered today, it was ideologically and politically cross-linked to its european neighbours in many and complex ways.

Quote:

---

So, clearly, it wasn't only Hitler who was using bully boy tactics to gain power.

---

True. Hitlers personal influence on history is absolutely overrated.

Oh dear, do we really have to stray into Nazi Germany to talk about racism? The fact that Rosa Parks incurred 'civil disobedience' when in 1955 she refused to give up her seat for a white person is, for me, unbelievable. Or that South Africa had apartheid until 1994. Or have you guys been over these already? I've only read the last 4 pages of this thread.

(on Hitler: I agree that he's incredibly overrated. Basically what happened was that he managed to combine evil intentions with powerful means. I'm sure there are people living today who would have done far worse had they had all the power Hitler had.)

So.
Like it has been mentioned, we should neither say 'what the hell, we're all racists and there will always be racism, so why bother', nor 'we are all the same', but 'we are different, and we ought to not only tolerate but accept and celebrate difference'. This was I believe MarkB's point in page 7 and I fully agree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

as to the racism of the german nazis, it was a derivate from french and british racial theories of the 19th century (by arthur de gobineau for instance), which assumed an inferiority of africans and asians and served as a legitimation for colonial ambitions of the "whites". German nazi ideologists (actually the racial theory of the german nazis was invented by a british citizen, houston stewart chamberlain) expanded the existing racial theories by the idea that the hegemony of the "white race" should exclude jews and slavs, which ideologically fitted better for the colonisation of eastern europe the nazi gouvernment planned, sinde germany had lost all its overseas colonies in 1918 and was looking for new ones now. nazi germany wasn't a closed system, as it is considered today, it was ideologically and politically cross-linked to its european neighbours in many and complex ways.



True. Hitlers personal influence on history is absolutely overrated.

---

I don't understand your last statement. While everyone knows that racial and anti-semitic views weren't only the province of Hitler, but stemmed back over hundreds of years throughout Europe, no-one else acted on them with such catastrophic consequences as he did. A Second World War which led to the deaths of millions of people, and involving many countries is hardly something which leads us to think his influence was overrated. The systematic destruction of the Jews, the Final Solution, which he propounded with his henchmen, cannot seriously be considered as something which was not important, as your last sentence seems to suggest.

Oh, welcome back, Mr. Endon. :)
Sure we don't have to stray into Nazi Germany to talk about racism, but it may be useful for you'll find racism there in one of its purest and unconcealed forms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

If it were a statement of fact, I think you'd have a better support for it than some bloke you knew once. Actually, it's an interpretation of events - and many others are possible.

Your notion of what constitutes a 'fact' is telling though. I quote established figures figures from the Office of National Statistics which contradict your argument, and you dismiss them with a cliche, saying you prefer to rely on the evidence of your own eyes. So - statistics aren't facts. However, an interpretation of history expressed by a German you worked for once - that apparently is a fact. Though it's not, actually, the evidence of your own eyes.

Joined-up debate is not your long suit, is it?






Now that really is silly.

Statistics can be, and often are, used as a means of falsifying what is the true state of affairs. For confirmation I suggest you try Wickepedia under 'False Statistics' where you will find many examples.
Now coming to the my German employer, he fought in the German army during WW11 having been brought up as a child in the great depression of the 1920s, so I would rather trust his "interpretation of history" than that of someone who probably wasn't even born during that time.
Furthermore, an extensive reading of German history corroborates what he said. So if you were to rely more on facts rather than statistics, perhaps you would have a better understanding of the argument




Then again, this is becoming more and more self-explanatory...

---

A good example of making a false deduction on the basis of limited knowledge.

I had been using that particular establishment regularly for 15 years before
the dispute that I have mentioned and had, up until that point, never had cause to complain during the whole of that time. Moreover, since you don't know the cause of the dispute you are hardly in a position to draw any valid conclusions from it.

Then again, drawing invalid conclusions would appear to be your forte.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

Oh, welcome back, Mr. Endon. :)
Sure we don't have to stray into Nazi Germany to talk about racism, but it may be useful for you'll find racism there in one of its purest and unconcealed forms.

---

Before we get too far down this road, we should decide which invocation of Hitler we're using.

Is it Hitler, the individual ("...Hitler had a silly moustache...") or Hitler the personification of a certain kind of conduct ("...Hitler killed six million Jews...")?

If we don't all go for the same usage, we're going to get into pointless crossfire. ("Hitler marched on Moscow." "No he didn't. He was on holiday at the time.")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

A good example of making a false deduction on the basis of limited knowledge.

I had been using that particular establishment regularly for 15 years before
the dispute that I have mentioned and had, up until that point, never had cause to complain during the whole of that time. Moreover, since you don't know the cause of the dispute you are hardly in a position to draw any valid conclusions from it.

Then again, drawing invalid conclusions would appear to be your forte.

---

Like you I rely on years of experience to reach my conclusions. And I'm pretty sure about that one.

Would you like to address the main part of my post now?

Oh, sorry - you did. But you included it in the quoted passage.

Of course statistics can be used to support a fallacious argument. But they are not necessarily used that way, any more than the witness to a course of events is necessarily the most reliable source of an interpretation of those events.

The question is not whether my fact is more factual than your fact. It's more that you don't seem able to tell the difference between what you believe and what is a fact. That's a very dangerous place from which to argue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

I don't understand your last statement. ...

---

It was not Hitler as a single person who did all these things, it were the nazis. He was replacable by any other of his kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

Oh, welcome back, Mr. Endon. :)

---

Thanks, amarna! Now I might come here once a day again, so I look forward to agreeing with you again soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

Sure we don't have to stray into Nazi Germany to talk about racism, but it may be useful for you'll find racism there in one of its purest and unconcealed forms.

---

Absolutely, I just think that more recent displays of unashamed racism are just as fruitful for discussion and had not, to my knowledge, been mentioned.

As for the Gates case, which has been mentioned here, I can see now, well, that doesn't count. It's just too ridiculous for words to express. Nothing really happened, it was just a chain reaction of snappy reactions to inane actions. The policeman acted according to what eye-witness accounts, Gates was hot-headed, the policeman also lost it, Obama made an incredibly naïve comment, and the infamous American 24hmedia preyed on it for lack of something more substantial from his hour-long speech on universal health care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Before we get too far down this road, we should decide which invocation of Hitler we're using.

Is it Hitler, the individual ("...Hitler had a silly moustache...") or Hitler the personification of a certain kind of conduct ("...Hitler killed six million Jews...")?

If we don't all go for the same usage, we're going to get into pointless crossfire. ("Hitler marched on Moscow." "No he didn't. He was on holiday at the time.")

---

Nice idea. You forgot about Hitler, the popcultural jerk-off assistance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

It was not Hitler as a single person who did all these things, it were the nazis. He was replacable by any other of his kind.

---

I'm not so sure about the second of those assertions. I think that most broad sociopolitical movements require not only the right circumstances to give force to the thing, but also a figure who can focus and represent that imperative. So - for instance - in order to happen at that time, the civil rights movement needed Martin Luther King. Without Gandhi, political change in the sub-continent would not have taken place when it did. Had Pol Pot died in childhood, things would have been very different around his neighbourhood.

There's no way of telling for sure about this of course - but I do believe that the history of Germany would have been different (though not necessarily less fraught) without Hitler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Like you I rely on years of experience to reach my conclusions. And I'm pretty sure about that one..

---

So, with no knowledge whatsoever of the circumstances surrounding the event, you are "pretty sure about that one."
Which pretty much negates your line of reasoning altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

So, with no knowledge whatsoever of the circumstances surrounding the event, you are "pretty sure about that one."
Which pretty much negates your line of reasoning altogether.

---

Call it an uncanny sixth sense informed by a shrewd idea of how you might interact with a bartender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Call it an uncanny sixth sense informed by a shrewd idea of how you might interact with a bartender.

---

So suddenly the facts can be dispensed with and replaced by something as nebulous as your sixth sense. I wonder how much of it has informed your participation in this thread so far.

Can we please refrain from discussing each other and discuss the topic at hand, ie Racism. Everyone is intitled to their own opinion on the matter and if their beliefs clash with yours, that does not make them anymore unworthy.
Thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrEndon

so I look forward to agreeing with you

---

You made my day. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I'm not so sure about the second of those assertions. I think that most broad sociopolitical movements require not only the right circumstances to give force to the thing, but also a figure who can focus and represent that imperative. So - for instance - in order to happen at that time, the civil rights movement needed Martin Luther King. Without Gandhi, political change in the sub-continent would not have taken place when it did. Had Pol Pot died in childhood, things would have been very different around his neighbourhood.

There's no way of telling for sure about this of course - but I do believe that the history of Germany would have been different (though not necessarily less fraught) without Hitler.

---

Yes, with my second assertion I was skating on pretty thin ice. What-if-speculations on historical events are always arguable for nobody can verify them empirically. I assume that there is a complex interdependency between social structures and individual actions, but that it is depending on the parameters of the specific environment (institutions, political constellation, mental atmosphere, economic and financial lobbyism and so on), what kind of individual will be able to climb the ladder of political success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

So suddenly the facts can be dispensed with and replaced by something as nebulous as your sixth sense. I wonder how much of it has informed your participation in this thread so far.

---

Not at all. My uncanny sixth sense is very specific. And also infallible. I rely on the evidence of my sixth sense, just as you, apparently, rely on the evidence of your first sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Not at all. My uncanny sixth sense is very specific. And also infallible. I rely on the evidence of my sixth sense, just as you, apparently, rely on the evidence of your first sense.

---

My dictionary gives the words "sixth sense" as the power of intuition.
Here's the same dictionary's definition of intuition: immediate perception by the mind without reasoning.

I had all these good intentions about staying out of this but what can you do .
1) Did we really need to stumble into the realms of Godwin's Law? Well since we have I am evoking it.
2)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

If he holds prejudiced views he holds them for asians, Indians, muslims, and jews and others. But it's only blacks that have this cultural dysfuntionality. .

---

Umm yeah not 100% sure if this is what you were getting at, but Virgil if you are saying what it appears to me you are saying, that is that only Black people feel oppressed and that they are the only ones who feel the 'yoke of racism' and that in point of fact that it is no more than a construct in their minds that they are using as a convenient excuse. I am going to have to disagree with you there. I think that alot of different races ARE conscious of it, but it goes deeper. If you want to look at subcultures you really need to think why these subcultures are shaped the way they are and have the attitudes to themselves and others as they do.

The black communities were historically seen as the lowest of the low, even in their own countries. Where as the muslim countries, India, and the orient all had a position in the olden days, and a measure of respect for the power they wielded. es not forget that alot of things that modern 'western' culture is based on came from these countries. So they were seen as more intelligent races than blacks, though they were frequently seen as morally weaker than ' The Great White Christian'. And though we may not like to think it alot of these outdated and indeed deliberately spurned ideas and ideals have left traces in teh way our modern day society is constructed and thinks.

Racism does cause poverty, simply because if people think you are more likely to steal from them, slack off or be lazy - or cheat, steal or lie to them, they are NOT going to give you a job where you can earn enough to drag yourself out of poverty. And poverty begets poverty. And if you want to know the true curse of racism that is it. Because even though supposedly we live in a 'multicultural society' it wasnt that long ago that racism was officially institutionalized and the people who were victims of that had children in poverty, who couldn't leave the poverty they were trapped in because of a lack of opportunities (partially because they dont have the qualifications or the opportunities of people who went the better more expensive schools ) and they in turn get minimum wage jobs and cycle continues. That is not to say that there are not people who got out of the cycle of course there are, but they do not stand as examples of the norm rather they are the amazing achievements. Not that many people of any race have the determination,
willpower and plain good luck to 'change their destinies' as it were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Before people rush to judgement I believe the news mis-reported this story initially. He was not arrested for breaking into his own home. He was arrested for disorderly conducted - he was verbally berating the police when then simply asked for identification. The police had twice asked him to stop with the insults and just show identification, and he just carried on. And while the main cop at the scene was white, along side him were a hispanic officer and a black officer. All the cops have denounced Gates' conduct. This is not a case of racial profiling, but of a disorderly person that refuse to cooperate.

---

I agree with you on this. Its typical media to portray it as an act of racial profiling.

Sadly enough these days some people use the race-card to much. It starts to be like that boy who cried "Wolf, wolf".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I had all these good intentions about staying out of this but what can you do .
1) Did we really need to stumble into the realms of Godwin's Law? Well since we have I am evoking it.
2)



Umm yeah not 100% sure if this is what you were getting at, but Virgil if you are saying what it appears to me you are saying, that is that only Black people feel oppressed and that they are the only ones who feel the 'yoke of racism' and that in point of fact that it is no more than a construct in their minds that they are using as a convenient excuse. I am going to have to disagree with you there. I think that alot of different races ARE conscious of it, but it goes deeper. If you want to look at subcultures you really need to think why these subcultures are shaped the way they are and have the attitudes to themselves and others as they do.

The black communities were historically seen as the lowest of the low, even in their own countries. Where as the muslim countries, India, and the orient all had a position in the olden days, and a measure of respect for the power they wielded. es not forget that alot of things that modern 'western' culture is based on came from these countries. So they were seen as more intelligent races than blacks, though they were frequently seen as morally weaker than ' The Great White Christian'. And though we may not like to think it alot of these outdated and indeed deliberately spurned ideas and ideals have left traces in teh way our modern day society is constructed and thinks.

Racism does cause poverty, simply because if people think you are more likely to steal from them, slack off or be lazy - or cheat, steal or lie to them, they are NOT going to give you a job where you can earn enough to drag yourself out of poverty. And poverty begets poverty. And if you want to know the true curse of racism that is it. Because even though supposedly we live in a 'multicultural society' it wasnt that long ago that racism was officially institutionalized and the people who were victims of that had children in poverty, who couldn't leave the poverty they were trapped in because of a lack of opportunities (partially because they dont have the qualifications or the opportunities of people who went the better more expensive schools ) and they in turn get minimum wage jobs and cycle continues. That is not to say that there are not people who got out of the cycle of course there are, but they do not stand as examples of the norm rather they are the amazing achievements. Not that many people of any race have the determination,
willpower and plain good luck to 'change their destinies' as it were.

---

Holding views and institutionalized racism are two different things. Everyone holds views on everything, on whether you have tattoos or wear jeans with holes in it. That is relatively meaningless in the the nature of hiring and promotion. You don't live in the US, so I don't know how to persuade you. All one has to do is look at how successful all other ethnic groups, even those that people are prejudiced towards, in the US are in comparison to African Americans, and that goes for the blacks that come from the carribean and Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saladin

I agree with you on this. Its typical media to portray it as an act of racial profiling.

Sadly enough these days some people use the race-card to much. It starts to be like that boy who cried "Wolf, wolf".

---

Thank you Saladin. The race card is repeatedly played in the US and the reason for that is there is political power that is gained. Race hucksters such as Jesse Jackson, get revered as some sort of leader and through playing on white guilt get all sorts of financial and political gains. The sociologist that has been extra ordinary in documenting this and pointing it out is Shelby Steele. Here is one of his articles: http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/156.html. I highly recommend looking him up and reading him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Oh how did I miss this. Obviously you're in a mentality that rationalizes outcomes. You seem to hold the outdated notion that has this equation: Racism causes poverty which leads to sub cultural dysfunctions. Baloney. Sub cultural dysfunctions cause poverty. The average white person doesn't give a damn about keeping blacks down. If he holds prejudiced views he holds them for asians, Indians, muslims, and jews and others. But it's only blacks that have this cultural dysfuntionality. Just look at the number of black men who have spent time in jail. I think it's something like one in three have commited some sort of crime that sent them to jail. Between unmarried mothers, drug use, crime, high school drop out rates, you couldn't devise a more dysfunctional set of variables to cause poverty.

---

It's not obvious at all what my viewpoints are from the post, actually. If you read the quote in context that you’re responding to, I was merely pointing out the contradictions of YOUR assertions. I said nothing about my views concerning the relationship between poverty and race. You’re the one that implied in the last forty years racism hasn’t prevented African Americans from prospering back in post # 49:

“Their claim that racism has held them back, while once true, just doesn't square with the facts of the last forty years.”

While simultaneously arguing that they are plagued by issues of poverty and education, despite all this so-called evidence that nothing is holding them back:

“I believe the race consciousness will end when African-Americans break out of the problems that have plagued them and do not have the high crime rates, go on to high college graduation rates, and are prosperous.”


In other words, I never said anything about my own viewpoint. I simply noted that there is something contradictory in implying that the last forty years have shown racism hasn't held African Americans back, but then also claiming huge issues of poverty plague African American communities.

Quote:

---

Compare the results of blacks from carribean and african countries? They don't have anywhere near this generational poverty. Once they out grow their immigration growing pains, they do quite well. There is a sub cultural problem with american blacks.

---

It’s your responsibility to provide actual references/statistics with citations. Burden of proof is on you.

Quote:

---

Show me. Show me.

---

I did show you. I provided two links highlighting examples of institutional racism (one in a country club, the other in the publishing industry) that also serve as evidence supporting the existence of institutional racism. Ironically and unsurprisingly you failed to place them in your quoted material from my post, which makes me think you're being a tad disingenuous.

Mortalterror is the only one so far who made any attempt to rebut either example, and was only able to partially rebut the country club example. Nevertheless, denoting the fact that some poor white kids were also included in the exclusion doesn’t exactly disprove there were racist motives; it could’ve been both a class and racial issue. Then it becomes an issue of common sense; I would think it’s a lot easier for the rich white members that jumped out of the pool to notice a bunch of black kids entering rather than looking at bathing suits and saying, “Wait, those aren’t Armani!”

[QUOTE]I can point out all the Equal Opportunity laws, the EEO's in every company that ensures blacks get equal consideration for promotions and hiring, all the law suits that have gone on in the past forty years to ensure this is enforced, the afirmative action that goes on in hiring and college entrences. Today we have a black president, the biggest media star is Opra (and media is a genre that requires visual idnetification), the biggest musical star is Michael Jackson, and there are black CEO at a number of companies. That's on my side of the ledger, what's on yours?[/QUOTE[

Well, for starters the incidents that I linked to that you disingenuously failed to quote are on my "side." Secondly, you’re naming a few select individuals, which at best proves only that a few select individuals have managed to transcend the limitations of racism. Not to mention all these individuals have claimed to experience racism at one point or another in their life (rightly or wrongly), and would agree that institutional racism exists (such as racial profiling), despite their own success (see Obama's comments in the Gates case).

However, I don’t see race and poverty as necessarily the same thing; ironically, contradicting your strawman claim that I held such a view. The African American Middle-class experiences institutional racism, which has nothing to do with poverty. Likewise, just because institutional racism exists doesn't mean blacks and other racial groups aren't at all responsible for some of their own issues.

Oh sure, there are laws addressing these problems. Sometimes they work when they are enforced. Sometimes they don’t; when they are not enforced. And it is always difficult to enforce laws legislating racism, hate-crimes, discrimination, etc. because it's difficult to fully get into a person's head and truly know what caused them to perform a specific action. They were instituted because we have a race-problem, which is inherent in the fact that such laws are needed in the first place. This tells us nothing about whether these laws have successfully ramified racial discrimination one way or the other; it tells us only that attempts have been made to fix the problem.

However, fixing one problem doesn’t fix all the problems. If a person were to announce, “It is wrong to stereotype Jews as cheap money-horders, but I understand why some people can’t stand looking at them since most of them are really ugly.” It is perfectly possible and reasonable to denounce one stereotype, while reifying another. Secondly, the example is more personal racism than institutional. You acknowledge that personal racism exists, so why is it so hard to believe that some institutional racism still lingers in our society? Basically, personal racism and institutional racism feed each other.

Quote:

---

Do you live in the real world? I haven't checked your age or your occupation but I would guess you're either a college student or a college professor. Anyone that is a benefit to a business, they will be hired and promoted. It doesn't matter if they're green, orange, or purple. Any group of people, white or asian or any ethnicity, who have those dysfuntions will have the same poverty. All you have to do is look at poor white demographics.

---

Indeed, poverty is an issue. But racism doesn’t begin and end with issues of poverty. There are plenty of middle-class African Americans who have experienced racism; hell, there are plenty of conservative African Americans who admit to experiencing racism. One example of institutional racism that Africans Americans of the middle-class experience is the phenomenon of “shopping while black.” They did a whole TV show depicting this situation to see how shoppers around such an incident would react (http://www.bvblackspin.com/2009/03/2...true-feelings/ ). Many middle-class African Americans can attest to experiencing this phenomenon.

Your comments about business ignore the problem. People’s ideas of what are “beneficial” shifts with context and personal biases. As in the case of the publishing industry that I linked to in the previous post, which you ignored, they whitewash characters on covers to appeal to what they believe to be a white purchasing public. They are clearly doing it because they believe it will sell more books, that it will be more beneficial for them. It doesn’t make it any less racist.

It isn’t hard to imagine private companies in the deep south not hiring a black person because they don’t believe it would be beneficial to do so. If you have a lot of “personally racist” customers you don’t want to scare business away after all and offend them. Generally any job applicant pool has multiple people that are qualified. It isn't hard to hire a white dude who is equally qualified.

Your faith in people's desire for profit over their aptitude for prejudice and bigotry is naive, and I say that as someone who mostly supports Capitalism, and thinks that, yes, people are often greedy. If people necessarily cared more about profit than arbitrary differences, there wouldn't be a need for most of the wars fought (with the exception of Imperialistic ones that create additional revenue). What profit will be had from war? The fact is even if we removed "institutional racism" from the equation and talked merely about personal racism, which you accept still exists in your previous post, people make dumb personal decisions all the time because of their prejudices that affect their convenience and wallets. There are plenty of people who refuse to shop at certain stores because, "The Jews own it," or "Only Blacks shop there." There are plenty of people who would sacrifice potential business partners or money-opportunities because of personal prejudices.

Quote:

---

I have no idea what this means. When I was talking about Gates, I said he was being race conscious. He was thinking in terms of race, not the cop. I think everything that has come out supports that. I don't expect to convince you. I'm sure this notion is locked in for you. I will leave you for the third time with the quote from Thomas Sowell: "If jews had waited for the end of anti semitism to make it in America, they would still be waiting." Do yourself a favor and look up Thomas Sowell: http://www.tsowell.com/.

---

I don’t know why you keep quoting that at everyone; it supports my arguments more than it does yours. As an upper middle-class Jew whose father has made it in America and who will probably make it in America himself once the economy gets better, I can say with certainty that anti-Semitism still exists and is a problem, completely in agreement with the Sowell quote. Anti-Semitism still exists, but so does racism. And many blacks who have made it in America, the middle-class, still face racism. Institutional racism. They didn't wait for racism to end just as Jews didn't wait for anti-Semitism to end. The irony is I'm not talking about impoverished blacks at all, and that you seem to think that I am.

hi there have been away from the forum for a while due to some problems but am back.

one thing i have noticed is the constant assertion that racism stops blacks from doing well at school and causes unwed mothers.

if racism is to blame then why would blacks be the only minority who fail so much at schools? other groups seem to get on fine.

and how can racism be to blame for the number of unwed mothers? could someone please explain that to me as i honestly cant understand?

these are all down to the individuals involved and their community no one else. it seems like some people would rather act this way and then absolve themselves of all personal responsibility and just blame others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImaginaryFriend

hi there have been away from the forum for a while due to some problems but am back.

one thing i have noticed is the constant assertion that racism stops blacks from doing well at school and causes unwed mothers.

if racism is to blame then why would blacks be the only minority who fail so much at schools? other groups seem to get on fine.

and how can racism be to blame for the number of unwed mothers? could someone please explain that to me as i honestly cant understand?

these are all down to the individuals involved and their community no one else. it seems like some people would rather act this way and then absolve themselves of all personal responsibility and just blame others.

---

I'll respond to Darkshadow when I have more time. But absolutely! Four stars for you. :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Italy.svg.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImaginaryFriend

hi there have been away from the forum for a while due to some problems but am back.

one thing i have noticed is the constant assertion that racism stops blacks from doing well at school and causes unwed mothers.

if racism is to blame then why would blacks be the only minority who fail so much at schools? other groups seem to get on fine.

and how can racism be to blame for the number of unwed mothers? could someone please explain that to me as i honestly cant understand?

these are all down to the individuals involved and their community no one else. it seems like some people would rather act this way and then absolve themselves of all personal responsibility and just blame others.

---

I would like to agree with you but, without knowing where you live, how can I be sure who I am talking to? This silly, childish habit of hiding behind pointless pseudonyms makes it impossible to communicate effectively with contributors to this or any other thread

Drk, I don't have time for a long post, but your rebuttals have been excellent, keep it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

how can I be sure who I am talking to? This silly, childish habit of hiding behind pointless pseudonyms ...

---

the suggestion to invite members of quirky sects and nerds who never had a girlfriend to stalk me in real life is not very appealing, brian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

I would like to agree with you but, without knowing where you live, how can I be sure who I am talking to? This silly, childish habit of hiding behind pointless pseudonyms makes it impossible to communicate effectively with contributors to this or any other thread

---

I don't get this at all, and I'm a believer in less anonymity on the internet.

While I'd like to know who I'm talking to, it's pretty easy to take people at face value, which is what I do. That's why I got quite snotty in the prostitution thread when a bloke admitting to drama queening it. He did have the good grace to apologise, and I think that's indicative of most people - they generally are honest.

Even with people you know, how can you be assured they aren't chameleoning it anyway? Saying what they think you want to hear? I have to do that myself sometimes in business - if a customer wants to have a yarn to me about the All Blacks, I don't say, "Well, I'm pleased to see them lose because they're a bunch of overpaid layabouts who are the final product of the complete destruction of the game by immovably stupid people in the NZRU." even though that would sum up my feelings on the game. Instead, I say, "Yeah, they were awful, but at least Dan the Man will be back next time and they can't play that badly twice in a row" and appear to be interested and informed.

We don't always wear our hearts on our sleeves, so I see no reason to think that opinions here are any less honest than any others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImaginaryFriend

if racism is to blame then why would blacks be the only minority who fail so much at schools? other groups seem to get on fine.

---

Intergeneratively socialized deficiency of embodied cultural capital caused by age-long racial segregation. If that's of some help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

I would like to agree with you but, without knowing where you live, how can I be sure who I am talking to? This silly, childish habit of hiding behind pointless pseudonyms makes it impossible to communicate effectively with contributors to this or any other thread

---

Who they are, where they are from etc are completely irrelivant to the discussion Brian. If someone wants to be anonymous on this forum, they are allowed to be, there is nothing childish about it. I for one regret not giving myself a "pointless" pseudonym. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

Intergeneratively socialized deficiency of embodied cultural capital caused by age-long racial segregation. If that's of some help.

---

Unfortunately, you've got no control data to compare it to, so that's kind of a spurious statement, really. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you can't claim it as correct as it has no evidential basis.

As a counter, I'd offer the Maori people of New Zealand. Where African-Americans were disenfranchised, Maori were enfranchised before many whites. Where Native Americans had their land stolen, Maori had their ownership enshrined in our founding document. (Yes, there have been a few disputes since, and Maori iwi (tribes) have been compensated in billions of dollars.)

Maori are one of the most privileged people on the planet, yet they are represented in prison statistics, welfare payments, teenage pregnancy, low life expectancy and sexual diseases to almost exactly the same ratio as African Amercans.

You absolutely cannot blame Maori problems on any socio-economic or cultural rationale.

The easy - and convenient - answer is quite often wrong.

I have no clue what the answer is, but I think your 21st-century friendly answer isn't it.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

I for one regret not giving myself a "pointless" pseudonym. :)

---

Huh... and I thought it was a clever reference to Monty Python's Holy Grail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

I would like to agree with you but, without knowing where you live, how can I be sure who I am talking to? This silly, childish habit of hiding behind pointless pseudonyms makes it impossible to communicate effectively with contributors to this or any other thread

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I don't get this at all.

---

Neither do I - it seems a bit hypocritical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I have no clue what the answer is, but I think your 21st-century friendly answer isn't it.

---

No, the very 21st-century friendly answer is "I have no clue what the answer is."


Atheist, unfortunately I don't have the time to answer your post en detail now (I need a little longer for English is not my mother tongue) but I would like to do it as soon as I will have more time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

Who they are, where they are from etc are completely irrelivant to the discussion Brian. If someone wants to be anonymous on this forum, they are allowed to be, there is nothing childish about it. I for one regret not giving myself a "pointless" pseudonym. :)

---

I don't object to it in principal, I really don't care what people wish to call themselves although I do like to know who I am talking to. It certainly is relevant to the discussion. For example, a thread may concern a topic that has different ramifications in one country as opposed to another. If I know which country a fellow forum member inhabits I can speak more clearly about the issue and get similar feedback from him or her. Generally it isn't difficult to work out that many of the members are from the USA and so I can tailor my comments to fall in line with the situation as it prevails there. Sometimes, however, it is impossible to tell and I might go into a post that has very little relevance for the addressee, simply because I dont know where they are from. Obviously, it doesn't apply to most of the forum but in the case of the Serious Discussions sub-forum, knowing the country of the person concerned helps to avoid being misunderstood.

i see no problem with pseudonyms on the internet but if people are going to start being petty then i am heather from central scotland. dont quite see what that had to do with anything, let alone the question but ok. . .

seems like you are avoiding the question by deflecting onto another subject.

love the stars :)