Are We too Sensitive About Racism?

I'd concur with Caroaber and go on to state that the author's logic is thus one of the most insidiously dangerous ideas to propagate in contemporary thought. As any historian of racism in the United States will tell you, discriminatory institutions and racial oppression functioned most effectively when it was rendered invisible in the public's mind - when the prevalence of prejudice was so great that it seemed natural and not the product of calculated policies and the economic interests of a few. This latest attempt to trivialize racism by warping the principles of equality back in on itself, coming loudest from the Right, is terribly dangerous. It opens the door for new kinds of oppression to be concocted and the present day ones (the mistreat of Arab-Americans and Mexican Americans) to go wholly unrecognized.

Much better question caroaber... hope you've been well:)

I'm not certain 'wholly unrecognized' may be to 'kind' a phrase, Anatoly.

Although I understand the your use of it, I would remind that on the part of the public, little effort is given to hold accountable those who warp the principals of equality, the corruption working overtime in those agencies mandated to act, staffed by those same named 'public'.

Encouragement doesn't seem to be doing the trick. And, those who suffer at the hand of this are UN-resourced to do anything about it. Which in turn makes this yet again, another victim of the nonplussed and gullibly comfortable 'middle' whom it serves.

what to do, what to do...

As any historian of racism in the United States will tell you, discriminatory institutions and racial oppression functioned most effectively when it was rendered invisible in the public's mind - when the prevalence of prejudice was so great that it seemed natural and not the product of calculated policies and the economic interests of a few. This latest attempt to trivialize racism by warping the principles of equality back in on itself, coming loudest from the Right, is terribly dangerous

Now that's just wording it damn near perfect :).

If we forget the atrocities of the not so distant past, they will almost certainly repeat themselves. Constantly reminding everyone - staying vigilant against racism is key to staying on the societal path we are riding in the US.

I agree with Morgan Freeman. To paraphrase him, 'the best way to combat racism is to stop focusing on it'.

Is that the same Morgan Freeman who decried that racism directed at Obama?

Nah, I'm not buying it. This is just one more variation on "Bartendme's Theory". In other words, "Anti-black racism won't go away until all black people make themselves believe it doesn't exist, and succumb to it".

Racism exists because we allow it to exist and choose to recognize it.

See? There it is again. Different words, same goal.

One of the first things that drew me to Obama, if not as an all out supporter but certainly as an admirer and POSSIBLE supporter, was his rejection of race-politics.

That's it, too.

This is just one more variation on "Bartendme's Theory". In other words, "Anti-black racism won't go away until all black people make themselves believe it doesn't exist, and succumb to it".

Yeah.. to paraphrase once again...

"Ignore it and maybe it'll go away."

Pretty silly notion to try and palm off on the public. Racism was a tool created for the purpose of profit... period. In America, a country where people came in order to be "free", buying and selling human beings wasn't going to be palatable on a large scale. Therefore it was going to be necessary for those engaged in, and benefitting from the potentially humongously profitable African slave trade to design a massive propaganda campaign. The African had to be de-humanized in the eyes of white people.

Literature, science, religion, the press... all were enlisted in the campaign of misinformation and lies. Black Africans were put on display in circuses, scientists "proved" the intellectual inferiority of the race. They were savages, soul-less heathens, sub-human beasts...

Legislation throughout the states codified the lies and laws were put in place to sanction and enforce the unequal treatment of blacks based on those lies.

Racism is real... no one is "too sensitive" about it. I would contend that far too many people are "insensitive" to it.. mainly because they lack the ability to empathize. My mother always says, "a problem is not a problem until it becomes a problem for you"... and we all need to understand that we have been, and continue to be, manipulated by a power structure that benefits from our hatred and distrust of one another. These are the same kind of profiteers who sold the American people a bill of goods a few hundred years ago when they shoved the institution of slavery down the throats of the regular folks for their own financial and political gain, and left our country scarred and divided to this day.

Don't ever be afraid to stare racism in the face and call it like you see it. Jewish people are never accused of playing the race card, and the JDL motto is "never again"... I agree.

Jewish people are never accused of playing the race card, and the JDL motto is "never again"... I agree.

oh, while the universal meaing of 'never again' is what you are espousing the JDL ought not stand as an example of anti-racism.

See ADL (Anti-Defamation League):

Kahane [founder and leader of the JDL] consistently preached a radical form of Jewish nationalism which reflected racism, violence and political extremism.

Racism is real... no one is "too sensitive" about it. I would contend that far too many people are "insensitive" to it.. mainly because they lack the ability to empathize

Well said and worth repeating.

while I agree that racism is real, and I do not accept the usage even as an inside remark the use of disparaging words, or inferior treatment of anyone by anyone on the basis or many things including skin tone,or cultural identification, I do think that sometimes we are too sensitive to things that are not racism ,but are in fact just normal life.

I know that in my day to day life, I don't see race. I have been told that not seeing race is racist. I don't think this is true, and I don't believe that everyone "sees" race. By this I mean not visually see differences in skin tone, or whatever other identifiers one uses to distinguish, I mean to take into consideration a "difference", or an "other".

In my life, including my family, there are all sorts of different skin tones, eye colors, hair types, eye shapes, etc etc etc. Our friends are also all of different ethnicities , colors, and shapes, and sizes.

I am not a believer that to have diversity that you have to have different skin tones. There is great diversity of people even in areas where they all look that same as far as basic variations of a single skin tone. In my life everyday, I see them all. To me it isn't a big deal. I think that there is still real racism out there, but I do think that sometimes we make more out of it by seeing it in interactions where it doesn't exist. So my two cents.

Unfortunately there seems to be far too many people that seek to do nothing but continue and encourage racism. Blacks, whites, etc are all guilty of this.

There are too many people who seek to fulfill the very stereotypes that their fathers and grandfathers worked so hard to tear down. There are too many people that choose to squander the opportunities presented to them. Racism is a two way street, and it's not just hateful rhetoric I'm talking about, the most important vehicle is how people portray themselves to others.

How do people seek to continue and encourage racism? For what you've typed, it seems that you think they do it by behaving in a "stereotypical" manner", which causes other people to be racist toward them. Is that what you're saying?

Not asked of me, but I would say that behavior in general prompts some people to be judgmental about the person and his behavior. Whether it's racist or not depends on whether they think the behavior is caused by race. Behavior is not caused by race. To think that it is, is irrational and racist.

Being critical or judgmental of someone's behavior is not racist. To assume that it is because the subject is a minority is racist. Basing one's decisions and judgments about others on the race of the person involved--whether it's the person being judged or the person doing the judging--is racist.

"There are too many people who seek to fulfill the very stereotypes that their fathers and grandfathers worked so hard to tear down. There are too many people that choose to squander the opportunities presented to them. Racism is a two way street, and it's not just hateful rhetoric I'm talking about, the most important vehicle is how people portray themselves to others."

I think that is a gross oversimplification. Arguing that an individual should their lives to accommodate the racial perceptions of other people is itself a racist perspective and proof that racism is alive and well. Some people are forced into particular behaviors by society and then racial caricatures are modify to reflect those behaviors, others build culture around racial caricatures specifically for the purpose of turning them into a source of strength rather than humiliation.

Sorry, I'm really tired and my thoughts are a little scattered.

Some people are forced to reinforce racial stereotypes, others attempt to utilize them to their advantage but the underlying force at work is a power relationship. By arguing that people "seek to fulfill stereotypes" you are not only discounting the very effect of racism but also fundamentally maintaining the power relationship that makes racism possible. No person should be forced to do anything because of their skin color nor should the actions of a single person come to be treated as representative of a group of individuals simply because they share a common trait.

In addition, some behaviors are widespread, but only become stereotypes when certain people do them. Case in point, from a blog comment I read a little while ago:

I didn't watch the Oscars, but apparently the black director of the winning documentary said "f**k" onstage...

The reason blacks remain so down on winning is because of "no class" acts such as dropping the F bomb on stage!

So, the guy who says "f**k" onstage in an inappropriate setting is completely representative of blacks as a people, but...

If more black PEOPLE started acting classy and grateful for their success like the actress from The Help, America would embrace them.

On the other hand...well, you get the idea.

Do they want to be seen as outsiders or do they want to be seen as plain old Americans. Theodore Roosevelt said "a hyphenated American is not an American." African-Americans, Irish-Americans, Native-Americans, German-Americans, Mexican-Americans: Our country is full of divisions. Why can't we just be Americans? American Indians were the first people here. Canada calls them First People.

I am a Native American. I was born here.

What are you?

I'm a black man.

I don't think you can be too sensitive about racism. I don't think you can be too sensitive about anything that mean, and ugly. If you're making the point that some things get called racism that aren't, no duh. That doesn't mean vigilance isn't important. Maybe it means that racism is a little more stealthy now, a little harder to identify maybe, now that open, overt racism is no longer acceptable.

And just because you found a lot of dummies when you Googled the word doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.

Prospero

really good comment.. as you said.

I don't think you can be too sensitive about anything that mean, and ugly.

As the saying goes, "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Our country is full of divisions. Why can't we just be Americans?

There is nothing wrong with recognizing our differences. It's human nature to categorize, it is how we make order out of a chaotic environment. It is why we have expanded our vocabulary to express things to others exactly the way we want them to be.

Dividing things into racial or ethnic categories isn't the problem here. People should be able to say the color of their skin in the same way as they can say the color of their eyes. We should all have the freedom to describe ourselves the way we want.

The problem also doesn't come from hyphinated Americans. (Theodore Rooselvet, a member of the majority, made that comment back in 1889 when both women and minorities were severly oppressed in America's power structure)

The problem comes from people who values or devalues a difference such as race.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing our differences.

Discrimination is recognizing our differences. Again, what's wrong with being Americans?

"Discrimination is recognizing our differences"

No, its not.

"Again, what's wrong with being Americans?"

Recently I've noticed that little meme circulating on the Right, usually coupled with claims that they "don't see race". The truth of the matter is that for centuries, whites have used the idea of "being American" to justify countless acts of oppression and barbarism.

When the United States broke its own laws and waged wars of genocide against Native Americans, it would often round up indigenous peoples and ship them off to reeducation facilities for the purpose of eradicating their ties to their culture and turning them into "real" Americans.

When the United States conquered and colonized the Philippines it did so for the purpose of "liberating" and "civilizing" Filipinos but when Filipinos attempted to make use of the basic rights and representation supposedly do to all members of a Republic, they were barred entry and made into second class citizens because the racial and its cultural values were deemed incompatible with American citizenship.

When the Japanese were stripped of their rights, robbed by the United States government, and placed into concentration camps the justification was that any expression of an affiliation with Japan meant that they were not true Americans. Simply by virtue of being Japanese, Japanese-Americans were not Americans.

America is often lauded for being a "melting pot" but what is a melting pot? It is a tool in which different substances are broken down and made into a single, homogenous mass. To be an American, one must strip themselves of any sort of distinctiveness and comply totally with the wishes of the white majority. They must lose their individuality and instead become part of an undifferentiated mass that can be uniformly included under a single term - American. The underlying rationalization has always been that anything that doesn't fit the definition of "American" is inherently worthless, inferior, and/or dangerous.

That mentality is the embodiment of racial supremacist thinking and far from being the grandly inclusive and tolerate principle Righties want us to think it is, it is in truth just another way of subtly defending white privilege. Don't believe me? Two words for you: September Eleventh. The first step that was taken was to brand Islam "unamerican" and the result has been the mistreatment of Arab-Americans, the infringement of their rights by the US government. This bull@!$%# about us "all being Americans" isn't about ending discrimination, its about adapting discrimination in an age where it is no longer acceptable to formally define Americanhood as a racial trait.

This bull@!$%# about us "all being Americans" isn't about ending discrimination, its about adapting discrimination in an age where it is no longer acceptable to formally define Americanhood as a racial trait.

You're exactly right. Fantastic comment.

Discrimination is recognizing our differences.

Which definition of discrimination are you using? If you are using it to define looking at the differences in people with prejudicial judgment, then it's your problem if you can't look at differences without judgment. Perhaps you never learned how to look at differences in people without prejudicial judgment. Perhaps you can only look at people as cookie cut outs of things you think is important, such as only being American.

If you are using discrimination as the ability to notice subtle differences. Well then, I agree! It is biologically natural for humans to visually notice differences, that is how we are able to distinguish between people. We aren't dogs, we don't do it by smell. We aren't insects, we don't do it by antennae. So for any one to sit there and pretend that a seeing humans can't see differences is nothing more than a delusion.

However, if you have to discriminate in order to see difference, again, that's on you. If you have to over simply people to make everyone a cookie cut out of how you think people need to be in order not to discriminate that's on you.

Again, what's wrong with being Americans?

What's wrong with being both? We are individuals that comprise of many different categories. I don't need to deny my gender, race, height, weight, where state I come from, etc., just because people like you are uncomfortable with acknowledging the individual catagories that makes up a unique person.

When you discriminate, you evaluate differences. That's what discrimination is. Discrimination is not a bad thing in itself. One may have discriminating tastes, you discriminate between green and red at traffic lights, you discriminate between dogs and cats. That's how you tell them apart. Discrimination is recognizing our differences, ALL differences. The problem is that some people discriminate others with biases that cause inequitable treatment and pre judge (from which the term "prejudice" comes) what they expect from that group of people.

I'm tired of hearing hyphen American. If you were born here, you are an American. If you are naturalized, you are an American. My grandmothers were both fully Irish. One of them never became a citizen. At one time the Irish were considered acceptable substitutes for slaves because slaves were too valuable to risk in the malaria infested swamps of Louisiana. The Irish could do it because they only got paid if they lived. And they didn't care if they lived. As long as they didn't lose slaves, the Irish could die by the hundreds.

Because of my immigrant and native heritage I could have any number of hyphens, as can most Americans. But the fact is that I was born in the United States. I am a native of America. I am the local color. I am the indigenous people. And if you were born in one of our fifty states or naturalized, you are as well. There's nothing wrong with being an American - no hyphen. And if we ever started to think of ourselves as Americans. not African-, Irish-, German-, Native-, then we'd all get along better. When we meet overseas, we don't have hyphens. We're Americans. Why can't we do that here at home?

What's wrong with being both?

First, we are qualifying our citizenship when we hyphenate. Secondly, if you self define as a separate group, you become a separate group. Separatism breeds inequality. That's why the separate but equal laws were finally struck down. It does not make a person unique to be part of a separate group. It makes you part of a group like the rest of the group.

I don't have issues with being what you are, identifying with your ancestry, but if you are an American you are a very privileged member of the peoples of the Earth. You have rights billions don't have. You have laws that protect you from many true evils. You may keep the fruits of your labor and choose that labor yourself. You may not be bought, sold, rented, or impressed into the military and you are guaranteed due process if you are charged with a crime. And the fact that we have and continue to maintain that is something to be proud of. But who hears people in Ireland or Kenya or China calling themselves "American-Irish", "American-Kenyan" or "American-Chinese"? Are you really so ashamed to be an American and just an American? There is no cookie cutter about it. Being an American is a good thing and it unifies us.

Once again, if you separate people into groups, they will inevitably rival one another. Isn't it time we promote cooperation and unity? Isn't time we finally tried to become one people, independent but unified by our citizenship? No, you're not a color, you're not a sex, you're not a religion. You're an American, just like all the other Americans. And that should make you proud.

First, we are qualifying our citizenship when we hyphenate. Secondly, if you self define as a separate group, you become a separate group. Separatism breeds inequality. That's why the separate but equal laws were finally struck down. It does not make a person unique to be part of a separate group. It makes you part of a group like the rest of the group.

US citizens are required to obey the law. We are free to pursuit happiness on our own terms.

Separate but equal was shot down because the law is a violation of the US Constitution. American Citizenship is qualified and secured in the US Constitution.

US citizens are required to obey the law. We are free to pursuit happiness on our own terms.

Separate but equal was shot down because the law is a violation of the US Constitution. American Citizenship is qualified and secured in the US Constitution.

And that is what makes us lucky. Not all countries have those laws. Drug dealers or police or legislators don't have to follow those rules. They can take and steal and kill with impunity. The strongest or best armed have their way. Women can't choose their paths, husbands or even to feel the sun on their faces.

You say those things, Angela, like you deserve them. No, they were fought for at great cost and must be protected. Your freedom came on the backs of millions of Americans who came before you. Being an American is something to be proud of. Don't be what other countries call a "gun toting retard". Be a proud American who values your citizen ship. And if you don't know why, go spend some time working with refugees. It'll come to you.

wow - what a total misfire Perry. A condescending riposte that demonstrates you didn't have the slightest idea what angela meant.

Despite your plea to minimize or extinguish differences people are happy for, and even celebrate, things that make them different.

if you self define as a separate group, you become a separate group. Separatism breeds inequality. That's why the separate but equal laws were finally struck down.

This is rubbish. The doctrine that provided legal justification for segregation was named as wrong because in practice it deprived some people of equal protection under the law (14th amendment).

You say those things, Angela, like you deserve them. No, they were fought for at great cost and must be protected. Your freedom came on the backs of millions of Americans who came before you. Being an American is something to be proud of. Don't be what other countries call a "gun toting retard". Be a proud American who values your citizen ship. And if you don't know why, go spend some time working with refugees. It'll come to you.

Are you sober? Am I suppose to buy into your uninformed rant about me?

Your reply is irrational.

Post Civil War America withheld Citizen rights from generations upon generations of American citizens for nearly a century.

And that is what makes us lucky. Not all countries have those laws.

Actually - most countries have these laws that have standards of living worth a @!$%#.

Drug dealers or police or legislators don't have to follow those rules.

Yes they do or they get arrested. (Do you even bother to read this @!$%# after you write it?)

They can take and steal and kill with impunity.

And they can get arrested and prosecuted with impunity like everyone else.

The strongest or best armed have their way. Women can't choose their paths, husbands or even to feel the sun on their faces.

Might makes right? WTF are you getting at here?

You say those things, Angela, like you deserve them. No,

Yes we all deserve them because they are inalienable rights that are inherent and deserved by all of us.

they were fought for at great cost and must be protected.

Which doesn;t negate the fact that we ALL deserve them. Derserving them and what they cost are actually supportive of each other not exclusive. (Do you even bother to read your @!$%# after you right it?)

Your freedom came on the backs of millions of Americans who came before you. Being an American is something to be proud of. Don't be what other countries call a "gun toting retard". Be a proud American who values your citizen ship. And if you don't know why, go spend some time working with refugees. It'll come to you.

What a bunch of Lee Greenwood spouting whooey. Whipping up a little "Proud to be an Amerukun" petard now are we.

The problem is that some people discriminate others with biases that cause inequitable treatment and pre judge (from which the term "prejudice" comes) what they expect from that group of people.

That is their problem. Do you tell people not to buy things because they are some people in the world that will steal them? NO. So you don't tell people not to identify in groups because some people don't know how to live life with out prejudice. If you need to be blind to race to not be prejudice that is your problem, not anyone elses. Many people can note a difference and move the hell on. It is your choice what you decide to value or devalue when it comes to a difference.

I'm tired of hearing hyphen American.

Again, your problem. You can't control what other people do, so why do you tire of what you can't control? It's because you have control issues with the people you are around. That has nothing to do with others, only with your perception of the world around you. The only thing you can control is your own emotions when dealing with a situation.

you were born here, you are an American. If you are naturalized, you are an American. My grandmothers were both fully Irish. . . .

.

The next two paragraphs SHOWS that you are fully aware of who you are and where you come from. You aren't blind to it. If you can rattle off your heritage probably better than most. The difference, you have chosen to self identify in a certain way. Well congrats! That is freedom. The ability to self identify how you chose! Hopefully you will learn one day to extend that grace to others and allow them to self identify how they chose and exercise their freedoms as well.

Secondly, if you self define as a separate group, you become a separate group. Separatism breeds inequality.

This is a hypothesisthat has never been reputably tested. Not to mention it pretty much goes against biology, physiology and nature. We are both individuals and part of groups. You can not seperate it. Becase that is how humans brains have evolved.

To put it simply, your frontal lobe has evolved the ability to objectively place things into categories, it is how we make order of a chaotic world. ( i.e. I am both me as an individual, and me as a female gender. I CAN NOT separate the two.) And it is delusion for anyone to think that you can't do this process.

Now, if i give value or devalue my gender that is a limbic lobe processs. I am purposely giving subjective analysis to an objective fact.

Your problem (and people who believe this "inequality from group's theory") is you PERSONALLY can't separate what is objective and what is subjective. So you are seeking to control others views based on what you can't do.

The truth is: that the ojbective group itself doesn't breed inequality, it is the individuals opinion that breeds inequality.

It's because you have control issues with the people you are around.

Ta dah:).

Aw, I love my Newsvine friends!

Actually - most countries have these laws that have standards of living worth a @!$%#.

What about the countries that don't have standards of living worth a @!$%#? Countries like Haiti and Hondurus and Syria and Afghanistan and North Korea? You are lucky to be living in a country with a standard of living worth a @!$%#. So many people in the world can and have been illegally imprisoned because of their religion, killed because of their ethnicity, told how many children they can have, murdered by soldiers, tortured, starved, raped and kept ignorant and uneducated. Only when you acknowledged that your situation is the exception rather than the rule can you appreciate what a gift your ancestors have given you.

Drug dealers or police or legislators don't have to follow those rules.

Yes they do or they get arrested. (Do you even bother to read this @!$%# after you write it?)

IF you've been looking at the news anywhere but here in the states, you will see there is an epidemic of drug related violence in countries which traffic drugs to the United States. Honduras is a small country with only 8.2 million people and averages twenty deaths a day. That's 7,300 drug related deaths per year in Honduras alone. Comparable numbers in the US would be 277,000 drug trafficking related deaths per year. And the violence in Mexico where the women go missing so frequently they have a special name for it: Mujeres Muertas de Juarez or dead women of Juarez. And they always turn up dead, often raped or hacked to pieces.

And there are the decapitations, the mass murders of the Policia, the daily shooting sprees, the governmental corruption. No wonder so many people will risk their lives to get across our borders. The odds are better than staying at home. My question is, why don't YOU know this stuff?

They can take and steal and kill with impunity.

And they can get arrested and prosecuted with impunity like everyone else.

You obviously don't even know the history of your own country, much less what's going on with others. Our country has a long history of killing with impunity, for example going into a country which had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11 and leveling the civilian population with bombing strikes. The vast majority of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, as was Osama bin Laden. But that country controls the oil flow from the Middle East, so we couldn't attack them. And the architects of that counter attack are still sitting free and unmolested in the US. And we have a history. The US has broken every treaty it has ever made. Except for the few we are now obligated to, which will, no doubt, go the way of the others. We take over other people's land and throw them out or exterminate them.

And don't think other countries don't kill with impunity. Idi Amin killed his people and ate them. His country was not one you'd like to have ended up in. Many regions are fraught with centuries of civil wars, religious intolerance and racist clashes. .

The strongest or best armed have their way. Women can't choose their paths, husbands or even to feel the sun on their faces.

Might makes right? WTF are you getting at here?

I see you are missing the point entirely. My statement is that you are lucky to live in a place where these things DON't happen. You are privileged to be in a country where we are protected from these things. NOT that they happen here all the time, although they do still happen sometimes.

You say those things, Angela, like you deserve them. No,

Yes we all deserve them because they are inalienable rights that are inherent and deserved by all of us.

they were fought for at great cost and must be protected.

No, although you are born into the US by luck, the rights and privileges you enjoy were fought for, not given freely. And in order to keep them, you may have to fight for them again. When you are born to wealth you do not deserve it, you are simply blessed with it. It can be lost or taken away. Likewise with your freedom, it is something you must cherish and not take for granted. You don't automatically get it in this world. You were born into a place where it was given to you, like wealth. Not everyone is. And there's nothing about you that is different from a refugee in Africa repeatedly raped by rebels, a Christian in China who is killed for her religion, or a child huffing paint thinner in Brazil except that you had the LUCK to be born in the USA. You don't "deserve" it by anything you did. You were lucky. And you must be ready to defend it because there are always people who will want to take it away from you.

What a bunch of Lee Greenwood spouting whooey. Whipping up a little "Proud to be an Amerukun" petard now are we.

So you are ashamed of being an American? I can see that. Sometimes I am ashamed as well to see people who believe they are given divine right to do or say anything they want without consequences. That is a very American trait, unfortunately. And again, that is why people from other countries consider us gun toting retards.

Perry...

I think you are making much too much out of the whole hyphenated thing. African-American is a very recent designation. When I was born the term was "colored", then it morphed to "Negro", then to "black", and most recently "African-American". I refer to myself as "black" because to me it makes the most sense.. If the Caucasian race is referenced as white, then the Negro race should logically be referred to as black.

You seem to think that black people are exacerbating racial divisiveness by using a particular word to self-describe. Well, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no distinction in the level of racism directed toward us regardless of which terminology was in vogue at the time.

I have heard this argument several times and it always seems to me to be an attempt to blame those who are on the receiving end of discrimination and bigotry for their own plight.. that it is us who are separating ourselves from the larger society, and that if we just embraced our "Americanness" more we would be welcomed into the fold. The fallacy of this argument is that black people were separated from the rest of Americans and denied the right to fully participate as citizens for centuries... we did not choose or desire that separation and it pre-dated by a long shot the hyphenation of our label. And the stroke of a pen in 1964 did not magically banish the hatred of those who fully supported the Jim Crow agenda..

White racism is based on what we look like, not semantics. Narrow-minded bigots are still going to look down their noses at us.. hyphen or no hyphen.. if you believe otherwise, I don't know what to tell you...

The fallacy of this argument is that black people were separated from the rest of Americans and denied the right to fully participate as citizens for centuries... we did not choose or desire that separation and it pre-dated by a long shot the hyphenation of our label. And the stroke of a pen in 1964 did not magically banish the hatred of those who fully supported the Jim Crow agenda..

On the other side of the same coin... People [not very many anyhow] don't think about the fact that the Europeans [English] decided to enslave the Irish and The First Peoples LONG before they ever used Africans for their slavery. How many Irish do you know that are still mad at the world?

In short, you are saying that racist opinions do not depend upon how one describes himself.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. My primary descriptor is "me"

No, what you said, your primary description to me was "I am a black man". So that's all I know about you. That is what you want me to think of when I think of you, not as a good man or bad, smart or stupid, strong or weak, professional, convict, citizen, zealot, atheist and so on. Also, if you are a black man in America, there is a strong possibility that you are not 100% African descent. Is part of you not a black man? Is part of you Hispanic? Caucasian? Native American? Asian? Do you even know? Or is your family one of those "only marry your own kind" types? That, too is a form of racism.

Our family has people of all different backgrounds and color variations from the whitest white to the blackest black in it both as ancestors and as descendants. We also have nurses, doctors, mothers, fathers, construction workers, printers, musicians, emergency workers, police officers, farmers, lawyers, soldiers and many other accomplished relatives to be proud of. And we have Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Agnostics, Athiests, Buddhists, Wiccans and people of other beliefs. And we all love one another. There are SO MANY WAYS to describe ourselves that we don't even worry about color. Heck, I didn't even realize that color was an issue until I moved from New York to Texas in 1974. They were having race riots in the high schools. Back home we all got along fine, in school, out, at dances, hanging out, at parties. The biggest problem we had back home was child and domestic abuse. We didn't have time to worry about color. We all hid out together.

So Mr-I-don't-identify-as-a-black-man, grow up. Racism will exist as long as people like you think first about race and second about being human.

MsAubrey,

Cynergy never mentioned being mad at the world. oops

I didn't say SHE did.

Maybe you should take your ASSumptions elsewhere and not get snarky with someone you don't know.

I didn't say SHE did.

Maybe you should take your ASSumptions elsewhere and not get snarky with someone you don't know.

@ Aubrey. What exactly are you insinuating/stating with this comment (below) if you are not characterizing cynergy (as the current representative of all blacks, African-Americans, etc.) as angry/mad?

On the other side of the same coin... How many Irish do you know that are still mad at the world?

Who stated black people are angry [at the world], and who stated Irish people are not [angry at the world]?

If you're asking me? I'd state it's about even, in terms of angry people. LOL.

Racism will exist as long as people like you think first about race and second about being human.

Imagine someone telling you religious persecution will continue to exist as long as people like you think first about religion (Baptist) and second about being human. Do you see yourself as ironic?

Just a generalization. Not aimed at anyone. It was a reference to saying that people are separated because of what happened years ago. My "neck of the woods" [the majority] people don't see anything except another person. Point blank, it doesn't matter who did what to what people when... WE ARE ALL PEOPLE ON A PLANET TOGETHER.

There is separation IF ONE THINKS THERE IS.

If I don't put a specific name or refer to them directly, then I'm not inferring that one person is doing/saying/referring to anything specific. It was a response to PART of a comment.

Again, for those that don't know me from Eve, don't make assumptions about me.

Maybe you should take your ASSumptions elsewhere and not get snarky with someone you don't know.

You inserted synergy's message in blockquote in your message. Are you saying you were not speaking to synergy... per se' ? LOL

It was a reference to saying that people are separated because of what happened years ago.

Synergy never said people are seperated because of what happened years ago

My "neck of the woods" [the majority] people don't see anything except another person. Point blank, it doesn't matter who did what to what people when... WE ARE ALL PEOPLE ON A PLANET TOGETHER.

Synergy was not addressing your neck of the woods. How you navigate your neck of the woods is not in dispute.

Again, for those that don't know me from Eve, don't make assumptions about me.

I can agree with this point. People quite often make assumptions of others when they know nothing of them. A whole litany of generalizations have been made concerning an entire group of people based on nothing but an assumption of what one thinks they know, versus what actually is. Unfortunately, that is quite commonplace when people succumb to their preconceived notions about another person(s) because of their race, creed, origin, that really have no basis in fact or reality.

Just a generalization. Not aimed at anyone. It was a reference to saying that people are separated because of what happened years ago. My "neck of the woods" [the majority] people don't see anything except another person. Point blank, it doesn't matter who did what to what people when... WE ARE ALL PEOPLE ON A PLANET TOGETHER.

There is separation IF ONE THINKS THERE IS.

Many of Perry's statements in this thread also come to mind when I consider these types of generalized ASSumptions.

So Mr-I-don't-identify-as-a-black-man, grow up. Racism will exist as long as people like you think first about race and second about being human.

angelaisafan & Lois-Lnae..

I couldn't get back here until now... busy elsewhere on the site.. however, I would like to thank both of you, #1. for the great points and responses you made... #2. for the laughs... : )

MsAubrey...

There is separation IF ONE THINKS THERE IS

NOT! Separatation/Segregation was codified, sanctioned by the government.. local, state and Federal. Some of those laws stayed on the books until the 1970s and 80s. Like so many people, you want to think of racism as a thing of the far distant past. You tell black people to get over it... I'm telling you that I'll get over it when the rest of society gets over it. I've been ready to move on. When I was little back in the 60s, I was sure that by the time I grew up, racism would be over and done with. Now I'm in the second half of my life and I hear people like Ron and Rand Paul questioning the wisdom of the Civil Rights Act.. All I can say when I hear this crap is "Are you @!$%#tin' me??!" I mean, let's get real.

You want to talk about other races/ethnic groups being enslaved? Here's the deal.. Irish and others of the Caucasian persuasion were not suitable candidates for enslavement on a massive scale because they could blend in with the free citizens. Black Africans were perfect for the role because of one trait, and one trait only... skin color. Which is the same reason we are still having problems.. we can't assimilate with the ease of Irish, Italians, Poles, Germans, Jews... Changing our names or taking speech classes to get rid of a thick Irish brogue, just isn't going to get it.

#1.45

edit

That should be Lois-Lane

@ cynergy. Great points. Phenomenal!!!!

You want to talk about other races/ethnic groups being enslaved? Here's the deal.. Irish and others of the Caucasian persuasion were not suitable candidates for enslavement on a massive scale because they could blend in with the free citizens. Black Africans were perfect for the role because of one trait, and one trait only... skin color. Which is the same reason we are still having problems.. we can't assimilate with the ease of Irish, Italians, Poles, Germans, Jews... Changing our names or taking speech classes to get rid of a thick Irish brogue, just isn't going to get it.

B-I-N-G-O!!!!

and, P.S., I read it as Lane. (smile).

Black Africans were perfect for the role because of one trait, and one trait only... skin color.

That pretty much exposes the myth of "ideal" minorities, or those most "pleasing" to whites. Bluntly and straightforwardly to the point, cynergy. Well said.

yw, cynergy

I have a lot of hope for the next generation. These young people grew up in integrated schools and have friendships that ignore color and other cultural lines. They embrace much more as normal. Maybe the next crop of Americans won't be so afraid of differences.

Do you mean in the same way that Jews have been the ones to define the term "anti-Semitic," even though they are not the only Semites?

canoaber, the term "antisemitic" was specifically invented by literal Nazis to mean "anti-Jew" and it NEVER applied to everybody who spoke a Semitic language. I have shared my own home with Arab Muslims who grew up in Arabic speaking countries as their first language and they still used the word "anti-Semitic" to mean "prejudiced against Jews." Everybody really knows that's what the word means. If you grew up in, say, Lebanon during the civil war, your problem isn't Jews, but one of the other factions that was busy blowing up your little brother's school.

The blacks(?) seem to have the sole custody of the concept. My Korean, Thai, Laotian, Vietnamese and Cambodian friends may disagree with you.

Nice to see you use your Asian "friends" as a shield in a classic Appeal to Melanin post.

Also, believing that "The (no quantifier) blacks seem to have the sole custody of" . . . is a great example of a racist statement.

My Korean, Thai, Laotian, Vietnamese and Cambodian friends may disagree with you.

Have they spoke up or have the let black americans take the lead and they followed their coattails?? For that matter did you encourage them or did you sit idly by????

I'm a black man.

If you define yourself first as a black man, that is what people will see first. They won't see "Look, a fellow American" or "he's a Baptist like me*" or "There's a good looking guy*" first, they will see BLACK MAN. Now being a black man is fine if that is all you want to be. But if that is how you self identify, that is all people will see. So when people recognize you first as BLACK MAN, don't be surprised. And if it offends you that you are recognized first as BLACK MAN, not coworker or neighbor or friend, then you will have to live with that and it will be a situation of your own contrivance.

As NOT BLACK MAN, we are expected to see anything BUT black man. We are not allowed to say BLACK MAN. We are not supposed to notice you are a BLACK MAN. And we do our best to ignore your most obvious physical trait and describe you in any other terms. But when you self identify as BLACK MAN, you are challenging the enforced political correctness that is supposed to keep everyone from offending everyone else. And especially in work situations where the Equal Employment Opportunities office can become involved, there will be fear and resentment.

And really, when you self identify as race, isn't that racism as well? I'm white, you're black. Why does that make me racist and you not? Aren't you any more than the amount of melanin in your dermis? Don't you have any other traits you are proud of? Are you a smart man? Are you a religious man? Are you an athletic man? A talented man? A patient man? A married man? A father? A leader? A professional?

Really, you need to take a good hard look at yourself and find something more important to hang your identity on than something as superficial as race.

* = creative license take with these descriptions

I've been a black man for quite a while, and that's not the only thing most people see. The ones who do see only "black man" do so because they want to, and identifying in any other way won't prevent those people from seeing only "black man". You're also assuming that "black" will naturally be seen in a harsh light by everyone...or at least everyone who isn't black. Why?

Plants

You're also assuming that "black" will naturally be seen in a harsh light by everyone...or at least everyone who isn't black. Why?

Probably because the context established by this article is racism.

I'm not talking about "this article". I'm talking about life, and in life, the people who see "black" in a harsh light are predisposed to do so, and see it that way no matter how a black man (or woman) identifies him/herself.

Plants

In short, you are saying that racist opinions do not depend upon how one describes himself. I agree. But Perry was pointing out that if one's ethnicity is displayed as their primary characteristic then that diminishes their other characteristics. That is, if one considers himself more than simply a product of his ethnicity then why self-identify so strongly with ethnicity and downplay his other characteristics? In particular, when people (supporters as well as opponents) speak in public and focus on Obama as a black man rather than a father, husband, POTUS, lawyer, etc. they are bringing race front and center. Why?

In short, you are saying that racist opinions do not depend upon how one describes himself.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. My primary descriptor is "me", which should go without saying. But, that's not what we're talking about here. By the way, primarily describing myself as "me" doesn't prevent those people who are so inclined from seeing me as "black man", and seeing that as an inherently bad thing.

Plants

So what do you think about supporters of Obama who focus primarily on his skin color and suggest that opposition to his policies is racist?

Clearly some opponents are racist, but just as clearly the balance are not. Is it healthy to presume that opposition is necessarily based upon racism rather than genuine differences in policy (or for that matter based upon ugly partisanship)?

So what do you think about supporters of Obama who focus primarily on his skin color and suggest that opposition to his policies is racist?

LOL. Not much, but the people who I identify as doing that are probably a much smaller group than the people you identify as doing that.

Plants

Probably. :-) Perspectives vary. But at least we see eye-to-eye on those who focus on race to the exclusion of other arguably more appropriate characteristics.

We don't necessarily see eye-to-eye on that subject, which is why I see that group as being smaller than you probably do.

Plants

So we do not see eye-to-eye on seeing eye-to-eye? :-)

You're also assuming that "black" will naturally be seen in a harsh light by everyone...or at least everyone who isn't black. Why?

No, I'm telling you that if you don't want to be affected by racism, self identifying by race is not the way to do it.

I have always worked in male oriented workplaces. Men tend to identify me as "woman" not "coworker" or "friend". I don't self-identity as "woman", I self identify as "emergency manager" or "caseworker". Being a woman in this workplace is unimportant. Likewise, being a black man in the workplace should be unimportant. You really should expect to be identified as "coworker" or "manager" or "executive".

Your automatic expectation of my seeing "black" in a harsh light is incorrect (and racist). I believe it is irrelevant to people who are not racist. And when you self identify by race, that IS racist. I'm not a white woman. I'm a mom grandma emergency manager artist. No race there.

I still don't know anything about you but your race. So if all I know is that you're black, how do you expect me to relate to you?

So what do you think about supporters of Obama who focus primarily on his skin color and suggest that opposition to his policies is racist?

Catholic supporters for President Kennedy openly campaigned for their guy.

When asked, who called you a racist over a policy dispute or a opposing opinion, the complainer goes silent.

Blacks are regularly called the most racist population in America. (irony)

The ones who do see only "black man" do so because they want to, and identifying in any other way won't prevent those people from seeing only "black man".

Bingo!

No, I'm telling you that if you don't want to be affected by racism, self identifying by race is not the way to do it.

Makes NO sense.

Haven't you ever heard the saying "A rose by any other name . . .?" Calling or not calling yourself a term is not going to change or not change who you are or how people see you.

You can't change the way a rose smells by changing the name, and you can't change how people are going to treat you based on your race, by changing how you self-identify. If you attempt to control the beliefs of others by changing how you self-identify, you will only succeed in deluding yourself to what is going on around you.

She concedes that herself...about herself, even as she denies it, Ohiogal:

I have always worked in male oriented workplaces. Men tend to identify me as "woman" not "coworker" or "friend".

I don't self-identity as "woman"

Yet, they still identify her only as "woman", which is exactly what I said about others identifying me as "black man".

If you attempt to control the beliefs of others by changing how you self-identify, you will only succeed in deluding yourself to what is going on around you.

Not to mention degrading yourself. But yeah...you hit on something there. I think the idea is to get you to delude yourself...into not recognizing racism as racism, and thereby allowing it to be practiced with impunity. That one goal is at the base of so much of the "colorblind racism" rhetorical strategy.

ms cyprah, what I think people do not understand is the political weapon that can be unleashed using the word racism. Think about how the Obama administration has used the word racism. The opposition to Obama are called racists, or anyone else who doesn`t like Obama is a racist. And is confuses people because now they think that they are racist. It is called the intimidation factor in politics, and brain washing. That was a very good reply, but it needed some further explanation. To me, racism is being confronted by a white supremist group, or by the business end of a gun. A person is racist if he intentionally uses a supremist attitude to intimidate other people, to promote your own agenda. It can be applied politically or personally. My beautiful black wife taught the meaning of racism.

ZH:
You've got a lot of thoughts there, but please break them up in future with new paragraphs (using your enter key) so we can keep track.

lol, that makes Zenn's point about having short attention spans. But consider, Zenn, reading books in depth takes time, uninterrupted time with nothing else to do. People in the 19th century wrote and read long, wordy books because they had the time. As our world became busier, books became shorter and more concise. Now our modern world moves quickly and our children are conditioned to have the attention spans of gnats. We really need to turn off the media and spend time at home with them in order to foster that peace and quiet that fosters uninterrupted thought.

People in the 19th century wrote and read long, wordy books because they had the time.

They also had the time to write in paragraphs.

Sally, you are absolutely correct. What is sad here is that there are important issues on race that we should be dealing with. However, it's near impossible when there are people who will use the term "racist" to describe anyone who disagrees with them. How can we discuss race when the term is being hijacked.

Was I too sensitive to report my "friend" that has never made a comment like this before?

No.

In my area racial slurs (and sexist comments) are frequently used in casual conversation. My husband quit doing any work for an area minister for calling our president a n*##@$.

I have a zero tolerance policy regarding racist and sexist comments.

I have a zero tolerance policy regarding racist and sexist comments.

That is necessary in an intelligent world. If you don't tell them, they think it is acceptable to say things that make them appear more powerful than others. It is often easier to say"That is Racist"' instead of saying, "Your comment indicates you have a superiority complex that shows lack of character and knowledge. When you slur others you are making me uncomfortable. Please stop doing that before you insult anyone else as you have done to me.

I agree that often people will use the word racist , when they should be using the word bigot.

Was I too sensitive to report my "friend" that has never made a comment like this before?

Hell no you weren't too sensitive.

There is too much oversensitivity, political correctness and very little honest dialogue and proper identification of racism.

That I absolutely agree with.

I think the purpose of this article is to try to assert a certain kind of political correctness.

who's 'their'.

.

Not at all and your sarcasm is weak at best. If your going to be sarcastic, do it well. At least make us laugh.

Of course racism exists. And it goes both ways. Blacks are just as racist as whites. But thats not my point and frankly, I could give a damn less who likes me or doesn't. That's their problem, not mine. I could give a damn less.

I'll say this slowly for you, so your sure to understand.

Using racism as an excuse for one's failures in life is weak bull@!$%#. And it's one thats constantly used. Yes, racism can make things harder sometimes. Maybe even most of the time. But in the end, theres millions of proud black Americans who overcome it and succeed. And they do it on their terms.

Their not "Uncle Toms". Their not "ass-licking toadies". Their successful Americans.

Period.

In this day and age, sorry, EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN born has the chance of success. Hard work and persistance will absolutely overcome any and all roadblocks. And I don't give a damn what you say.

That is an absolute fact.

Also a fact is that in many ways, the Minorities are even HANDED opportunities just because their a Minority. So save it.

If you fail in this country, it's because of you, not racism. Racism will not stop you in this day and age. Thats nothing more than an excuse and a crutch.

So let's sum it up.

Yes, racism is alive and well in this Country and it's dished out by both sides.

Yes, racism can cause a disturbance in the force.

But no, racism is not the cause for anybody's true failure in life. If you fail and end up in the gutter, you have nobody to blame except yourself.....

and you know cause you've been profiled, you've been prompted for ID everywhere you go, you've been followed in every store you've walked in to, you've been delegated to the @!$%# loans for @!$%# houses in unsafe neighborhoods, called names, been labeled, your children have been told by classmates that white people are smarter then black people, you've been paid less then most others because you work in an industry that as a rule, hires minorities, pays @!$%# and offers NO benefits for health, you've been overcharged by credit agencies, banks, loan sharks, you've been red lined, denied legal counsel, or a call, youv'e had a cousin killed on a train platform, a cousin shot in the back, no probable cause found, your race is the largest proportion of men in prison, the mortality rate for your race is the highest, ....... i could go on for awhile.

but, its clear, the content of the subject matter is to much for most in this discussion if your the best we got... i'll pass.

this hurah @!$%# is so damn old the dust is thick... btw, white don't know @!$%# about it, can't even recognize their own. (and yes, I'm white:)

Not at all and your sarcasm is weak at best.

It's not sarcasm. It's an accurate description of what some people feel the need to delude themselves into believing.

Using racism as an excuse for one's failures in life is weak bull@!$%#. And it's one thats constantly used. Yes, racism can make things harder sometimes. Maybe even most of the time. But in the end, theres millions of proud black Americans who overcome it and succeed. And they do it on their terms.

There it is again. I guess you've so successfully willed yourself into believing it, you don't know when you're displaying it. Yes, millions of black people have overcome it and succeeded. And you know what? The huge majority of them also call out racism when they see it. In other words, they are among the people you deem to be "unsuccessful".

Their not "Uncle Toms". Their not "ass-licking toadies". Their successful Americans.

That's right. The huge majority of them are not ass-licking toadies, and therefore, "unsuccessful" in your mind. The ones you do see as successful are the ones you at least perceive to be ass-licking toadies to white privilege. Otherwise, how could they be successful? People- black people, because this never applies to whites , right?- who complain about racism are by definition "using an excuse for one's failure", right?

It's just like the guy on another thread who willed himself into believing that the Obamas went to Ivy League schools for free, just because they're black. The idea that the only black people who are successful are those who never complain about racism, and who have dedicated themselves to being men and women Fridays to a perceived white birthright to primacy, is a similar rationalizing, comforting fantasy.

*yawn*

You hold on to those delusions if it makes you sleep better at night.....

Hand. I'm done with you.

If your going to be sarcastic, do it well. At least make us laugh.

Hell made me laugh. I guess you don't get why it's absurd to think that people who talk about racism = people who have shortcomings and failures.

Yes, millions of black people have overcome it and succeeded. And you know what? The huge majority of them also call out racism when they see it. In other words, they are among the people you deem to be "unsuccessful

Shhh, don't tell em that. It'll destroy the delusion.

Oops...no, we don't want to do that:). Their would will go all topsy-turvy.

you've been paid less then most others because you work in an industry that as a rule, hires minorities, pays @!$%# and offers NO benefits for health, you've been overcharged by credit agencies, banks

Yes. I'm a "white" woman in a shop full of men and was hired as a technician on the shop floor. It took me a long damn time to get where I am and fight damn hard to do so too. I went to vocational school and was one of three women there. I was the only woman in the first several shops I've worked in... Trust me, it's not just race. And as far as credit agencies... They see "SUCKER" stamped on woman many times too. I was just one that wouldn't stand for their [credit agencies] crap.

And no, I'm not trying to defend the words of "ScreamingforVengeance" either. I'm just simply pointing out that these things don't only happen to those of distinguishing color [for political correctness sake].

Yes Ms. Aubrey, being a woman is something you can see on the outside too, not just color. Sometimes it seems people like "Black Man" (that's still all we know about this person and all he wants us to know) can't admit other groups also suffer discrimination.

Perry..

you say in comment #1.24

if you self define as a separate group, you become a separate group. Separatism breeds inequality.

So according to you, it's MsAubrey's own fault if she is discriminated against because she "self-defines" as a woman...

MsAubrey...

in comment #1.41 you say

My "neck of the woods" [the majority] people don't see anything except another person.

... apparently your "neck of the woods" is not as tolerant of differences as you portrayed...

#15.7

I'm just simply pointing out that these things don't only happen to those of distinguishing color

Quite right.. the point is discrimination is real, and there are ignorant bigots who make judgements about people based on superficial differences. So I think you can see that it is condescending and intellectually dishonest to accuse those, such as yourself, who recognize racism/sexism and other forms of discrimination and call it out, of being "overly sensitive"...

Sometimes it seems people like "Black Man" (that's still all we know about this person and all he wants us to know) can't admit other groups also suffer discrimination.

Well of course it can seem that way to anyone who rather make up a fantasy in their head than to extend common courtesy and just ask the person what they think.

I'm just simply pointing out that these things don't only happen to those of distinguishing color [for political correctness sake].

Who said "these things only happen to those of distinquishing color?"

Nobody, angela, noooobody.

When some people can't debate what a preson actually said, it's far easier for them to make s'it up and fight what that person never said.

Definition of racism?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

Define racism.

<crickets>

rac·ism noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Definition of RACISM
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Merriam-Webster Dictionary.com

How'd I do?

rac·ism noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Definition of RACISM
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Yeah! A response! Cool!!

We now have on the table a definition of racism. (That's the one I would use but I didn't want to answer my own question!)

Should this be what is used then to answer the question posed - "Are We too Sensitive About Racism?"

Let me start. If the above is the definition that we can agree upon using for racism, I believe that many of the folks who have posted the view that "We can never be too sensitive about racism." is the view I would support.

Now, in this back and forth about what constitutes a racist remark or action, shouldn't we ask the question, "How does fit the definition of racism we all agree upon?"

Devil's always in the details and there are some things that will be clear to some and fuzzy to others but at least an attempt is being made to understand the "why" it is felt racism is being exhibited.

It also appears that someone claiming the race card is being played is becoming as prevalent as "playing the race card." Seems like it has become an almost automatic knee-jerk reaction to say, "Sure, play the race card again!" as though identifying the claim will invalidate the claim. You know - sometimes the racism IS being displayed.

Shouldn't a better response be to ask, "Explain to me why you feel that is racist based upon the definition of racism is defined as .....?"

Best answer I've read yet. ((((Spooky)))) you're a deep soul. Sending you a much overdue FR.

'the best way to combat racism is to stop focusing on it'

No, the best way to combat racism is to call it out for what it is - hatred and bigotry - every time we hear it or see it or read it.

The best way to facilitate the practice of it is to stop focusing on it.

Agreed.

It amazes me how narrow many people can be. Different races provide an abundance of enrichments through their histories and cultures. It is simply ignorance and rudeness to pretend to "not see" the outstanding attributes from one race to another. I am proud of my Basque heritage, and I can only assume that other people are proud of their heritages as well.

Different races provide an abundance of enrichments through their histories and cultures. It is simply ignorance and rudeness to pretend to "not see" the outstanding attributes from one race to another.

Exactly ambi. And we are the strongest nation on the planet because we've found a way to harness this strength under one umbrella.

The First Peoples [aka Native American, Indiginous People....] RULE! ☺

Sorry... I just wanted to get a smile from the heated discussions here. ☺

The NAs I know do!

Waanikiwin! :)

instead of being a part of the solution to the problem...

I assume there is no solution to the problem as long as white is the predominant race in terms of numbers, and by extension, power. Whether it's intended or not--or stated or not or even thought about or not--white is the "standard" and all others are the "other." That dynamic is not just a white attitude; it's assumed by everyone of all races. That's the problem. That's not the "fault" of whites living today. The fault lies in blaming others for the fact that that particular dynamic exists and assuming that those living in the here-and-now created it. We didn't. We're just all suffering from it--non-whites especially in terms of unfair assumptions and judgments, and whites in terms of unfair and unwarranted guilt and responsibility.

If you eat stolen cookies aren't you nearly just as guilty as the thief.

People that have benefited personally from the discriminatory effects of institutional racism are guilty but in a different way from the people that actually engaged in the world wide slave trade and its ugly aftermath.

Not just here but all around the world.

If and unqualified white person was able to get or obtain a job over a qualified minority (which truthfully happened a lot more in the past than it does today) because of the prejudices of the employer against minorities I see that as unfair.

If you eat stolen cookies aren't you nearly just as guilty as the thief...

If you know before you eat them that they're stolen? Yes. Agree.

People that have benefited personally from the discriminatory effects of institutional racism are guilty but in a different way from the people that actually engaged in the world wide slave trade and its ugly aftermath.

How is it different? What are these guilty-by-association parties to do to atone for their inherited guilt? And how do you prove their guilt in light of the presumption of innocence and due process?

If and unqualified white person was able to get or obtain a job over a qualified minority (which truthfully happened a lot more in the past than it does today) because of the prejudices of the employer against minorities I see that as unfair.

Pretty blatantly racist, yes.

I'm going to say something really controversial now....

Racism is also an internal issue that keeps minorities (specifically, Black people) subjugated in this country is a unique way -- by having Black people teach each other that if they strive too hard to be a part of mainstream society - they are not "black" enough.

The term "oreo" is a racist idea between Black people (white on the inside, black on the outside) that reflects this.

This mentality essentially allows White people to not have to do anything "racist" to hold back Black people -- they can sit back and watch them hold themselves back.

Racism is also an internal issue that keeps minorities (specifically, Black people) subjugated in this country is a unique way -- by having Black people teach each other that if they strive too hard to be a part of mainstream society - they are not "black" enough.

1. Racism can be internal to all, not specifically black people. Some Hispanics, Asians, Natives Americans, Whites, etc. can self subjugate. There is a theory that people are more racist to their own race than others. Which brings me to

2. Yes, there are some blacks that are racist that have stereotypical views of whites and blacks and thinks that behavior is indicative of skin color. You have terms like oreo with blacks the same way that you have terms like banana/twinkie with east Asians, or "wigger" with whites. But those people are racist anyway, and racist people should not be the example of how other people of the race view success. The vast majority of blacks and any other race wants people to be successful, to strive hard, and to make something of themselves.

3. Every race has a few people that denigrated success out of jealousy or even ambition (e.g. a white educated politician telling his white constitutes that colleges are places of indoctrination and it's "snob"ish to expect people to strive hard and go to college). Unfortunately, to some in this country when a few Blacks or Hispanics do it it is reflective on the race, but when a person who is Asian or Caucasian does it is a reflection of the individual.

ohiogal-479871 -

That's all good and fine except that the US has a specific history between blacks and whites as a result of years of slavery. It cannot be denied, it cannot be dismissed, it cannot be compared to other minorities.

Unless you have educated yourself on slavery and the lasting psychological impact it has on our nation - you will continue to be insensitive to the issue which is real and has implications that are important and should be recognized.

dont forget the annihilation of the human beings. many call them 'indians'. children ripped from their homes, their cultures... and so much more.

don't forget the 'interment' of japanese, and other asian 'groups'. one day an american, the next a 'prisoner'...

we have a very long history for such a young nation.

*clears throat*

...wiggah please, Bananas fight hard w/ Eff-Oh-Bees and Chinese Vietnamese got beef with Khmer. Hindoos grapple with Kahtuas and the Protestant hate the Catholics and the Tamils hate the Ceylonese and the Flemish don't communicate with the Walloons and the the walloons aren't so fond of the Dutch and the Indos are outdoors and the outdos are in do' Chinese....

...and everybody hates the Jews.

chuckles....

nice to see you spooky.

....howdy pard'ner. Everything that goes around comes around.

BTW, didja hear Michael Steel and Danielle Steele have "hooked up"?

Ironic...

I'm going to say something really controversial now....

I think it might be a bit more comforting (to you) than it is controversial:). That phenomenon is not nearly as widespread as you think it is.

The term "oreo" is a racist idea between Black people (white on the inside, black on the outside) that reflects this.

"Banana"- Asian equivalent

"Coconut" - Latin American equivalent

"Pocho" - specifically Mexican-American equivalent

Yes, that's right- others do it too. No, really.

Unfortunately, to some in this country when a few Blacks or Hispanics do it it is reflective on the race, but when a person who is Asian or Caucasian does it is a reflection of the individual.

Thank you.

“Well, I’m black,” I said.

But this response wasn’t acceptable to them. They wanted me to declare myself an “Oreo,” black on the outside and white on the inside. I explained that I thought this term was offensive. It suggested that the person in question was a sellout or an Uncle Tom, and I would never use the term to describe myself.

Click for context

Thanks, Plantsmantx. That was interesting.

Wow... This one is another article dug up from the depths of NV.

I feel that way at work, and not without justification. I've had the race card pulled on me for expecting an employee to do her job. She was advised over and over what to do and didn't do it. And when she was taken aside to be reminded, she started yelling (yes, yelling) that she was being discriminated against because she was black. Fortunately I was keeping track of what was going on with all my employees and had my efforts to give her and all my staff direction at the a same time in the same meetings so there was no confusion. She just didn't want to do the work properly.

She demanded a hearing and all that crap, but I had done everything correctly and she was let go. Then she threatened to sue me personally and the government agency. I'm sorry, but that is terrorism. Is that what minorities want or do they want equity?

...and of course, this one woman represented all minorities, right?

but that is terrorism. Is that what minorities want or do they want equity?

Are you saying that there's nothing in between? Either we want equity, or we want to visit "terrorism" on whites?

Perry Tenitiss --

The old "I know someone who..." is not a scientific study or relevant to anything on a scale larger than your own personal life. It really doesn't contribute meaningfully to such a broad discussion.

This mentality essentially allows White people to not have to do anything "racist" to hold back Black people -- they can sit back and watch them hold themselves back

We R doomed,

Your message about Ohio's mentality is not reflected in her comment.

.

haha doomed on the saying "something controversial now". I take that as a sign you may like to engage controversy?

so I offer a different take on the remark

I think that a big part of the problem is that we all feel like we are all walking on eggshells around people of another race.

Here anxiety of inter-racial mixing is candidly mentioned. Sure it is diluted by supposing the feeling applies to "all" but it is still an important component of fighting racism. This sort of anxiety can diminish interactions and contribute to racial tension. Apprehension about political correctness in engaging other races will drive a wedge between people. Recognizing that one is "walking on eggshells", "confused by "political correctness" or feeling anxious around other races is the beginning of recognizing of racism within oneself.

I think it's important that people acknowledge their feelings to make it possible to reconcile, or face up to what's real vs what is culturally imbued. Once acknowledged a person can work through them to discover whether or not the feelings are appropriate.

The shame imposed by accusations of racism can interfer with people who might benefit by examining their feelings. They frequently become defensive and their focus shifts. Instead of self-examining (what did I feel, what associations did I make, & so on) the accused may withdraw or even harden against the sensitivity that it takes to work through racism.

I need to remind my self-rightous self of this everyday so that what came to mind when I reflected on the quote.

She demanded a hearing and all that crap, but I had done everything correctly and she was let go. Then she threatened to sue me personally and the government agency. I'm sorry, but that is terrorism. Is that what minorities want or do they want equity?

Unwittingly, you admit the so called race card is equal to the two of diamonds. She was let go. You are terrified. Bless your " I had done everything right" heart. (wink)

That's all good and fine except that the US has a specific history between blacks and whites as a result of years of slavery. It cannot be denied, it cannot be dismissed, it cannot be compared to other minorities.

And none of that has anything to do with your comment that blacks (no quantifier inserted) teach each other not to strive too hard.

That comment was bull@!$%# pure and simple. Some blacks may, but most don't. And yes other minorites were also treated badly. Look how the native Americans were treated. And yes, some American Indians make fun of "apples" who try to leave the reservation. How about how the chinese were treated during american railroad era? How about how they were segregated in ghettos like china town? And yes, you have some chinese americans call other chinese twinkies for trying to leave the area.

But unlike with natives or chinese, when a few black people does the same exact behavior that is even seen in the majority ( some whites consider other whites elites or snobs for "striving to hard" )

Why is it when a black person does the same exact behavior that is seen in other races, it becomes a charecteristic of blacks?

She demanded a hearing and all that crap, but I had done everything correctly and she was let go. Then she threatened to sue me personally and the government agency. I'm sorry, but that is terrorism. Is that what minorities want or do they want equity?

And you had to deal with a disgruntled employee and instead of recognizing it as a character of the employee (and the problem of your job's screening process for hiring her in the first place) you wanna imply that other minorities want to act like her?

ohiogal-479871 - Just because you didn't understand my comment doesn't make is BS. Instead of trying to find something to disagree with, why not actually understand what I was saying.

I stand by my assertion that our country's history of slavery and the civil rights movement is directly connected to the way black parents raise their children and white parents raise their children for that matter.

Our history of slavery in this country is fundamentally different than anything we have between any other two races in this country - to pretend otherwise is simple ignorant or a poor attempt to play devil's advocate.

From the article linked in plantsmantx's #19.12:

"But I wonder, because of their status, however problematic, as America’s “model minority,” if it’s simply more acceptable for Asian Americans to openly identify as white than it is for blacks and Latinos to? What do you think?"

"More acceptable" to whom? And by what and whose measure is it "acceptable" (or not acceptable)? Isn't that kind of generalizing about "the group" precisely what you call out in others, plants? And rightly so, imho, I might add. And what's fair for one group should be fair for others. At least that's my opinion.

Either we make generalizations with impunity or we don't. Some generalizations do seem to be pretty obvious to some people, such as the author of the linked article when she said that Asian Americans are America's so-called "model minority," mainly, I suspect, because of their academic and economic achievement, not their skin color, ethnicity or country of origin. Others may disagree and find such a label pretty offensive. And isn't that a perfect example of the seeming reality among non-whites that white is the so-called "standard" and all others are "the other"? That's a fact due to whites' sheer numbers in terms of population, and by extension, power. That's not a "fault" of the white community. And, no, no one said it was.

So, when are these kinds of generalizations and stereotypes acceptable and when are they not? And who's the arbiter of such things? The inference is by many in the white community that they're acceptable as long as they don't come from a white person, who may not be the arbiter of such things--or make such a statement as the author of the article did above--unless he or she is willing to suffer accusations of stereotyping. And, frankly, that works for me just fine. IOW, I'm glad not to have any responsibility in that regard or even to care. Isn't that what all of us want--not to be judged, especially based on the behavior, in the aggregate, of the majority of the members of the group to which we ethnically belong? And when I say all of us, I mean all of us, not just certain groups whose feelings and sensibilities are more valuable than others.

Stereotypes unfairly and inaccurately encompass the members of those groups who don't fit the stereotype. But those who refuse to accept the reality that stereotypes get started due to the kernel of truth in them is being disingenuous, if not intellectually dishonest. Is that an excuse or a license to stereotype? NO. But stereotypes are not made up out of thin air. Just look at the stereotype the author of the linked article presumed. Is it a logical one? Yep. Are some of us socially "prohibited" from making such generalizations about certain groups? Yep. And some live license to do so with impunity, such as the author? Yep. Shouldn't the same courtesy apply to all of us? In my opinion, yes. In others', obviously not.

And none of that has anything to do with your comment that blacks (no quantifier inserted) teach each other not to strive too hard.

Ohiogal, it's still another illustration of one of the standard delusions- that black people who recognize anti-black racism and speak out about it can't be successful.

But I wonder, because of their status, however problematic, as America's "model minority," if it's simply more acceptable for Asian Americans to openly identify as white than it is for blacks and Latinos to? What do you think?"

She asked a question, and didn't say she thought Asians as a group "openly identified as white". She was asking if it was more acceptable (to other Asians, whites, etc.) when and if Asian individuals do "openly identify as white". So, no- it's not generalizing about "the group". And yes, I do call it out. Do you think that's wrong? Truth be told, I don't call it out much more often than I do. Imagine if I were to call it out every time I see "Well, blacks..." here on Newsvine, for instance. Even if I had a mind to, I couldn't. There are too many instances of it.

Others may disagree and find such a label pretty offensive.

Did you notice the scare quotes?

Are some of us socially "prohibited" from making such generalizations?

Good question. I'd say the answer is yes. Beyond that, the question is, exactly who is more socially prohibited from doing that? You don't see me typing opinions about "whites" with no attached adjectives here because I'm not inclined to do that. It's funny that you still "found" a way to accuse me of it anyway, by the way:). But if I were so inclined, I guarantee you that I would catch more flack for it than whites do for opining about "blacks".

I stand by my assertion that our country's history of slavery and the civil rights movement is directly connected to the way black parents raise their children and white parents raise their children for that matter

"the way parents raise their children" unfolds precisely as you imagine. Seriously?

I would say simply posing the question, plants (in re your 19.27) presumed a stereotype on her part, but I won't quibble.

yes, I do call it out. Do you think that's wrong?

Of course not.

Are some of us socially "prohibited" from making such generalizations?

Good question. I'd say the answer is yes.

I agree.

Beyond that, the question is, exactly who is more socially prohibited from doing that?

I think you know as well as I do that it's not taken very well when it comes from whites. And I get that. I'm not claiming some kind of personal affront; to the contrary, I'm claiming a certain freedom from guilt. I'm glad not to pass judgment, to shut up about a lot of things pertaining to race and simply not worry about it. Isn't that what others want as well? That's not a denial of the racial "hierarchy" that exists in our country as well as racism in general that we don't even consciously think about but that exists nevertheless; it's simply a statement of the fact that I'm no more responsible for it by virtue of my skin color and ethnicity (anglo white) than anybody else is, regardless of skin color or ethnicity.

It's funny that you still "found" a way to accuse me of it anyway, by the way:).

"Accuse" is not exactly the word I would use, but I did point out something that I feel sure you would have pointed out yourself if a white person had posed the question that the author of the article did.

But if I were so inclined, I guarantee you that I would catch more flack for it than whites do for opining about "blacks".

Really? I think it's pretty much common knowledge in terms of what's socially acceptable, that whites can't always be critical of a person who happens to be black without expecting accusations of racism or stereotyping. And, again, I get that. I understand where that comes from. But is it tantamount to over-reacting sometimes? Yes. And that is not a statement intended to devalue the moral importance of racism and calling it out when we see it.

I think you know as well as I do that it's not taken very well when it comes from whites.

I'm not going to get on the merry-go-round about this, but...come on, lol. No, it's not taken very well from anyone, and rightly so. That is, it's not taken very well when it's egregious enough to really, stand out. It's so common, that most of the time, it's not even called out.

I'm claiming a certain freedom from guilt.

You're claiming a freedom from guilt that at worst, hardly anyone attached to you. The proof is the comparative rarity of black people making blanket statements about "whites" with no qualifications here. I mean, look at what happened- you had to step in, take someone else's "guilt" and attach it to yourself, as if I had pointed it out about your comments:).

I'm glad not to pass judgment, to shut up about a lot of things pertaining to race and simply not worry about it.

Well, yes. When it comes to some people, indifference is welcomed. Do your comments in that exchange represent your indifference?

it's simply a statement of the fact that I'm no more responsible for it by virtue of my skin color and ethnicity (anglo white) than anybody else is, regardless of skin color or ethnicity.

Well, no. You aren't. Did I say you were?

it's not taken very well from anyone,

Equally? Sorry, I don't agree. That's not a problem; just an observation of my own. But I agree with you--getting on the merry-go-round as to who's more guilty (or more of a victim of stereotyping) is pointless and unprovable.

You're claiming a freedom from guilt that at worst, hardly anyone attached to you.

It's not an overt pronouncement of guilt. And, believe me, I'm not claiming some kind of victimhood personally or any victimhood on the part of whites in general. That's impossible. In terms of race, it's preposterous. I'm merely talking about different "standards" as to what's acceptable for members of certain races to say and others not to say. That's all.

The proof is the comparative rarity of black people making blanket statements about "whites"

You've got to be kidding. Seriously, I know you're not kidding. And it bears my paying more attention to what I perceive to be blanket statements--that is, maybe they're something else entirely.

Do your comments in that exchange represent your indifference?

I think so. That was my intention. As to whether they were inferred as such--that's up to the listener or the reader.

Did I say you were?

No. My statement was not in answer to any question or comment. It was a stand-alone declarative sentence in and of itself, all by itself. :)

Thanks for your comments. I admit, they are challenging when it comes to the logic (or lack thereof) we use in settling on our opinions and assumptions about "the other."

Just because you didn't understand my comment doesn't make is BS

And just because I said your comment was bull@!$%# doesn't mean I don't understand it. You are the one that seems not be be understanding the problem I have with it, so I shall reiterate it for you.

Your comment is bull@!$%# because you used no quantifier (e.g. some, few, most, many) and you have supplied no evidence to support your claims about what blacks teach each other.

'nuff said.

Ohiogal, it's still another illustration of one of the standard delusions- that black people who recognize anti-black racism and speak out about it can't be successful.

Exactly.

I stand by my assertion that our country's history of slavery and the civil rights movement is directly connected to the way black parents raise their children and white parents raise their children for that matter

"the way parents raise their children" unfolds precisely as you imagine. Seriously?

Angela, that's because weRdoomed is unlike the rest of us humans. S/he posseses the uncanny superhuman ability to see inside of every American home.

ohiogal-479871 -

Classy.

Well thank you for the compliment. And thank you for your apology for being wrong. It takes a adult to admit their mistake. Doesn't it?

WeR, don't let this get to you. Some people don't know you like others do.

It's not an overt pronouncement of guilt. And, believe me, I'm not claiming some kind of victimhood personally or any victimhood on the part of whites in general. That's impossible. In terms of race, it's preposterous. I'm merely talking about different "standards" as to what's acceptable for members of certain races to say and others not to say. That's all.

Addressing ...the blacks or RicK Sanatorum's ...the blahs is socially acceptable. Hell Donald Trump's " I get along with ...the blacks" Ann Coulter's " our blacks are better than their blacks went uninterrogated. Talking tough @ ...the blacks is met with *cough * (colorblind) applause. Unfortunately, you seem to believe you can write truth into existence.

What I wrote and what I intended in what I wrote is not in conflict with your 19.36. I agree with and understand your points, so I'm puzzled by your "unfortunately you seem to believe you can write truth into existence" remark.

This is why a lot of folks have lost interest in talking about race and racism. When good intentions and a desire to learn are met with ridicule...well, no wonder there's resentment.

This is why a lot of folks have lost interest in talking about race and racism

Loss of interest claim is incredulous given the number of comments posted to Newsinve and other online forums. Mrs. Obama topics / articles devolve too marathons of scorn and derision about ... the blacks.

Touche. Good point.

But casting aspersions where they're not warranted also lessens one's own credibility. Benefit of the doubt is usually a pretty good stance to take until someone's "guilt" and bad intentions are actually proved. Regardless, the unwarranted offense you've obviously taken from an innocent and benign comment is duly noted and proves the point that a few others have tried to make.

I'm not claiming some kind of victimhood personally or any victimhood on the part of whites in general. That's impossible. In terms of race, it's preposterous.

Clarification in case the above statement of mine was misunderstood: I don't buy the concept of "reverse racism." Whites may occasionally get their feelings hurt or their dignity or intentions insulted at times in discussions about race, but it's unrealistic to claim that whites' actual lives have been adversely affected by racism. They haven't. As a group, whites have not suffered discrimination in education, the workplace or elsewhere based on race. Being accused of racism--whether justifiably or falsely--is not tantamount to being discriminated against on the basis of race. When one's words or actions are misunderstood or conflated with meaning that wasn't intended, it may be false, hurtful, disrespectful and frustrating, but it doesn't rise to actual racism, or worse, racism-in-practice: discrimination.

But casting aspersions where they're not warranted also lessens one's own credibility. Benefit of the doubt is usually a pretty good stance to take until someone's "guilt" and bad intentions are actually proved.

You opened the double standard door to your own peril. You framed the discussion on your terms. When your terms are challenged you fold up like a cheap unbrella. No doubt.

"...When your terms are challenged you fold up like a cheap unbrella. No doubt..."

I just wanted to put your hate out there again for everybody to see. Thanks. "...fold up like a cheap umbrella..." Very nice indeed. Very conducive to mutual understanding and respect. /sarc

Look forward to seeing others' responses.

Hmm - how about looking at this below ? #22

Definitions and clarifications before aspersions?

Truth

Look forward to seeing others' responses.

I have been trying to figure out your 'offense'.

In the meantime, I will say that it is hard to engage someone who renders criticism in the abstract such as ...

You opened the double standard door to your own peril. You framed the discussion on your terms. When your terms are challenged you fold up like a cheap unbrella. No doubt.

The above quote is devoid of specific content. It could be a response to almost any post (universally); it is general purpose gratuitous snark.

Definitions and clarifications before aspersions?

Yes, clarification especially, as in benefit of the doubt before being choosing to be rude.

Thanks, TiG. In attempting to give the benefit of the doubt my own self, maybe angela misunderstood me or confused me with somebody else, or both. I don't know. Regardless, there was no "cheap folding" intended on my part. Whatever she inferred on her own from my comments is her problem, not mine, until she seeks clarification, discussion and understanding. Her choice, and I'm not sure I'm interested in responding.

just wanted to put your hate out there again for everybody to see. Thanks. "...fold up like a cheap umbrella..." Very nice indeed. Very conducive to mutual understanding and respect. /sarc Look forward to seeing others' responses.

Defending your double standard claim is conducive to mutual understanding and respect.

I have no idea what "double standard claim" you're referring to, much less how it's "conducive to mutual understanding and respect." One needs to go beyond cryptic in order to get closer to understanding.

Moreover, how can any kind of double standard be conducive to any kind of mutual understanding or respect? Double standards are anathema to intellectual honesty, and by extension, to understanding and respect. Sorry, don't get it.

"double standard claim" you're referring to, much less how it's "conducive to mutual understanding and respect." One needs to go beyond cryptic in order to get closer to understanding.

I guess you expect me to quote your different (aka double) standards comments at every turn.

I'm merely talking about different "standards" as to what's acceptable for members of certain races to say and others not to say. That's all.

I guess you expect me to...

Good god, at this point, I don't expect anything whatsoever from you, nor should I, obviously, lol. Forget it, angela.

There's an interesting journal article about how some whites are so intimidated by suspicions of racism or automatic aspersions of racism that they over-react to the point of making fools of themselves. I'll see if I can find it and post a link here for those who are interested.

I think the dynamic is worth noting; it's alive and well here on this discussion: That is, certain positions, no matter how innocently posited, are automatically "categorized" as biased and prejudiced based on the presumed race of the person posting it.

Truth Sleuth...

#19.40

Great summation of the issue. Drives me a little batty when people insist on using the "both sides do it" argument.

I think that s much depends on how your (one's) life is structured. In my life for instance, different skin tones and cultures are a part of my life every day. I don't mean as part of my job, or people I see on the street, or groups I belong to that are religious or political. I mean my family and close friends with whom, I hang out, eat, drink, and share a home , a car, money, time and food with. My life is a life that has a family of all skin tones, cultural, educational, professional, and financial abilities included. So for me, I have to say that it makes me very uncomfortable when I go places and people start to generalize about people, any people, because of these tags, including cultural , ethnic and skin toned back grounds.

It seems that the people who really have a problem about us not being sensitive enough about racism are the people who don't really have lives that include people of "other" cultures, skin tones, finances, education, whatever differences. They are people who perhaps "work" with other people, or "support" other groups or have some friends who are "different" who they see sometimes. So yeah, I get freaked out when I am at say a poetry reading and all of a sudden when there is a black skin toned person reading for black history month when all of a sudden some "white skin toned person" who has no real different people in their lives other than other white skinned , educated, intelligent in a mainstream kind of way, has a roof over their head, food in their stomach, expects people to be able to read, write, process information on a certain level, comes out with some of the crap about, "the south", "Well you know how it is for blacks in the south", or they assume something about what it is like to be "black skin toned" or Hispanic or Muslim when really they have zero idea about any of it.

For me , racism as defined above is okay for a dictionary, but in reality it comes in many forms. All of which we should be sensitive too--including an over reaction to difference when it is NOT racist, but merely a color or a traditional food, or way of doing things, or hair style.. I don't know.

Until we can see the difference between racism and just superficial differences between all humans we will struggle with that superficial thereby avoiding the substantive. Just my opinion. I don't believe in race. I believe that some people have problems with other groups, but it is a learned behavior just like being afraid of any difference. I don't think it is unique to skin color or so called "racial" characteristics. I believe in the human race and that the sooner we allow ourselves not to be afraid of superficial differences the better. I know my life is better because I don't have to waste time worrying about the color of someone's skin or the shape of their eyes.

Are there "racists"? Certainly. Is every one racist, NO.

Thanks, cynergy, #19.53.

Until we can see the difference between racism and just superficial differences between all humans we will struggle with that superficial thereby avoiding the substantive... I know my life is better because I don't have to waste time worrying about the color of someone's skin or the shape of their eyes.

You nailed it in my opinion, a.h., with those two sentences. I agree, and well said.

Are you saying that there's nothing in between? Either we want equity, or we want to visit "terrorism" on whites?

The terrorism is knowing that there are people of minority groups who will drop the race card when race is not an issue. And the defense for that is to go to extremes with all minority coworkers because of the few. I'm tired of sensitivity training where we are to be sensitive about everyone but ourselves. Either we admit there are differences (which is what you are saying) or we pretend there are none and have perfect equity. I remember a short story by Kurt Vonnegut where everyone had to have perfect equity: those with talent were handicapped to the level of the mediocre so everyone would be equal. Do we have to be handicapped by political correctness, which is simply a way to point out our differences obliquely and smirk about it, or are we going to treat one another as adults and be Americans? No more hyphens.

Perry...

The terrorism is knowing that there are people of minority groups who will drop the race card when race is not an issue. And the defense for that is to go to extremes with all minority coworkers because of the few.

You still don't get it... You want to equate bad behavior with race. Don't you know any white people who are asshats and play the victim when called on their asshattery? When some white employee whines about unfair treatment do you get fed up with all white employees?

Some individuals.. emphasis on individuals, as opposed to any racial/ethnic group... are simply incapable of taking responsibility for their actions and everything is always someone else's fault...

You are tired of taking sensitivity training? How many times have you had to take it? If you find yourself incapable of adjusting your behavior to the requirements of the job, then maybe you should look elsewhere for employment.

On the one hand you say "perfect equity" is unrealistic and not recognizing differences is fake. On the other hand you say this...

...are we going to treat one another as adults and be Americans? No more hyphens.

Which is it? Do you see differences or are we all Americans?

You can have difference and equity.

Either we admit there are differences (which is what you are saying) or we pretend there are none and have perfect equity.

Ah, you let it slip a little bit there:). Look at the bit of Anatoly Rex's comment I quoted at #1.22. As he says, this is about adapting discrimination. Racial discrimination wouldn't stop if we were to try to fervently believe that we're "just Americans" and seen as "just Americans", while you pretend to believe the same thing. That would facilitate discrimination. The idea is to discriminate on the basis of race, then say "You weren't discriminated against because you're black- there's no such thing as black".

The terrorism is knowing that there are people of minority groups who will drop the race card when race is not an issue.

I could say that "the terrorism" is knowing that there are some whites who will try to dismiss every claim of anti-black discrimination as "playing the race card when race is not an issue".

And the defense for that is to go to extremes with all minority coworkers because of the few.

Ah:). Well see, I wouldn't say that my defense for that is to "go to extremes" with all white people. That is, unless I wanted to "go to extremes with" all white people, and needed an excuse to do so.

Are you saying that there's nothing in between? Either we want equity, or we want to visit "terrorism" on whites?

I understand you now. You don't want there to be anything in between.

I'm tired of sensitivity training where we are to be sensitive about everyone but ourselves

hmmm. . .

And the defense for that is to go to extremes with all minority coworkers because of the few.

All minority coworkers huh? Seems you need more sensitivity traning. Those classes are made for people who make statements like these.

Also, for someone who only sees Americans you sure know how to single out and throw darts at minorites at every other post.

Are you saying that there's nothing in between? Either we want equity, or we want to visit "terrorism" on whites?

Cynergy, you still don't get it. What is in between terrorism and equity? You think people in groups considered marginalized want 70% equity and 30% terrorism? Maybe a bit more balanced- 40-60? Why do you want any part terrorism at all? Terrorism is for cowards and bullies.

I would be ecstatic if no one was treated differently based on their appearance, ability, sex, religion, sexual preference, disorder, personality, heritage, hygiene or anything else. That's what I try for and succeed. But you can't ask me not to notice that someone is different from me. I notice if someone has red hair or blue. I notice if someone has only one eye. I notice if someone is crying or laughing or if they're asleep.

The fact is that I was being discriminated against by that woman because I was white and she thought she could get ahead by accusing me of racisim.

Actually, I just realized that as I wrote it, Cynergy. Thanks for leading me there.

You still don't get it... You want to equate bad behavior with race.

No, I'm talking about bad behavior that takes advantage of race to commit terrorism. Do you really think that there is no one in any workplace who threatens to (or does) make a complaint of racial discrimination for the purpose of getting ahead, keeping their job or getting someone fired? If you do, you live in a bubble.

...and of course, this one woman represented all minorities, right?

Your words, not mine. No, not at all. This one woman represents what some people who separate themselves by race will do in order to get away with not doing their jobs or get ahead by means other than the value of their hard work.

Some prejudices come, by the way, from personal experiences. In the history of my work experience, I have found again and again that many black female executives have been incompetent and vindictive. Now, before you blow a gasket, let me tell you that I am aware of that prejudice and when i meet a woman like this I do consciously remind myself that this is not Billie or Catherine or May or Shandra. The fact is that our experiences do give us material on which to base our first responses to people. It's an ancient response that was designed to keep us safe. But by being aware that this is an unreasonable response, once it is ellicited, I can deal with it in a logical manner and respond to new people as I should, just like I do with anyone else.

I also don't like red headed nurses as my experiences with them (both in my family and in a hospital setting) make me think they are all mean. Hey, it's just the first response, then I can move on. There are so called minority people whose first response to criticism is to think they are being attacked because of their color or ability or whatever. If they are mature and realistic, they can bypass that and go to the reasonable response. Just iike I do when someone calls me "little lady". Or "crazy".

Yes we are too sensitive about racism. We are too politically correct about everything.

Explain to me how one can be too politically correct and sensitive about the following:

rac·ism noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Definition of RACISM
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Because when we see that EVERYWHERE even where there is no racism (gotta take those fortune cookies out of the ice cream) there is a problem and when we are so PC that people take a compliment (there's a chink in the armor) and turn into a racist statement we have become oversensitived to making everything a racist thing.

It's ridiculous, people can't even say the simpliest of things without some oversensitized baby cause a whiny hissy fit.

As a server I use to say "hey you guys how you doing today", (it's a freaking generic statement) do you how many freaking women would get their panties in a wad over it. We have turned into a bunch of freaking self absorbed, me me me, sniveling little babies.

In England recently there was an Asian man who walked in to a bar where there was a group playing Kung Foo Fighting, the guy is suing because he beleived there were being racist. There were just singing a freaking song that was one of the most popular songs there was.

Sammy

I agree. While we need to be intolerant of racism rather than ignore it, we also need to not fall into the trap of crying racism with a hair trigger. Those who cry racism at mere hints diffuse the effort by making the declaration of racism common - it dulls the public to the outcry of genuine racism (i.e. crying 'wolf').

To add to your list, an obvious recent example of this is the implication that disagreement with Obama is partially or wholly based upon racism. (Also, it bugs me that a number of individuals crying racism against Obama apparently view Obama as a black POTUS - unable, apparently, to simply see him as the current POTUS.)

Because when we see that EVERYWHERE even where there is no racism (gotta take those fortune cookies out of the ice cream) there is a problem and when we are so PC that people take a compliment (there's a chink in the armor) and turn into a racist statement we have become oversensitived to making everything a racist thing.

You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask you what you answered. I didn't ask you to comment about people playing the race card when they shouldn't. I asked you to show me why we should be tolerant of the definition of racism I gave you. Please answer.

It's ridiculous, people can't even say the simpliest of things without some oversensitized baby cause a whiny hissy fit.

More hot air about a question not asked.

As a server I use to say "hey you guys how you doing today", (it's a freaking generic statement) do you how many freaking women would get their panties in a wad over it. We have turned into a bunch of freaking self absorbed, me me me, sniveling little babies.

Another strawman example of something not asked.

In England recently there was an Asian man who walked in to a bar where there was a group playing Kung Foo Fighting, the guy is suing because he beleived there were being racist. There were just singing a freaking song that was one of the most popular songs there was

Do I have to go out and now list examples of racism that actually occur for you to answer the questions posed? How about this? Does the example you just provided fit the definition I gave to you in the question I originally posed to you. And please.... try to stay on topic. You obviously have your panties in a twist about the race card being played when you think it shouldn't. We get that. Now - using the definition of racism above - answer the questions.

Explain to me how one can be too politically correct and sensitive about the following:

The actual real act if racism no we can never be too sensitive about, the perceived acts of racism, yes we are over sensitive about.

So, Sammy and RAC are in "violent agreement". ☺

The actual real act if racism no we can never be too sensitive about,

Thanks.

the perceived acts of racism, yes we are over sensitive about.

First - you have to get agreement on the "perception." Your perception and the other perception need to be ironed out rather than the equally irresponsible hair trigger reaction of "race baiting" or "play the race card" response.

Each situation needs to stand on its own. There is no shortcut. I have provided perhaps a method of getting understanding rather than immediately broad brushing all claims of racism as "playing the race card" and vice-versa.

To reiterate:

Shouldn't a better response be to ask, "Explain to me why you feel that is racist based upon the definition of racism is defined as .....

rac·ism noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Definition of RACISM
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Each situation needs to stand on its own. There is no shortcut

However, RAC, that is far too hard. It is too hard too look at each situation and take it as it comes.

It is too hard to have an open line of communication and if someone is insulting you, take the time to listen, or if you are insulting someone take the time to apologize. See, that's called social decency. That's called adapting to each situation, learning something new and becoming a better citizen from the experience. That's called getting rid of stereotypes and generalizations and looking at each person as an individual.

That's called being empathetic.

All those things are far too hard for some people. It's much easier for them to paint people as sensitive, insensitive, to throw out the race card when unnecessary or deny how common racism is in our society. See, broad brushes are easy. Blaming poltical correctness, that's easy.

Being a part of and understanding a diverse society, now that's far too hard.

This is the terrorism. We can't say "chink in the armor" we can't say "spic and span". Political correctness and sensitivity training require us to do two completely opposite things at the same time and what it becomes is sarcastic and insensitive. We have to notice and celebrate our differences, but we can't notice or talk about them. It is impossible to notice differences and not notice them. And it's stupid to try.

It would be great if we could just relax a little and not live in fear of someone using their race as an excuse to batter someone else. "She doesn't like me because I'm a Mexican." Maybe you're just a bitch. "He is singling me out because I'm African American". Maybe it's just because you're not doing your job well. "We didn't get the grant because we're Chickasaw". Maybe you didn't qualify. Or missed the deadline. Or a hundred other reasons that would come before "I'm being cheated because of my race".

We can't say "chink in the armor" we can't say "spic and span".

You can't. Because you have problems with your minority coworkers. Non-racist people have no problem saying these terms because they aren't racist and no one thinks they are when they say them.

YOU hide behind blaming political correctness because you don't want to be decent around people. If you only used MANNERS you would have no problem. It's really simple for those who try to be good CITIZENS. But very hard for pople like YOU.

Here's news for you! You don't have to use PC, you can go around and be an @!$%# every step of the way if you'd like. You can use what ever language you grew up with to target whoever you want! That is the beauty of being in America. Being free to say what you'd like.

But it isn't being free to say what you like that you have a problem with. You like so many others who blame PC want to be free of the consequences from saying what you like. And sorry, that ain't going to happen. Because the vast majority of people see that sort of behavior as crude and uncultured and they don't want to be around someone who rather use racial epithets than do their job.

No. I don't use racial epithets. I don't care who you are if you're doing your job. But I think political correctness is just a way to obliquely point out differences with a smile and a smirk. I think it is wrong. I have the utmost respect for others. My manners are fine. You are attacking me because you think I'm "white" and can't get along with anyone who isn't. Well, you're wrong.

And political correctness is wrong. By saying things like "vertically challenged" or "differently abled" you are blatantly pointing out differences that you would never mention in normal language. It masks prejudice behind a mass of verbage. Translate "vertically challenged" = "dwarfed", "differently abled" = "crippled", unacceptable descriptions in polite company. But you can get away with it if you are "politically correct." No, I don't think it's right.

When I talk about "chink in the armor" I am not talking about myself, but the media storm about a sports announcer using that phrase when talking about an basketball player of Asian descent. And in case you aren't old enough, the cleaning product "Spic and Span" no longer sells under that label.

So you see, you yourself have jumped into the racist frying pan for no reason other than I am white and have been discussing racism, a subject you feel only non-whites have a right to discuss.

And political correctness is wrong. By saying things like "vertically challenged" or "differently abled" you are blatantly pointing out differences that you would never mention in normal language. It masks prejudice behind a mass of verbage. Translate "vertically challenged" = "dwarfed", "differently abled" = "crippled", unacceptable descriptions in polite company. But you can get away with it if you are "politically correct." No, I don't think it's right.

*giggles* In complete agreement with this statement. I may laugh, but only because it's so true... In that ironical funny sense that so many great comedians use to their advantage. I ♥ Carlos Mencia just the same way that I ♥ George Carlin [I miss him]. Both very straight forward men and that's what makes their standup so damn funny.

And political correctness is wrong. By sayingthings like "vertically challenged" or "differently abled" you are blatantly pointing out differences that you would never mention in normal language.

Again, makes NO sense. What is "normal language"? lolol.

The point of ALL words in language is to point out difference. The WHOLE point of language is to communicate. If you didn't use language to point out differences you'd still be grunting and babbling. lolol.

The reason we have thousands of words in the dictionary is because we have evolvedour language over time. People create words and terms all the time (i.e. "normal language") And many of those terms are synonyms for previously used terms. Humans didn't eliminate the new words because there were previous words in the dictionary. We created another book called a thesauras so you could figure it all the hell out.

If you don't want to use newer terms, fine. Don't use them. If you want to call someone a cripple, go right on ahead. Again, you are free to use whatever term you want to. You just aren't free from the consequences of your choice.

So you see, you yourself have jumped into the racist frying pan for no reason other than I am white and have been discussing racism, a subject you feel only non-whites have a right to discuss.

Idk you were white until you self-identified. I thought you were just American. ( I see how that quickly changed) I said you had a problem with your minority coworkers, because you have self-identified that as well. These are your words, not mine, as I don't have a clue who you are other than what you reveal on here.

I'm not the one that told my history on this website, I'm not the one who cried about a disgruntled coworker and then created an "all minority" sterotype, I'm not the one crying because I can't say "chink" or "spic". That is all YOU. And fyi, there are plently people on here of different races that disagree with you.

in some cases it isn't just PC when a definition changes. For example, in some cases "differently abled" is really more correct. A person with no legs may or may not be "disabled". A person with a learning difference , may in fact not be disabled, but abled to learn differently , and so on. I think this is different than skin tone, or ethnicity. It crosses all those lines. I think in the case of differences it has obviously been taken -- like most things -- to lunatic extremes , but I am sure you get what I am saying.

Politically Correct is a misnomer.. being respectful and considerate of others isn't about politics, it's about politeness...

I'm the same age as you, and didn't really see any racists like you are talking about until I moved to the South. A lot of those folks are dying off now. A lot of younger people have grown up in a much more multicultural situation than we did. Still, there are, and will always be the Aryan Nations, the Black Panthers, and all the other groups that circle around different issues such as race, religion and politics. Still, our young people not only go to school with people of different cultures, they communicate with them all over the world.

our young people not only go to school with people of different cultures, they communicate with them all over the world.

Very true.. and this is why racism is going to go the way of the dinosaurs eventually. Hope I live to see it... and enjoy it

As do I.

Hey Plants:)

Hey Ohio :)

Afternoon, Angela:).

hi angela! :)

You had to willfully misread that post...

"Willfully misreading" something is lying. Your use of the word "willful" in describing how and why I read something and then came to a conclusion about it and phrased my comment on it presumes some special wisdom and insight of yours into my character, intentions, honesty and integrity, and your license to call me a liar. You can certainly try to refute my positions and defend your own, but accusing someone of "willfully misreading" something--deliberately and intentionally misreading something--is ironically you being hoisted on your own self-righteous petard. IOW, you're in no position to be critiquing others' character and sincerity. Obviously. You just proved it.

The two-by-four on your shoulder at the most benign, innocent and well-intentioned of remarks hasn't gone unnoticed. It detracts from those special qualifications you claim to have into making pronouncements about others' honesty and veracity. No, actually, it negates them.

Why not just give the benefit of the doubt and be persuasive in refuting arguments and defending your own? Because you've obviously got too much of the resentment, distrust and preconceived and willfuling misreadings of your own that you decry in others. The interjection of parsing and sarcastic jabs is tiresome and says a lot about some obvious resentments of your own that are "willful misreadings" of my intentions here. And, unlike you, I am in a position to know what my intentions are. You aren't.

I am in my 60s too. My whole family was involved in the civil rights struggle. We made some gains. I would say that the people who were in their prime then, yes many are dead and the rest are at the very least senior citizens. I would say that we made gains among young people--you know the people who are young now. They don't know that much about our history for the most part, including racism, sexism, etc etc. It isn't like it is "gone", it isn't, but as far as racism goes the younger people really are not as concerned about the color of someone's skin determining their worth.

Even in rural areas many of the leading citizens are people of darker skin color or "different" ethnicity. Our doctors and professors are many times dark skinned and Asian eyed people whose kids are the home coming queen etc etc. The kids of local black toned people are marrying blue eyed blondes with everyone's blessing and parading down main street in the holiday parades. They think grandpa is nuts with all his racist blather in the nursing home. Even Grandpa for the most part comes around with the grandkids . So, is racsim gone. Absolutely not, but lets save our vitriol for racism not for a dissociative idea of racism held onto by people who are really afraid that secretly they might be racist. Let it go unless it matters. Don't use epithets, don't call names, don't fall for stereotypes. We need to look to the next generation, they seem a whole lot less crazy than the ones before.

They think grandpa is nuts with all his racist blather in the nursing home.

Another Headache.....you remind me of a conversation that occured at a nursing home where my day is at. Not to go into a long story it came down to a man that was seated where my father had at for years (he was new)....he was introduce and his statement was..."I just thought she (my mother) was just another SPOT"......now of course we laughed because how I was taught, what I have gone throught, and JUST importantly what is happening TODAY....Racism is still there some NO more than SOME who can ADMIT.

they seem a whole lot less crazy than the ones before.

I have said the younger generation is less racist and hopefully as the older racist generation DIES OFF....this country will be in a better postion....That day can't come soon enough

my generation is basically the baby boom, dead on. My mother was not a racist. She was born in 1917. (Before women even had the vote) My Grandmother on her side was not a racist either. My father's mother on the other hand had a real problem with Puerto Ricans. I remember her being scared of them playing basketball down the street. But she was the only one in our family who was like that. We all did the same as you. We rolled our eyes and laughed ----but at her. There was really overt racism in every aspect of our lives then. Even in "A wonderful Life" the evil old Mr. Potter talks about the lazy "Garlic eaters". Now, everyone eats garlic (except me I am allergic) but things do change . I wouldn't stand there now if someone threw out a racial slur, I would ask them to leave my house , I would leave theirs. Progress. The young people don't have to stand for it any more and they aren't.

We all did the same as you. We rolled our eyes and laughed ----but at her

:)....It has to begin somewhere. I have to say that is what is missing TODAY.....admittance of faults and being able to express others faults without confrontation.....IT is a LOST ART unfortunately

yeah, I think we have learned that too.

....

.admittance of faults and being able to express others faults without confrontation.

I would say that this is something that could still use some work. I think if we go at it from the point of being a "we" instead of us and them, things tend to turn out better. I am very lucky in that we have had lots of patient people in our lives.

I am very lucky in that we have had lots of patient people in our lives.

Yes we have...something that is missing from what "THEY" get from a lot of tv and radio.