nm
:bow:
Printable View
nm
:bow:
Racist: A person who is discriminative against someone because of there race, culture and background
sorted :yes:
Deleted
Thanks.
Yes, exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries777777
IA, You can call it xenophobia, if you like.
BZZZ. Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries777777
Racist is someone who judges, stereotypes, or in any other way persecutes someone based solely on race.
To do the same with culture means you're an entho-centrist, not a racist.
Oops sorry mate. No offence, wrong forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
I wish I hadn't had that beer! :embarassed:
hey i just found an old friend called wikipedia! any uncertainitys you had should be answered here i think...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
A thousand definitions. Most people just go off their own personal one.
I use the academic one I studied and operated off in college. Racism is the advocacy, implementation of, or justification of, systems of inequality and use of power which advantages a favored group and disadvantages others, formally or informally (i.e. through courts and laws or just by default through prejudicial practices by everyday people).
In other words, it has a power component backing it up, or you propose that power (laws, government, punishment for crimes, access to jobs, whatever) should uphold your particular racist views.
Racism just in the sense of "I don't like black people, I think they're stupid" is bigotry and prejudice, and a racist mindset and attitude. But when people break racism down to just being that, they're overlooking the much more important factor of institutionalized (either hidden, or obvious) racism, wielding power to advantage and disadvantage on the basis of race over a whole society, rather than just individually. Slavery was institutionalized racism. The Holocaust was institutionalized racism. These things dwarf "I don't like black people."
Among colonial powers, it being very typical for indigenous people not to be able to testify in court against colonials would be a great example of this, as would apartheid and such. To a lesser extent (but still valid) would be things like harsher legal punishments or substantially higher conviction rates of one race for the same crime as another race.
Because we all know that wikipedia can be trusted over someone who is majoring in Anthropology. :clown:
well its usually right :clown: like koga said everyone has different opinions, but the basic outline as the name suggests, is being discriminative against someone because of race, that surely isn't up for debate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
almost everything can be debated to have more than one side to it, but thats the just of it
The LAWFUL redistricting of states can be based on race to disenfranchise a race or ethnic group. Is that not racist?
Racism takes many forms. Stereotypes come from somewhere though...
Absolutely, fixing voting structures so that people of a certain race have minimal or disproportionately smaller control over the outcome of the election than their percentage of the local population is indeed formal racism. Either by intent or by default. (Someone might just be doing it to "win", as say a Republican, but it's still engaging in racist tools to do so.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
According to Scientific Theory, everything is up for debate. Even simple things such as definitions of what racism is. Comte was the first to take a scientific approach to society (a radical change from the philosphes of the day).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries777777
I don't take issue with classifying racism, but I do with incorrectly identifying ethnocentrism as racism. In today's society, stereotyping based on culture ("Look at that Japanese commercial. It's so weird. Why can't they make something normal like we do?" or "Feh. Why can't Ethiopians just farm instead of being lazy? That would help the starvation issues if they just get off their butts and work.") is classified as ethnocentrism.
True. What happens is that people get lazy and want to leap from making a specific comment to painting something as a universal truth across a whole group. So the line does frequently get blurred. I mean, you might have someone legitimately making the observation of, let's say for instance, "I did missionary work in Uganda and seriously, the men there are lazy... I'm not trying to sound racist, but it's cultural there, the men are used to the women doing all the real work." But then someone else might go "YEAH, and you know the black people near my house, they're lazy too, they never work and get welfare." Just as an example of how people blur that line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
my point made earlier exactly.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries777777
isnt this 4 the backroom? one mans curiousity has turned into a debate, as you said everything is set up for debate...
(Pseudo)To the backroom...and awaaaaay!
I always felt that the simplest definition is believing one race to be intrinsically better than another.
I believe this subject will be better served and debated in the Back Room.
Democrats do it plenty, as well. The entire system is based around this sort of thing...:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Aye. The Dems have made there living post-64 telling blacks that they cant succeed on their own...and they wonder why the hispanics are overtaking them even though they have been here for allot less time. Funny really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
As interesting as that is.... I see no evidence that Dems make a concerted effort to knock white people off the voting lists so that a greater percentage of Dem votes are being counted than Rep ones. The opposite has quite a bit of evidence, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
By the way, it was the Civil Rights movement that asserted that rights on paper without economic opportunity made equality pointless. Not the Democratic Party. And I happen to agree with it. Tell some guy he's equal but can never get a job, or a loan, or start a business, and he's never going to be equal.
Thats not what I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Then I have no idea why you said it because racism was brought up in reference to redistricting voting districts. Which usually translates into, trying to cut out constituencies unlikely to vote for you. This was done in Texas to create the "republican revolution" and essentially minimize the importance of minority votes and create a very dominant, long-term Rep majority in state government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Gerrymandering! I misread your post I apologizeQuote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
No probs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
The infamous distract in west Texas. And to think the Supreme court only had a problem with that ONE! :laugh4:
Where are the other problems?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
If I remember correctly parts of Houston looked pretty "if-y" and so did some of the districts in south Texas (from Corpus to the border etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Yea I know the Suburbs of San Antonio are in Ciros district. Those guys must be hurting:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon