Does Racism Go Both Ways? How is it fair?

[Suburbanite]

That is where I disagee, Racism is NOT a state of mind, but an action. It isn't the state of mind we can combat, it is the action. The actions of racism are what hurt people, not those private thoughts.

Or maybe not. Those definitons are misinterpreted symbols marauding as definitions. To say "racism is whites hating blacks" is the viewpoint of someone who has been brainwashed by the media of contemporary america. Racism is far more encompassing then that. Many asian people hate and fear blacks. Muslims hate jews. Americans hate french people. It's all the same thing.

But I'm not saying that! I'm not saying Blacks can't be racist, or chinese people. The Chinese government is VERY racist, meaning many chinese people in the government are also racist. People who aren't racist are people who make black jokes, or black people who call white people crackers (which is hardly insulting). Thats not racism, thats just name calling, and its not a big problem for the world. Its the other stuff thats causing problems.

[another day]

Your right, the private thoughts of a racists mind state aren't damaging, it's the actions, but those actions have different terms for them. Racism is the state of mind behind it, the justification. Just like nationalism is the mindstate that creates wars, racism is the mindstate that creates oppression.

The actions of a racist have other words, oppression, discrimination. Those are the results of racism, but the very "ism" at the end of the word racism, means that it is a philosophy, or a doctrine. And that's just what racism is. Your confusing the outcomes, the results of racism with the mindset behind it.

And we absolutly can combat states of mind. Nationalism, racism, religious fanaticism, classism, sexism are all damaging mindstates that create these social problems, and they can be combatted with education, understanding, enlightenment.

[Suburbanite]

i am saying that a racist is someone who participates actively in the system of racism. their actions can include but are not limited to oppression and discrimination.
About "isms", they aren't just ways of thinking, they are groups of thinkers. Communism for example. I that sense, racism is not just an idea but a group of people following an idea, who act is specific ways.
and i am saying, that while you can look at thing using your definition, my definition comments on concrete actions and is actually something we can work to remove together.

[another day]

So you wouldn't label a person that says he hates all black people a racist unless he actively particapated in oppression against them?

Like I said, you are corrupting the definition of racism by mixing it with actions that are products of the mindset. It's like saying a communist must actively participate in socialist parties to be a communist. It's not true. The mindset of a person is what defines whether they are a communist, or a racist, or a nationalist. Any actions they make are results of their mindset, and have other words for them, like war, discrimination, hate crimes, welfare spending etc.

[Suburbanite]

Yeah, why call someone who is powerless to influence another person a racist because he thinks mean thoughts about another race? That guy can't be changed, you don't know who he is (could be me or you or the most racially tolerant person you know), and he doesn't matter. I think we should maintain the integrity of the label racist by applying it to people who not only matter, but are changeable.
Also, I think for a concret example of the difference between saying something and trying to harm someone even with your words is Imus and Kramer. Imus was making a joke, he is not a racist, and never intended to hurt black people with his comments. Kramer, however, went on a prejudiced tirade against Black people, and I think that is racist, to express your hatred violently is so much different than making a joke.

[aaronssongs]

Yeah, why call someone who is powerless to influence another person a racist because he thinks mean thoughts about another race? That guy can't be changed, you don't know who he is (could be me or you or the most racially tolerant person you know), and he doesn't matter. I think we should maintain the integrity of the label racist by applying it to people who not only matter, but are changeable.
Also, I think for a concret example of the difference between saying something and trying to harm someone even with your words is Imus and Kramer. Imus was making a joke, he is not a racist, and never intended to hurt black people with his comments. Kramer, however, went on a prejudiced tirade against Black people, and I think that is racist, to express your hatred violently is so much different than making a joke.

Excuse me, Imus "thought" he was making a joke...only people with a negative view of blacks could find any humor in what he said...kind of a "wink and a nod"....except it wasn't funny to anyone black, because it was a characterization that was full of "I'm better than they are"...purely racist and hateful.
Jokes at the expense of another based solely on their race, or difference are not "jokes".....and they tell infinitely more about the person making the joke than the intended target. Trouble is, the damn joke fell flat. A death sentence to a comedian. Cost him his damn job. And I bet he is demonstratively "kinder and gentler", in his new job. Any bets?

[Cephus]

Right, my point exactly. You're likening calling someone a nigger under your breath to enslaving black people. The crimes are different.

No, calling someone a nigger is racism. Enslaving anyone of any skin color is another crime altogether. It may originate from racism, but it is not, in and of itself, racism. It's slavery.

Figure it out.

[Cephus]

Excuse me, Imus "thought" he was making a joke...only people with a negative view of blacks could find any humor in what he said...kind of a "wink and a nod"....except it wasn't funny to anyone black, because it was a characterization that was full of "I'm better than they are"...purely racist and hateful.

Imus was an idiot, not because he was racist, but because he thought he was being funny and he wasn't. The funny thing is that it was so blown out of proportion, claiming that Imus was a racist when the fact is, he may have been insulting one group of so-called "nappy-headed ho's" but the team he was complimenting was BLACK!

[aaronssongs]

Imus was an idiot, not because he was racist, but because he thought he was being funny and he wasn't. The funny thing is that it was so blown out of proportion, claiming that Imus was a racist when the fact is, he may have been insulting one group of so-called "nappy-headed ho's" but the team he was complimenting was BLACK!

I find it interesting that people are so insensitive that in the discussion of events, past and present, there is no tact applied, and instead of references to what was said by Imus, and everybody by now, knows exactly what "he said", it must be reiterated, in order to make a point. I also noticed the "n" word, being bandied about, as if no one could be offended by it being mentioned as "a negative". I, for one, am deeply offended, on both accounts.
Ironic, that the discussion is one of "racism", and its' effects...yet people perpetuate the crimes. Disingenuous, if not downright racist, to say the least.

[Chancellor]

Don't make that warning because you are phrasing it the wrong way. Warning, Oxford and Merriam Webster are dictionaries with definitions written be very few people. Urban dictionary takes our vocabulary back into our own hand. Its wikidictionary. Its what language REALLY is like. Its actually GENIUS, and FAR MORE valid. It contains far more words, and more definitions for these words. Its clearly superior from a linguistic and social standpoint.

But this isn't about how you're being brainwashed by your own dictionary. This is about how individuals looks at things, and I think my perspective, pragmatically, will help to remove the institutes of racism while ignoring and allowing the private freedoms anyone has to make a racial epitaph or personal dislike a race of people. I think my definition allows us to actually work on the problem of racism instead of worrying about being racist ourselves.

Dictionaries should be left to experts in the English language - people who specialize in fields such as linguistics and teaching English and not to the idiot masses.

[adam10312]

I find it interesting that people are so insensitive that in the discussion of events, past and present, there is no tact applied, and instead of references to what was said by Imus, and everybody by now, knows exactly what "he said", it must be reiterated, in order to make a point. I also noticed the "n" word, being bandied about, as if no one could be offended by it being mentioned as "a negative". I, for one, am deeply offended, on both accounts.
Ironic, that the discussion is one of "racism", and its' effects...yet people perpetuate the crimes. Disingenuous, if not downright racist, to say the least.

How are you offended? No one broke the rules of the forum, which you agreed to. No one called you a name. No one called anyone a name. Not that this matters, but it seemed like the person who mentioned the word did so to add gravity to the statement. I see no reason to avoid the heart of the issue, which is exactly what you just demonstrated. You are offended when no one did anything to offend you. Why are you mentioning it anyway? Do you think a rule was broken? Do you aim to discredit an argument? Then do so.

You taking offense at those words during this discussion is exactly what this thread is about. We should definitely delve deeper into why it offended you and how this applies to other issues.

[aaronssongs]

How are you offended? No one broke the rules of the forum, which you agreed to. No one called you a name. No one called anyone a name. Not that this matters, but it seemed like the person who mentioned the word did so to add gravity to the statement. I see no reason to avoid the heart of the issue, which is exactly what you just demonstrated. You are offended when no one did anything to offend you. Why are you mentioning it anyway? Do you think a rule was broken? Do you aim to discredit an argument? Then do so.

You taking offense at those words during this discussion is exactly what this thread is about. We should definitely delve deeper into why it offended you and how this applies to other issues.

Forum Rules
Please read Volconvo's rules below.

This site's main objective is to promote intelligent debate between people with contrasting ideologies. This is a not a forum for insults, spam, etc.

* No threats, personal insults or attacks
* Respect other opinions
* No spam
* No disrespectful or unnecessary use of profanity
* Provide the source of quoted material and do not copy entire articles
* No inappropriate images
* No inaccurate thread titles
* No disrupting threads
* Comply with moderating team requests and intentions
* Do not register more than one account per person
* Moderating issues may be addressed via private message only

Pardon me, but it appears that the second rule is "respect other opinions". And the fourth appears to be "no disrespectful or unnecessary use of profanity."

As a black man, I find the "n" word, "profane"....I also don't see the point in reiterating the slur made by Imus.
My bringing it to the attention of the forum, which is my right to do, within the framework of the stated rules, was to point out the unnecessary allude to what was said before, and reviled, then, as now, misses the point. Why add insult to injury. Do you think saying over and over again, makes it any more palatable? Unless you give a damn about what anyone else thinks, which I surmise is the case...and are determined to "have your way", whatever the cost.
Instead of saying the word(s), which are offensive, in and of themselves, why not make reference to them (i.e. the "n" word, "the commentary by Imus", instead of "nigger" and "nappy-headed ho's". Capice?
Or I suppose you want to dictate what is offensive and what is not?
Arrogant, ne c'est pas?