Race and Racism

[SilentScope001]

Actually, I'm going to attempt to post something else. An attack on racism. See if this thing would be likable or not. This post is to show you indeed how close we are in morals, that we both hate racism...

 

Now, this attack on racism is directed towards persuading a racist to abandon his belief, rather than directed towards proving racism wrong. I would rather preach to the racist than preach to the Converted, as in, those who are not racist. I want to make my points be useful, and joining the mob that has already lots of power isn't my idea of help. Instead, I am isolating myself with the racist, so that the racist and I am on equal grounds and so that I cannot rely on popular opinon.

 

Please forgive me in advance if these proofs seem to fail.

 

1) Science says racism has no basis in biology. I believe in Science. However, you can question certain statstics and come up with numbers. I disagree with those numbers, but we will be on a deadlock. Suffice to say, we disagree on this issue. (Not a very convicing point, I admit...)

 

2) Racism is not followed by the majority of the population by which you live in. Now, I understand that sometimes, the majority is wrong, but it is nice to listen to their arguments, since they must be valid, since most people believe them. Bandwagon appeal? Sure, but also realize that many people hate racists, and would possibly attack you at every turn if they believe you are a racist. Suppressing your beliefs of racism would be good indeed, in order to protect your own interests. If you do not give into society, you could get punished. (NOTE: This only applies to societies that indeed are not racist. If the society is racist, please ignore this point.)

 

3) Directed Towards Anti-Semitism: If it is indeed true that the Jews are responsible for taking over everything, as you claimed, then it leads us to question why is that a bad thing? Remember, the Jews are God's "chosen people", no? Prehaps God really does choosen Jews. What make you believe God has not really choosen the Jews, since it makes no sense that God would let Jews control the world and yet hate them at the same time? Maybe you should follow the Jews or in fact convert to Judaism rather than oppose them feebly against the will of God.

 

4) Tied somewhat to the Anti-Semitism argument, but more generalized: There is no proof that your race is superior. It could very well be that your race is inferior, and in fact Blacks are the true power. If everyone is considered equal, then you will not be able to be attacked or be enslaved by a superior race. Following this idea equality, even if it is not proven if equality is true or not, is good for the protection of the White race, as it prevents society from turning against you.

 

5) Racism makes little sense economically. If you hire only whites or only blacks, you restrict the population from which you are hiring from, and also limit the amount of qualified people that exist. There may be qualified Blacks, you know. Having an equal view of the two populations in choosing who to hire or fire is good for the bottom line.

 

6) If Racism is true, then it really does not matter what society says about Racism. Race will still play a role. Sure, you could see Black people taking over certain companies, but either they run it to the ground, or they are just one person out of the rest of the Black population, an anomly that is easily dismissed. Then why worry about codifying it? Race plays a huge role, as you claim, so why bother enforcing it by laws? Just stand back and watch what will happen to Blacks and Whites. Best to remain silent on the matter. And if racism turns out to be wrong on the societical level, well, at least be glad you didn't adhere to a false idea.

===

Now, Clauses 2-6 has the main goal of attempting to stop the racist from following racism. I see that Clause 1 is the one that I actually agree with and believe in , along with everyone else, and Clauses 2-6 are appealing to the racist, trying to get them to reconsider their views.

 

This would be an example of how I would treat the racist with respect while still disagreeing with his ideas. Would the idea work?

[JediMaster12]

2) Racism is not followed by the majority of the population by which you live in. Now, I understand that sometimes, the majority is wrong, but it is nice to listen to their arguments, since they must be valid, since most people believe them. Bandwagon appeal? Sure, but also realize that many people hate racists, and would possibly attack you at every turn if they believe you are a racist. Suppressing your beliefs of racism would be good indeed, in order to protect your own interests. If you do not give into society, you could get punished. (NOTE: This only applies to societies that indeed are not racist. If the society is racist, please ignore this point.)

Ah but if you think about it, it is the majority group, the one with the power and privileges, that creates the stereotypes that encourage racism. The majority group is the group that sets the standard of what the 'best' group is and the degrees of acceptability. As I said before, race is a social construct and it is society that determines where a race begins and ends.

 

Racism makes little sense economically. If you hire only whites or only blacks, you restrict the population from which you are hiring from, and also limit the amount of qualified people that exist.

It would if you believe that a black isn't smart enough to do a skilled job like run an office machine. Morton's measuring of cranial capacity supported this idea for many years before it was shown that cranial size bears correlation with height. Thus only showing that there is no genetic basis for race.

[SilentScope001]

Ah but if you think about it, it is the majority group, the one with the power and privileges, that creates the stereotypes that encourage racism. The majority group is the group that sets the standard of what the 'best' group is and the degrees of acceptability. As I said before, race is a social construct and it is society that determines where a race begins and ends.

 

Well, er...Whites were the minority in South Africa, and yet they managed to keep their policy and rule South Africa until the 1990's. I guess what I mean is the majority ideology "in power", that is of society?

 

Racism was the social construct who was in power in the past. Now, tolerance is the social construct who is in power. So, follow the new societical construct?

 

It would if you believe that a black isn't smart enough to do a skilled job like run an office machine. Morton's measuring of cranial capacity supported this idea for many years before it was shown that cranial size bears correlation with height. Thus only showing that there is no genetic basis for race.

 

Hm. Never thought of it like that. So would this mean taller people are indeed smarter or more powerful than shorter people? Er...maybe not.

 

Anyway, I concede my point would indeed be crushed, and be sublimated over to Point 1: Racism is unjustifed because Science found no proof for racism.

[Pho3nix]

I don't believe that we will ever 'overcome' racism nor prejudice. It's quite common in Sweden for example to hire someone who's surname is "Svensson" over someone who's name is "Muhammad" for example. I'm sure that not everyone practices this kind of racial 'profiling' if you may, but racism is and always will exist.

 

There will always be someone who thinks his/hers race is superior, and all others obsolete or 'lesser' people.

 

I feel that It's naive to think that there will be some kind of a peace between all races, since cultures often clash and are hard to mix together.

[JediMaster12]

There will always be someone who thinks his/hers race is superior, and all others obsolete or 'lesser' people.

In anthropology, we refer to this as ethnocentrisim. It is based upon the world view of a particular group. Of course we will have this because it is in human nature to categorize and the like.

 

Well, er...Whites were the minority in South Africa, and yet they managed to keep their policy and rule South Africa until the 1990's.

This is part of colonialism which is the dominating of another group through political, social, economic and cultural aspects. It is done by a more powerful group over a less powerful group. The problem with South Africa was the high tension between the African tribes. There is a history of huge dislike between them. Remember that these groups were chiefdoms meaning that their rulers are charismatic rulers and that the wield authority but not actual power hence they didn't have the power to unite against the Afrikaaners. It is the same thing with the Celts when the Romans conquered them. There was no central leadership. In South Africa, the Dutch settlers had the physical power to make them do what they wanted hence the colonialism and the rise of the Arfikaaners.

To continue further I will use the example from the book The Power of One. In this the narrator is an English boy who at an early age is subjugated to the tortures of the Boers (Afrikaaners) simply for being English. The reason being is that when the Boer Wars began, the English locked up 20 thousand Afrikaaner women and children into the first concentration camps where many died of diseases like malaria and typhoid. This goes to show that even among white groups there is racism. BTW the Boers called the English rooinecks or 'red necks' and it became the derogatory term for the English.

 

Hm. Never thought of it like that. So would this mean taller people are indeed smarter or more powerful than shorter people? Er...maybe not.

Morton is a scientist mentioned by Stephen Jay Gould in the book The Mismeasure of Man. The book contains refuting evidence against biological determinism, that genes are responsible for the low class you are in. I encourage this as a read for there is also interesting info on Broca and Yerkes and the IQ tests which are totally bogus anyway.

[SilentScope001]

Morton is a scientist mentioned by Stephen Jay Gould in the book The Mismeasure of Man. The book contains refuting evidence against biological determinism, that genes are responsible for the low class you are in. I encourage this as a read for there is also interesting info on Broca and Yerkes and the IQ tests which are totally bogus anyway.

 

Hm...I did read a bit about Social Darwinism in my class, and it does make sense. Better males would attract better females, and surivial of the fittest. It isn't really "scientific", per se, but I can understand where it is coming from.

 

I doubt the IQ tests are bogus. They are a measurment of how intelligent you are in certain areas, meaning they are prone to inaccuracy, but they are not bogus. All tests are prone to some degrees of errors, and to throw all of them out because they have errors means that we won't be able to catogerize ourselves.

 

Somehow, the wikipedia article states that Stephen Jay Gould is prone to controversty, and that many people hate him, especially many scientists. Er. It also seems that the langague both Stephen Jay Gould and his enemies use are far too complex for me, a layperson, to understand, so really, I think I should suspend judgement on this issue, because I really am an uninformed person. Sorry, JediMaster21.

 

And biological determisim is a theory that I somewhat follow. While it is not responsible for the low class you are in, that's deterimned by who's your mother and father is...

 

It does determine your intelligence, your height, your weight, your innate behaviors, your ability to criticize or support society, the chance that you can get a lethal dieases you can get in the future that can impact you, your skin color...Prehaps, or most likely, scientific studies will be able to find out exactly how these genes will affect you.

[JediMaster12]

It does determine your intelligence, your height, your weight, your innate behaviors, your ability to criticize or support society, the chance that you can get a lethal dieases you can get in the future that can impact you, your skin color...Prehaps, or most likely, scientific studies will be able to find out exactly how these genes will affect you.

And it is exactly that attitude that allowed the majority group, the whites, to dominate over the minority groups. The idea that the way you are is because of your mother and father is a tool used to keep the minority groups down. It is also psyhological. If you constantly tell someone that they never will be good enough, eventually they will be acclimated to that mindset and think that about themselves and not attempt to explore their full potential.

 

Somehow, the wikipedia article states that Stephen Jay Gould is prone to controversty, and that many people hate him, especially many scientists.

He may be one of controversy but I wouldn't put much stock in a wikipedia article and I have laid my reasons why before. Gould has that personality because he challeneges in radical ways the norms that have been accepted.

 

I doubt the IQ tests are bogus. They are a measurment of how intelligent you are in certain areas, meaning they are prone to inaccuracy, but they are not bogus. All tests are prone to some degrees of errors, and to throw all of them out because they have errors means that we won't be able to catogerize ourselves.

Which is exactly why they are bogus. The so called intelligence tests are catered to a specific group. Again a discrimination. If you gave the same test that a person here in the States would take to someone in rural Mexico, they would fail. In a Nahuatl mindset, why is knowing who the 42nd president of teh US important? IQ tests are a form of discrimination in of itself and a complete misuse of their original intention thanks to Yerkes.

 

It also seems that the langague both Stephen Jay Gould and his enemies use are far too complex for me, a layperson, to understand, so really, I think I should suspend judgement on this issue, because I really am an uninformed person. Sorry, JediMaster12.

The language is the same that I use, that of the social sciences. The reason I defined race and ethnicity the way I did is because that is what social scientists use when referring to specific groups. Gould is difficult to read but I like his style and the way how he presented Morton's skull measuring and Broca's idea that smart people brains weigh more makes it hilarious. It's easy to criticize in hindsight and you would think that people would learn from their mistakes but they don't because we still see the same things happening.

[SilentScope001]

And it is exactly that attitude that allowed the majority group, the whites, to dominate over the minority groups. The idea that the way you are is because of your mother and father is a tool used to keep the minority groups down. It is also psyhological. If you constantly tell someone that they never will be good enough, eventually they will be acclimated to that mindset and think that about themselves and not attempt to explore their full potential.

 

Er...um...

 

There are differences, but these differences are genetic. For example, a Black person may be more likely to get Sickle-cell aniema. Why? Genetics, reproduction, evolution.

 

Does that mean we should organize lynch mobs against Blacks because they are inferior for getting sickle-cell aniema? I doubt it.

 

He may be one of controversy but I wouldn't put much stock in a wikipedia article and I have laid my reasons why before. Gould has that personality because he challeneges in radical ways the norms that have been accepted.

 

Wikipedia is useful becuase they attempt to present all sides of an issue, and is likely to be a place of great flaming, so that I can see what lots of other people see on the issue. If Gould challengs the norms, then I would have to choose between Gould or the norms. Sounds pretty hard when both the norms and Gould start screaming at each other with large terms that I can't understand at all.

 

Which is exactly why they are bogus. The so called intelligence tests are catered to a specific group. Again a discrimination. If you gave the same test that a person here in the States would take to someone in rural Mexico, they would fail. In a Nahuatl mindset, why is knowing who the 42nd president of teh US important? IQ tests are a form of discrimination in of itself and a complete misuse of their original intention thanks to Yerkes.

 

Have you even taken an IQ test?

 

The IQ test that I have taken have nothing to do with presidents. They may have to do with vocabulary, with context clues, logic puzzles, geometirc shapes, but never Presidents. And I got a 114 on that one test.

 

And, no, bogusness means nothing. We need to make the IQ tests more accurate, not go and say they are stupid. We need to measure how intelligent people are instead of saying the intelligence of one person is equal to the intelligence of another person. We need ranks, otherwise...well?

 

If we don't divide ourselves up in ranks, then everyone is equal. And I do not know if humanity would actually like equality, or if they would secretly hate it. There is no where to go, no where to strive for, no where to laugh on. Everyone is equally smart, everyone is equally stupid, everyone is equally free, everyone is equally slave. Without ranks, life have no meaning, there would be no reason to struggle or to make their lives better or to hate or to love, as everyone would be the same.

 

The language is the same that I use, that of the social sciences. The reason I defined race and ethnicity the way I did is because that is what social scientists use when referring to specific groups. Gould is difficult to read but I like his style and the way how he presented Morton's skull measuring and Broca's idea that smart people brains weigh more makes it hilarious. It's easy to criticize in hindsight and you would think that people would learn from their mistakes but they don't because we still see the same things happening.

 

If I can't understand a word they are saying, how can I go and say Gould is right? Or that his enemies are right? I can't. How can I know about the mistakes the stupid people are 'making' if I can't even understand the words he is saying. He might make it too simplisitic, and may want to confuse me, or delude me, or whatever.

 

Can't one just suspend judgement on the issue rather than just ally with anyone?

===

Oh. Here's something interesting.

 

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=41cf8ef1-d41a-45e9-83e4-aae85d0fd52c&k=52797

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/16/earlyshow/main2686598.shtml

 

The Duke players get the charged dropped. The first link talks about the blogger who helped the defense team. The second link talks about the Duke players thinking of suing for the false allegation.

 

On one hand: it is possible the black female is lying. On the other hand, it didn't really matter if the rape case was a lie or not. The case revealed lots of racism.

[JediMaster12]

SilentScope: I have taken an IQ test before and found it ridiculous. There is no way to make a better IQ test because it would specifically cater to a specific group. In fact to explain this, there is the idea of multiple intelligences. I heard of it mentioned in class but hey.

Wikipedia may present different sides but I'd hardly call it a reputable source for backing up an argument seeing as just about any old joe can change an entry.

 

Without ranks, life have no meaning, there would be no reason to struggle or to make their lives better or to hate or to love, as everyone would be the same.

So you are saying then that by having heirarchu it is ok to be prejudiced and the like? When you start having heirarchy you start the paths towards race and prejudice and discrimination. Heirarchy is the basis for it.

 

There are differences, but these differences are genetic. For example, a Black person may be more likely to get Sickle-cell aniema. Why? Genetics, reproduction, evolution.

Um people of African descent are more likely to get sickle cell amenia. It is common for peope of African descent to get this. There are rules to the exception. Sickle cell is a genetic disorder on the protein chain where one amino acid is substituted for another causing the hemogloblin to bend in half. Then again genetics is a numbers game, a game of chance. It is 50-50 for boy or girl. For blood groups it is 1 in 4 that you will get O type. Should we start discrimination on them because the game of life dealt them that set of cards? Life has already discriminated against the person with sickle cell. The upside is that a person with sickle cell will m=not be affected by malaria. Life is discriminatory. We just make it more so by our funny little ideas of perceived differences.

[SilentScope001]

SilentScope: I have taken an IQ test before and found it ridiculous. There is no way to make a better IQ test because it would specifically cater to a specific group. In fact to explain this, there is the idea of multiple intelligences. I heard of it mentioned in class but hey.

 

I find the idea of multiple intelligences somewhat laughable when I heard of it within my English class, but plausible.

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. Not like it matters.

 

So you are saying then that by having heirarchu it is ok to be prejudiced and the like? When you start having heirarchy you start the paths towards race and prejudice and discrimination. Heirarchy is the basis for it.

 

Er...no.

 

All I am saying is that the feelings of racism is what founds this heriachy. I personally feel that racism is what creates this heirarchy, but racism could also be used as a justification for manintaing the heirarchy, I can admit that.

 

All I am saying is anything that can create this heriachy is good, because it prevents humans from being equal. But we do not need racism to create heirachy. Capitalism, nationalism, ideologies, wealth, status, laws, IQ tests, etc. can all create an heirachy in which one person believes himself superior or inferior to someone else. Racism in fact may be poor in creating such a hierachy, due to the fact it is increasingly condmened and questioned, not to mention I personally oppose it.

 

But we need to prevent ourselves from believing ourselves to be equal, because it would really lead to nihlism.

 

Um people of African descent are more likely to get sickle cell amenia. It is common for peope of African descent to get this. There are rules to the exception. Sickle cell is a genetic disorder on the protein chain where one amino acid is substituted for another causing the hemogloblin to bend in half. Then again genetics is a numbers game, a game of chance. It is 50-50 for boy or girl. For blood groups it is 1 in 4 that you will get O type. Should we start discrimination on them because the game of life dealt them that set of cards? Life has already discriminated against the person with sickle cell. The upside is that a person with sickle cell will m=not be affected by malaria. Life is discriminatory. We just make it more so by our funny little ideas of perceived differences.

 

...So if life is discriminatory, then isn't racism techincally natural? It does destroy the concept of racism being an abstract notion, and a social construct, if it does...techincally...has a bearing on real life?

 

Also, as for your comment on why we should not discrimnate on people just because you got a different set of cards...You do realize however that by that logic, every thing we rank do becomes quite artibrary.

 

"Why should we treat Bobby the Millionare with respect? He's just a lucky who has a million dollars. Why, if Bobby was unlucky and down on the street, he would not be treated with much respect as he would today! Stop this 'wealth discrimination'! NOW!"

 

"Stop this talking about Thomas the Teacher! Thomas is smart, but the reason he is smart is because he got a good education and his parents told him to listen! Why, if Thomas did not get a good education and if his parents did not tell him to listen, he would be a loafer! Stop this 'educational discrimination' now!"

 

Well, somewhat. The logic does make some sense. In fact, I would agree with it, except well, it does destroy almost everything we believe in.

 

Some social constructs may need to be kept, even if they are nothing more than lies. Just make sure that we kill only one social construct, the construct of racism, while creating brand new ones to replace it.

[JediMaster12]

All I am saying is that the feelings of racism is what founds this heriachy

It's the other way around. Hierarchy begets racism because people are being categorized and labeled.

 

Some social constructs may need to be kept, even if they are nothing more than lies. Just make sure that we kill only one social construct, the construct of racism, while creating brand new ones to replace it.

To kill racism is just another for of dicriminatory practices. You seek to exterminate the idea and impose a new system inplace when in fact that new system will just as badly before rank everything and assign worth.

[SilentScope001]

It's the other way around. Hierarchy begets racism because people are being categorized and labeled.

 

Prehaps. I just thought that if it wasn't for the National Socialist racism, there would be no justification of the Third Reich hierachy, and hence no Third Reich hierachy. But it could go either way.

 

To kill racism is just another for of dicriminatory practices. You seek to exterminate the idea and impose a new system inplace when in fact that new system will just as badly before rank everything and assign worth.

 

Ah, now, we reach something that is key, more important than this debate of racism.

 

If the ideas that promote Racism gets killed off (and there is no indication that it can EVER be destroyed)...I'd be fine with it, as long as humans are still essentially, and to each other, unequal. However, you are not.

 

Humans may be, in the large scheme of things, basically the same. But if so, what meaning of life would there be? Equality means everyone is under the same laws and obligations, get the same rights, and such. It may sound appealing, but it really is not as appealing as it first seems. If everyone has an equal sense of 'worth', it is the same as if everyone has an equal sense of 'unworthiness', and you do feel insiginifcant and unimportant. Your life isn't that useful at all, and is merely taking up space.

 

Another thing, we judge ourselves by how good or how bad a fellow human being fares in life. If everyone has, say, 1 million dollars, we would not consider ourselves rich at all.

 

If however, we live in a world where 80% of the world has $0.80, and the 20% of the world has $1, the 20% of the world would feel smug, and the 80% of the world would feel disappointed. At the cost of the unhappiness of the 80% of the world, the 20% of the world becomes somewhat happy since they have 'worth'. But, even for the 80% of the world, there is always the possiblity that they could rise to the 20% of the world...so it provides them a goal, a purpose for living...which is to become rich.

 

I just don't see how dignity for humanity can be maintained if everyone is equal. There has to be some form of social hierarchy just so humans feel important and happy. Is there a way to keep this dignity for mankind and prevent nihlism and outright disappointment with mankind while removing hierachies?

[lukeiamyourdad]

The important thing is not whether humans are inherently equal between themselves, it might never happen. There will be rich and poor, success stories and flops. However, the chances to move from one social "rank" to another must be equal. The equality in front of the law must also be maintained. That is the basis of our system.

[Lord Spitfire]

I think that everyone is born as a human being, out of any group or caterization.

 

When they are raised, that is when they are influenced by whoever they are raised by, making them think the way that they do. If we have the simple tolerance to figure out that everyone is born equal, and has the same rights, so much would be better in this world.

 

Of course, if someone is raised with a "evil" or against freedom - I can't think of a better word - then it would not be considered racism to discriminate what they think, because they then think the very motives that cause so much suffering in the world, and thus should be. Tolerance should not be met with ignorance, but ignorance should not be met with tolerance either.

 

I am a Hindu, and I know that whatever people believe in the world, they should be judged on the things they do in their influence. In the U.S, would it be right to discriminate against a Muslim who realizes that everything that all these . . tyrants and terrorists are doing is wrong, whyshould they be considered one of them.

 

Racism is stupid, and generalism.

[JediMaster12]

When they are raised, that is when they are influenced by whoever they are raised by, making them think the way that they do.

What you are describing is culture. Culture is the shared/learned behaviors of a group. It is shared and it is learned. There are two ways it can change: innovation and invention. Often it is spread through migration.

 

Equality means everyone is under the same laws and obligations, get the same rights, and such. It may sound appealing, but it really is not as appealing as it first seems. If everyone has an equal sense of 'worth', it is the same as if everyone has an equal sense of 'unworthiness', and you do feel insiginifcant and unimportant.

Have you been on the receiving end of demeaning labels? I know that you mentioned you are Muslim and I know that if you are here in the states, you could expect a fair amount of racism especially after Sept. 11. The reason I ask is that from what you say sounds as if you would rather thrive on this whole notion of unequality and putting people down. True that the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows. It is a nasty and cold hearted place. People don't like to be told that they are unworthy. In fact that seems rather counter productive of the idea that if people reach their potential, they could reach their goals. I believe that was based of the ideology of capitalism. I could be wrong but ED would have to confirm that.

What I think the general idea of equality is is what is written on that little piece of paper called the Declaration of Independence, that it is a certain inalienable right to life and liberty. This is based upon natural law. The inherent idea that everyone is equal. The problem that has happened is that people see otheres as unequal and that is often based upon the perceived physical differences.

[JediMaster12]

I have never ever said racism was good. I just try to understand it, just all. I understand why the Southerns believed this way, and why they wanted to rebel.

Not all Southerners were like this. There were mixed reasons to leave the Union. True they wanted to preserve their way of life and the peculiar institution. They also were arguing over state's rights. They believed that the federal govt. was interferring with what should be rightfully in the control of the states. Remember that the states have the police powers of the education, health and safety of the people within its borders. Also some people fought the war on the side of the Confederacy in that they could not turn a sword against their homeland. Ties to the homeland were very strong. Just thought I'd clarify.

 

Lets take this to a different angle. We are all well aware of stereotypes and that they are portrayed to an astonishing degree in the media, particularly in movies and TV. A movie example is and old movie by Mel Brooks called Blazing Saddles. That movie is full of ethnophaulisms or ethnic slurs, ethnic jokes and flat out comedy. The groups affected are blacks, Chinese, whites and or course a reference to the Irish.

In a politically correct world, this would be seen as an obscenity. I have seen Malibu's Most Wanted and I have noted that people are as straightlaced as a corset when the funny scenes come on. Personally I do not have a problem with it. I see it for what the intent is and that was the comedic effect of poking fun. I understand that it can be offensive to some but if you don't like it, you don't have to watch it. As a Mexican-American, I even make jokes and my favorite bad joke is the one about the Mexican fire chief naming his two sons. My mom made a funny about Italians and we are part Sicilian. Of course we understand that it can be offensive so we ask if we could tell it.

 

My thoughts are as to why we have become so straightlaced in general. I am also curious about your thoughts on this.

[Totenkopf]

The biggest bunch of bunk I've ever heard regarding racism is that only people in (political/cultural?) control can be racists. It's a self serving minority based position, whether that minority is white, black, asian, etc....

[adamqd]

I grew up in the inner city, and me and my Friends were terrorized by the Black and Asian Gangs in our area, but I found my self thinking that it's ok for them to mess with me cause my (possible) Ancestors enslaved Africans or made India part of the British empire. It's called white Guilt, and it's just as bad as Racism, because it aids the divide and it's just another reason to separate people.

We need to step into the now and think about a future without inherited hate.

[JediMaster12]

The biggest bunch of bunk I've ever heard regarding racism is that only people in (political/cultural?) control can be racists. It's a self serving minority based position, whether that minority is white, black, asian, etc....

That is not necessarily true. Even within the minority group, the group with the limited to no access to resources, there are stereotypes and racism. There's this one scene I remember from Mi Familia (My Family) where the brother Chucho and his homies are standing toe to toe with this other pachuco at his sister's wedding reception. The eldest brother Paco is the narrator. He goes on telling that they hated each other but didn't have a reason why. He even says that "they were so full of mach bull **** it was incredible." That just goes to show you that even within groups there is racism.