Does this argument apply only to blacks, or were the terms “asians” and “hispanics” also created out of ignorance and have no basis in logic or modern society? I may not be able to precisely define the exact characteristics that define a particular “race,” and I fully admit that intermarriage between races has muddied the water quite a bit, but there’s no getting around the fact that there are clear and recognizable distinctions between my wife (who is Chinese) and her family and myself and my family.
All of this is, of course, besides my point. As I stated, yours is certainly one viewpoint, and whether or not you consider somebody a “racist” is going to be based (at least in part) on your beliefs in this matter. Others, however (and I’d say the majority of people) do NOT share your viewpoint, and what you may consider racist they wouldn’t. In other words, if acknowledging the existence of races makes me a racist by your definition, then I am a racist. If acknowledging the existence of races but believing that the differences between the races are unimportant when it comes to judging a person’s character and deciding how to treat them, then by my definition (and that of most people) I am not a racist.
There is no “black” race and yes being Black at least in America, is a unique state of being, with very specific rules. Only in America were there specific ‘tests and rules’ government and non government sponsered… to determine who was in the black race.
Tell me what laws determine your wife’s “asianess”? Can I call her Yellow, not Asian, which has a basis in Geography, but YELLOW…instead of Chinese, is that an acurate description of her? Of all Asian people? Would it offend her, you? Am i a racist if i do? Why is it different than calling all people of a certain pigmentation, let alone Geography…black? Is that logical? or just easy? You do realize that the term Asian, is not the same as Yellow, right? One is a cultural term, the other a color. I ask you again, is it all right, for me to call you wife Yellow and only Yellow?
**
Whoa, let me clarify my position on this, because you’ve misunderstood me. There is nothing at all wrong with recognizing RACE, it fact I’ve said has much in my first post… how can you not? The point that I was questioning was your example of using Blacks, as the litmus test for determining whether or not RACE is a social construct and whether or not the term “black” had any meaning other than what we place upon it. Just because we can see something, doesn’t mean that what we call it is correct.
I’ll toss in my vote-- that better educated people are better at hiding racism. After all, no one’s going to call themselves a racist. “Racist” is a term coined by hippies and liberals; we are merely aware of our heritage…that kind of stuff.
Basically education makes it easier for you to come up with excuses for when you take actions that are construed as racist. As in, “We did not oppose the affirmative action bill because of any biases but instead because the money could be better used in the military.” Said even more eloquently over and over again like a mantra till their followers believe them.
There’s no real difference in the way you feel. Ignorant and educated racist people probably feel the same way about minorities, except the latter won’t sit around at their cocktail parties bitching about the coloreds. Well…maybe after a couple of martinis too many. In my limited experience, educated people are simply very good at putting on a show.
That doesn’t make sense. The reality is some races, religions or cultures do, statistically have more or less of a certain attribute than others. That is just reality, pointing it doesn’t make someone racist. For example
Countries with Islamic majorities are less likely to be democratic or guarantee civil or political rights than countries without Islamic majorities.
Now, saying these things to justify a prejudice would probably constitute racism (god i hate that word), but just pointing them out or saying something like ‘modern Islamic countries are less likely to be democratic than modern non-islamic countries’ is just factual. Calling people who point things like that out puts the situation in the same stance the Catholic church enjoyed 500 years ago, anyone who pointed out their flaws or unpopular facts about them was labeled a heretic rather than listened to.
what about issues like Trent Lott. Lott said he was referring to Thurmond’s stance on communism when he made his comments yet he is labeled racist. I don’t see how that fits in with this poll. To some people, a black person who is disgusted by Koreans is not racist but a white person who says something that is misconstrued as being anti-black when it isn’t is racist. These polls have no clear definition of ‘racism’. They don’t say if they are just referring to all races as being potential racists or that whites are the only race that can be racist, if there is a difference between intentional racism (joining the KKK) or unintentional (saying something that is misconstrued), etc.
Sorry to distract from the OP. In my opinion, there is no clear cut definition of racism so its hard to say if better educated people are more or less racist.
Calculus: Islam, however, is a religion not a race. Islamic nations are those where the majority of people share a common culture via their religious beliefs, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with what race they are.
What business is it of your friend to comment on “ghetto black culture” in the first place? Wouldn’t you feel defensive if black people went around constantly chastizing whites for their unhealthy and sometimes deadly obsession with alcohol? I mean, if white culture would just reject alcohol, thousands of lives would be saved from drunk driving accidents alone. Why won’t whites just get thier acts together? On this board alone I read about whites actually congratulating themselves on their ability to consume large amounts of such poison, and then remembering whistfully about the times they were forced to vomit it up, completely lacking shame about the whole thing. It’s disgusting, really. And the fact that they center entire social events around the abuse of the substance is appalling. A “party” to many of them is not a time for dancing and socializing, but rather an excuse to drink as much a variety of alcohol as they can in an economically sound manner (and without breaking their puzzling “drinking alone” taboo). In fact, in the white community, “partying” is often synonymous with heavy drinking. I just don’t understand why it’s so hard for them to enjoy each other’s company without intoxicating themselves.
Anyway, my point is that everyone has dirty laundry, and it’s easy to get defensive when somebody else digs into yours.
So pizzabrat, you’re of the opinion that no one is allowed to discuss a racial group and that group’s positive and negative aspects except self-identified members of that same group? So my husband and I couldn’t have a discussion about our experience and knowledge of the Iraqi community in Dearborn, because we’re not Iraqis? Maybe it’s limited by geography – we can’t talk about what’s going on with blacks in South Central or even Harlem because we live in downtown Manhattan?
So i can’t comment on anything i am not personally involved in anymore? What is wrong with pointing out facts when you want to come to a conclusion? in the Israel/palestine issue, one of the reasons i support the Israelis over the pals is because the Israelis don’t support the US’s enemies (like Bin Ladin or Hussein) the way the pals do and because they are more scientifically minded as a nation than the palestinians. These are provable facts, and are relevant to my decision making.
Blacks do criticize whites. all the time. Where have you been? People in other countries criticize the US. Women criticize men.
IMO the more “Intellegent” some are, the more some people JUSTIFY their racisim. William Pierce, Lyndon Larouche and Jared Taylor are good examples of people who are “intellegent” and even well educated, but use their knowledge (although limited) to justify their positions.
I agree with Zoe however, that a person with cross cutural expirence is less inclined to be racist, if at all. Take Obo’s example of the Japanese. While educated, they are a largely homogenious society and so their cross cuturalexpirence is very limited. Couple that with the fact their country has been nuked by Gaijin, and you tend to see why they feel how they do.
Actually, I am of the opinion that people have too many opinions about things that have nothing to do with them (and thus know nothing about). And if you insist on criticizing an entire group of people, don’t expect them to sit there and say, “hmm, you may have a point”, especially when they’ve already been criticized to death.
A couple of SOs family were senior magistrates in Papua & New Guineau in the late 70s. Highly intelligent, articulate and totally anal. They also could be fairly described as white supremists. I only met them once in the early 90s when they walked out of a family get-together at a Brisbane resturant because some of the other diners there were non-white. It wouldn’t have been too much of a fanciful notion to see them on the bench dispensing justice wearing a hood rather than a wig .
I don’t have this book in my hands, alas, but in 1979 to researchers did a big meta-analysis of 38 surveys that had been conducted in the previous two decades. They didn’t specifically mention racism, but found evidence that education was positively correlated with a number of, shall we say, more “liberal” social values. But of course, exploring liberal values (like supporting civil rights) doesn’t really address the issue of personal racism. I am certain it’s possible to be liberal and humanistic in your overall beliefs but still have ugly little prejudices about race.
Here is a summary of the findings of that study:
“The authors did a “secondary analysis” of national attitude surveys that had been conducted in four time periods from 1950 to 1975. Thirty-eight surveys that included 45,000 white adults from 25 to 72 years of age were evaluated. The data shows that education produces large and lasting good effects in the realm of values. The following values are more prevalent among adults who have gone to high school than among those who have not gone beyond elementary school: civil liberties for both the orthodox and the nonconformists; due process of law; freedom from the constraints of arbitrary laws in personal and social relations; freedom for the flow of not only innocuous but also controversial information; equality in the social, economic, and political spheres; humanitarianism or measures to reduce pain, injury, suffering or deprivation; and placing a higher valuation on morals or good conduct toward others than on manners. This profile of values is most prevalent among those who have gone to college.”
No. If it’s true. Any more than I would find it sexist for a particular group to lament the huge rise in smoking in teenage girls.
If “black people” (=African Americans?) as a group don’t drink, and whites as a group suffer badly from alcoholism, there’s no problem pointing it out.
To take an example of Arab culture: many of us non-muslim pale faces express concern about rising fundamentalism among certain elements in Arab countries. But so do many Arab muslims, they are just as concerned.
I bet there are many black people who have a real concern about gansta crime and drugs in their communities. Where is the problem with a non-involved/external group also sharing and voicing this concern?
I would have no problem with east asian people chastising western society for soaring obesity rates, even though I am not obese. It is a problem in our society.
Well, I guess you have to read THE BELL CURVE: INTELLIGENCE AND CLASS STRUCTURE IN AMERICAN LIFE, By: Herrnstein and Murray. I do not agree with the content of this book but it will definitely give fuel for your fire. To put it simply, they propose a world in which people will be slotted into places that fit their cognitive ability (I.Q.), and then each of us will be respected for what we actually are and what we can be. This will cause people from aspiring to be more than they can ever be and will end ressentiment and embarassment. They also think that the relation beteween I.Q. and social performance persists even when all environmental differences are taken into account. They believe that intelligence is at least 40-80 percent determined by inheritence. They believe that the poor would be best helped by the elimination of all social support. I would not be suprised if they tried to use these tests to support outrageous racial policies such as forced setrilization and racist immigration restrictions. These two men are highly educated and respected among their political group but if you ask me their views remind me too much of the views of the German Nazi eugenicists. The examples I provided above are only a sliver of what you will find in the book. It is quite humorous actually.
Nothing, if it weren’t for the bad blood that has existed between blacks and whites for the entire history of the nation. It’s not fair, but that’s the way it is. You can’t be completely hypothetical when race is involved.
Arabs have their own nations, so their security won’t be shaken by a forienger’s complaints.
Of course you wouldn’t. East Asians live all the way over there, so you don’t have to deal with their criticizms all the time.
How about educating someone to be racist? Think of the bell curve. It’s intellectuality written, but got to be one of the most racist document written.