Crash, a movie about Racism.

[Lazul]

Crash, one of the best movies ive ever watched. And all those Ive spoken and heard of that live in the LA area agrees with the picture the movie shows.

Has anyone ells seen it?
If not, do it!

I posted here in the backroom since its about Racism.

[Tribesman]

GC , since when has it been in the past without being in the present?

[Xiahou]

I remembered seeing some trailers for this movie, but I wasn't interested- it seemed too pretentious.

[Goofball]

I'm not going to go into this AGAIN. Racism is a thing of the past. What little racism exists to today in America should be treated like any other misconduct.

Really?

When there are no stories of ethnic cleansing going on anywhere in the world, then maybe (but only maybe) will you have a chance of making a statement like that without it being immediately discounted by anybody who happens to read a newspaper at least once a month.

As far as racism in North America goes (I say North America because Canadians are just as guilty of racism as Americans), I'll make you a deal: when a period of ten years goes by without race-based murder going on anywhere on the continent, then we'll sit down again and I'll listen to your case. You case will still be weak, but at least you should be able to make a reasonable argument. Until then, you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Red Harvest]

I'm not going to go into this AGAIN. Racism is a thing of the past. What little racism exists to today in America should be treated like any other misconduct. This constant obsession over the past has led to thigns like Affirmative Action, a new Racial Double Standard, and a growing resentment that will surely explode into another racial backlash if people don't just STFU and realize that the Civil Rights movement is over.

Quite the opposite. Racism is alive and well, and poorly masked at the moment. The main problem is that people don't want to approach it honestly, FROM BOTH SIDES. There are plenty here in the Backroom that have no sense of history on the matter. It is all too common to see statements that clearly belong in another century.

I oppose Affirmative Action because I oppose preferences. At the same time, having been a poor white boy, I can see that not all preferences are racial.

[Devastatin Dave]

At the same time, having been a poor white boy, I can see that not all preferences are racial.

You mean being a broke-assed cracker!!!

[Ianofsmeg16]

Those that believe that racism is a problem to us are either Hippies, Goody-two shoes or Descendants of hippies.
Please, for the sake of public order take Cube's advice and STFU, if you think racism is a problem, stop bloody moaning about it and get of yer a**, this stuff is cluttering up the backroom

[Tribesman]

Racism is a thing of the past.
A gathering of male cattle who have lost their Gonads

How many examples would you like to see?

and a growing resentment that will surely explode into another racial backlash if people don't just STFU and realize that the Civil Rights movement is over.
I don't know if I should laugh or cry at that statement .
There was a slightly well known effort to crush a civil rights movement not far from where I live , the enlightened people who decided to finish off the civil rights movement ended up wrecking the entire economy that they tried to exclude the "lesser beings" from
If I recall correctlly , after the rather severe telling that the civil rights movement was over , the bastion of the anti civil rights movement managed to get itself bombed 22 times in a little over an hour .
Which is qute curious since the groupthat carried out the bombings hadn't done relativly F-all for years until the "lesson they will never forget" was given to the civil rights protesters .
Counterproductive or what ?

Edit , Ian are you really a Smeg head or is it just an act ?

[Goofball]

Those that believe that racism is a problem to us are either Hippies, Goody-two shoes or Descendants of hippies.

Sorry, but I am none of the above. Got any more little pearls of wisdom to offer us?

Please, for the sake of public order take Cube's advice and STFU, if you think racism is a problem, stop bloody moaning about it and get of yer a**, this stuff is cluttering up the backroom

Actually, posts that have nothing to offer other than telling people who disagree with you to "STFU" are much more accurately described as "clutter" than any of the other posts in this thread. Maybe you should take your "contributions" elsewhere.

[Goofball]

I've explained this issue in greater depth in other threads, I don't feel the need to go over it again just because some people feel the best solution is to whine, scream, and promote the Orwellian "Some are more equal than others." BS.

I wasn't even approaching the equality part of the racism debate. I was keeping it very high level and not abstract in the slightest. I'm talking about murder based on race. It takes place in North America. If you don't think that's racism, then I would ask you to please give us your definition of the word.

*whispers*

Psst: I hate to point this out to you, but so far you and your other little "racism is a thing of the past" buddy are the only ones who have been doing any whining or screaming in this thread.

Okay, 'nuff said...

[Tribesman]

I don't feel the need to go over it again
Rubbish , if someone is planting nail bombs in a market because the customers are mainly of a different shade of skin ,then how can you you not wish to examine the issue ?
Would you like to have a link to some gobshite websites either in your own country or mine where race is the only issue ?Or anyone else , the bastards are everywhere . Racism is an issue .
While you may well rail about "affermative action" (which is racism anyway) , how the hell can you make these statements you have made .

[Strike For The South]

Gc please come down to the south you'll see racsim isn't a thing of the past At my school there are allot of hicks and allot of blacks and allot of fights you do the math

Note Mississippi Burning is a great race movie

[Tribesman]

Mississippi Burning is a great race movie
I don't recall any real spectacular souped up cars driving the circuit in that film .

[Strike For The South]

Mississippi Burning is a great race movie
I don't recall any real spectacular souped up cars driving the circuit in that film .

Touche my friend

[|OCS|Virus]

Really?

When there are no stories of ethnic cleansing going on anywhere in the world, then maybe (but only maybe) will you have a chance of making a statement like that without it being immediately discounted by anybody who happens to read a newspaper at least once a month.

As far as racism in North America goes (I say North America because Canadians are just as guilty of racism as Americans), I'll make you a deal: when a period of ten years goes by without race-based murder going on anywhere on the continent, then we'll sit down again and I'll listen to your case. You case will still be weak, but at least you should be able to make a reasonable argument. Until then, you don't have a leg to stand on.

----------

I could go off on a giant rant on this, and I may well, if this turns out to be more than two paragraphs, but may I point out,there havn't been any cases of racily motivated murders, otherwise it would be plastered all over the news, and sence I'm a pretty avid watcher of news, I don't think anything like that has happened in the near past, or will happen in the near future. But to say that one murder out of the hundreds that take place, to take that one murder that was made against a person because of his race, and say "well that means that racism is a huge problem" is really a very ignorant remark.

But to insult someone like you did over his opinion is really not necesary and shows quite a bit of rudeness on your part. The fact that he didn't respond in a flame is amazing to me.

And might I ask what stories of ethnic clensing are there in america? Or our canadian neighbors? The rest of the world is irrelivant, because the idea that we in america need films like this to effect people in India simply isn't true, and I can't think of one arguement that would make me think otherwise.

One more addition to what has become my rant, just because a white guy kills a black guy, doesn't mean that it was because of his skin color, there are many reasons to kill other than race, and the fact that he was black and the killer was white, or vice-versa, may have no relevance to the case.

Think on that for a while, it would be interesting to hear some rebuttles.

[Tribesman]

I'm a pretty avid watcher of news,
Well perhaps you should stop watching the avid news channel and open your eyes a bit more .

I don't think anything like that has happened in the near past, or will happen in the near future.
Well what can I say to that

I could go off on a giant rant on this,
Or possibly on an asthmetic ant , you would probably get further .

[Papewaio]

However, if a mod can access pages further back than 5, and snip out my excessively large post from the "Is there a Racial Double Standard in the US" thread, I'd be much obliged.

I have already told you in another thread... click on the arrows to the side of the page count at the bottom of the thread.

[Papewaio]

Which thread are you looking at? I will see if I can duplicate the problem... also which page are you trying to get to?

[Papewaio]

If you are looking for a thread then it is slightly different to a page within a thread.

Go to the bottom of the forum and extend the time from say 2 weeks to last year... you will have more then 5 pages of threads to choose from then.

[|OCS|Virus]

I'm a pretty avid watcher of news,
Well perhaps you should stop watching the avid news channel and open your eyes a bit more .

I don't think anything like that has happened in the near past, or will happen in the near future.
Well what can I say to that

I could go off on a giant rant on this,
Or possibly on an asthmetic ant , you would probably get further .

Tribesman, that remark was not twords you, I would much rather hear from goofball the one who the questions were actualy for. Besides your rebuttles to what I said were childish and brought nothing new to the table. Show me an instance of racial murder in the last few months, if you could do that then maybe you would gain more credibility with me. Prove me wrong instead of stating I am wrong, I ask you, I would love to be put into my place, if you could show me some hard evidence I was wrong, but I see none so I choose to ignore your uncalled for remarks.

[PanzerJaeger]

People who cry racism and try to enforce unfair preferences on the rest of us are guilty white people or greedy minorities.

Get the hell over it, even if you wanted to be a racist its accepted in no workplaces, or any other establishments.

[Red Harvest]

Thanks. Here's my opinion on racism:

It is no wonder you are confused. That has to be one of the most simplistic and incorrect views of the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement I've ever read. I'm still learning about what happened in the Civil Rights Movement as the key changes happened about the time I was born. However, until the mid '60's racism was institutionalized (via States Rights manipulation around the Consitutional amendments to disenfranchise voters, etc.) The South had succeeded in keeping many blacks in virtual servitude, and they were treated as an inferior race.

Have there been double standards and PC silliness in the post Civil Rights movement You bet and I loathe them! Much of the remaining affirmative action is not even helpful. However, there is plenty of racism left in this country. Time will heal it, but pretending like it never happened won't. It is more subtle, but the people who practiced it every day are still with us. Those who killed and beat civil rights demonstrators are still with us. Their kids can not have helped but to have absorbed some of that thought as well. Only a fool would not seek to really understand the roots of this. Putting your fingers in your ears only insures ignorance.

As for the Civil War, it only came about because of slavery. The South had no way to extract themselves from slavery at the time, and were doing everything they could to strengthen it, even trying to force it onto Northern states at times, and definitely intending to push it into as many territories as possible. Phaseout programs had been vigorously opposed--that dog won't hunt, but is used as lame excuse! The backbone of the Southern economy was based on slave agriculture. It had become a one trick pony and as such any threat to it was a direct threat to the Southern aristocracy as a whole. Southern culture had been transformed by slavery to the point that many saw themselves as racially superior not just to their slaves, but superior to Northerners as well--their arrogance is just amazing when you read what they had to say about being more "enlightened" than those poor factory workers in the North, because they didn't have to do menial labor. Yet the fire-eaters and their supporters were not even in the majority in a number of regions in the South. Sections of Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, Texas, Arkansas, and North Carolina wanted nothing to do with it and were Unionist. The key difference? The particular region's economies weren't slave based in those sections. Many were in rugged land where planter agriculture was not feasible, or they had strong trade links to the North. More than anything this illustrates how secession = slavery.

Who was the aggressor in the war? Everyone says, "the North," since they invaded. It misses the real truth. The North had to be the aggressor to reclaim the Union, but the initiator or the fight was the South! They initiated it by seceeding (and R.E. Lee said it was illegal), they initiated it by seizing Federal arms and launching the first real attack. Once those acts were taken the North was not going to back down. The South completely underestimated the North's resolve.

The South seceeded not because slavery had been directly threatened, not because Lincoln had taken office (he hadn't), but because they FEARED slavery would be threatened. Lincoln did not propose to free the slaves, he did intend to stop the spread of slavery (although he would have faced challenges on that.) The South wanted to be over represented in govt into perpetuity, by maintaining a 50/50 split in the Senate. When that was threatened they saw slavery as threatened, and by their reckoning their very existence. Never mind that they had only about 1/3 as many whites in the South as in the rest of the nation. They felt they should wield disproportionate power.

Emancipation as a "childish backlash" vs. the South forcing a horrendous destructive war on the country and nearly destroying it? What color is the sky in your world? Emancipation was absolutely necessary after secession. How could slavery be allowed in readmitted states after it had caused such a bloody war? It had to be eliminated so that it could never again become the festering sore it was. The truth is that slavery was dealt a death blow the day South Carolina succeeded. South Carolina (you probably won't recall, issued an ultimatum) to the rest of the nation that if Lincoln was *elected*, they would secede.

If you think there was anyway that slaves could be freed in the South even on their own without backlash, you are dreaming. Several hundred years of institutionalized racism doesn't just disappear over night. They would have been competing for jobs with poor whites, South and North (one reason that emancipation was not popular in the North before the war.) No education, no support network, no options. It isn't like they were going to go from being slaves to, neighbor Bob. Get real. Blaming the backlash on the North is imbecilic.

Would the majority of Southerners seceeded, had their been universal suffrage and a raw majority vote in each stated? Almost certainly not. Slaves made up about 40% of the population. There were many whites opposed to it, they lacked enough political strength to stop. The delegate votes might look impressive, until you realize that electoral votes don't translate into percentages.

[Red Harvest]

If you have studied the Civil War to any great depth, you would know that it was a widespread opinion that Slavery was outmoded and had to go some time.

I've only read about 100 books on the subject (at least from glancing at the bookshelf and remembering when the count was slightly over 50 two years ago.) Slavery was in different phases in different parts of the CSA states, but it had not place to go to! That was the problem. It had a deathgrip on them. The slave population was so large proprotionally and the economy was so dependent on it, that it was a self reinforcing entity, like nicotine addiction.

I reviewed the States Rights argument recently, thinking I was going to better understand how the North had thrust some evil on the South. Man was I mistaken. I wanted to buy the Southern argument. Instead I reached the exact opposite conclusion. I also reached a far better understanding of the change in Southern politics today.

The Southern Constitution prohibited the purchase of new slaves from foreign powers.

Well, duh! Wanna know why? They were in fear of the population they already had, and there was an excess in Virginia that was being sold South to the planters. That was one reason they wanted slavery SPREAD to the territories, to relieve their own problems going forward.

It is not outside the realm of possibility that--through Industrialization and mounting political pressure--Emancipation could have occured much much more peacefully. Without a doubt, there would still be a sense of Racism in the south; a sense that they were inferior. But there would certainly be alot less hate.

Convenient way to blame it all on the North, doesn't pass the smell test.

Emancipation was the second. The people in the south were not stupid. As i've said above already, it is a viable and commonly accepted theory that they were trying to set in motion the necesarry wheels to get rid of their reliance on slavery. The Civil War and Emancipation of the Slaves crushed the South, and escalated Racism that much further.

Emancipation was a certainty as soon as the South seceeded. It wasn't obvious at the time (well, not to everyone, some stated it was.) However, the shift in the balance of power in the remainder of the Union was enough to make it a virtual certainty. It could be grandfathered for neutral slave states, but even that would have been only temporary.

The North's interest was in maintaining the Union, the South wanted to start a new nation, without reaching some sort of treaty to withdraw. Not to mention what to do with all the territories that really didn't favor secession in those states. It wasn't practical because territorial expansion would also have to have been decided, or a war would have occurred anyway. The Union would have been fools to allow secession.

The South wasn't stupid, it was seriously self deluded. They did not want to come to grips with slavery, despite recognizing many problems it was creating for them. They decided to break up a nation to protect that institution, one which a number of them opposed and thought would eventually fail. Mass delusion...and jealously. They had become quite jealous of the North's explosive growth.

Yes, we're all familiar with Fort Sumter (I would hope.) And.. Resolve? What resolve? The North outnumbered the south grossly, the industry was superior. They had the regular troops. They had better weapons. If anyone's resolve was being tested, it was the south's. In my opinion, the Civil War is a good example of a pre-emptive war. The South knew it was only a matter of time.

That is incorrect on so many levels.
1. There were many other Fort's and armouries taken, and threatened closing of the Mississippi by Mississippi's fire-eater governor.
2. Resolve? It was clearly there. The North didn't have an army to speak of at the time. The Union kicked the South's tail in the West. That was where the war was won. Where the Union could not succeed until the end was in the East. The best CSA troops and leaders were in the East, matched against much of the worst the Union had leadership wise. (Flip side was the West where the opposite was true.) Despite inexplicable failure in the "premiere theater" the North stayed with it and brought it to conclusion.
3. Regulars? They were a tiny force and had split based on States. They were spread out in company sized numbers. The area that actually showed the difference was the artillery. The regulars in Union arty made a huge difference, particularly in training. Elsewhere the numbers mattered little.
4. Weapons? That mattered more in 1863, but early on neither side was well armed and both were buying many foreign arms.
5. You know why the war took so long? After the initial underestimates by both, it came down to simple logistics. Getting across the terrain barriers and making deep *lasting* penetration took lots of supply, and the armies had to be large. The population in most of the disputed zones was not great, nor was the infrastructure sufficient in the areas to maintain large armies. Sherman and Grant figured out how to win the logistical war, but they built up the supply lines first to make the penetration irreversible. For the first two years, there was no real extension of power beyond a major river supply point--the logistics of warfare in undeveloped rugged regions in the South had not been solved.
6. The North and South both underestimated each other militarily at the start. Neither had enough men in the field early on for sustained offensive operations and holding ground. Both expected a quick decisive field victory would conclude matters.

You simplify the situation far too much.

I've probably read enough to write a book on the subject, so be thankful I was brief.

I highly Recommend "This Hallowed Ground" by Bruce Catton, which shows the sense of urgency that pervaded the nation at the time.

I might read this when I get a chance. First problem I see is that it is Northern based and for undertanding what started the war, I'm finding that is the wrong end of the horse to be staring at. The problem wasn't in the North. The North was a mix of different cultures rather than a convenient group of "Yankees." They defy easy classification when compared with the Southerners who had developed an "us against them complex."

I've been focusing on various battles and campaigns mostly. My main interest has been in the West, although I've studied Eastern campaigns at various levels. Read the books about Belmont, Ft. Donelson, Champion Hill (a new one, and it is good!), Vicksburg, Atlanta, Iuka/Corinth, Shiloh, Stones River, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, Pea Ridge, various Kentucky and West Virginia campaigns, NB Forrests exploits, Secessionville, Burnsides North Carolina Expedition, Florida campaigns, various Trans-Mississippi expeditions, as well as the Shenandoah campaigns. It will give you a much better feel for the war than the stalled campaigns in the East.

If you think Slavery could have lasted more than another thirty years, you're dreaming. Racism wouldn't have ended--it would have still been pretty severe--but it would not have been half as bad. The South blamed all their problems on the blacks after the war--if the south was prospering when the slaves were freed, there would be no need for that kind of attacking.

Would the CSA have lasted 10 years had it been allowed to embark on its self absorbed journey? Doubtful. Would it have prospered when the slaves were freed? Very unlikely. That was the problem. The South had no way out and economic disaster was in the cards regardless. Cutting their lifeline to the rest of the Union was the *worst* way to approach it. What would have happened had the CSA been left alone, who knows, but it is unlikely have done anything but cause damage to all the States, North and South. I also believe it would have caused other wars. There was no respect for the North in the South, and Bleeding Kansas had shown what would happen in disputed territories. But the whole basis of anarchistic anti-Federal States Rights doomed the CSA before it was born. "Died of a Theory" (to take Jeff Davis somewhat out of context.)

You seem to have missed the fact that the South would have blamed all their problems on blacks anyway. That is how race based systems work, especially when combined with nationalism that the South was clearly experiencing. And that nationalism was the direct offspring of the peculiar institution. To claim racism would have been less had the South waited X number of years is lame, especially in light of the previous 30 years.

[Lazul]

erhm, question; has anyone who post here actually seen the Movie!?

If you have, you would know that it isnt a typical; "oh poor black man, being supressed by the evil white people".
In this movie their are; A latino locksmith and his doughter, a persian storeowner and his family, a white couple, a black and a latino police couple, 2 white cops and so on.

It doesnt in base its story on "racism in the system" but racism in ever individual, that isnt necesseraly trying to be a racist but has allready made up its mind about others by just looking at them.
Its also about the problem of people in two groups not understanding each other due to the language and the way of talking.

See the movie, then post your oppinions about it.

[Papewaio]

Are you mixing up racism with prejudice?

[Lazul]

Are you mixing up racism with prejudice?

once again, have you seen the movie?

Its about racism and prejudice yes, maybe I should have writting; Crash, a movie about Racism, Prejudice, Social Stereotupes, etc.

[The Stranger]

ahahahahhahahahahahaha some people really cant see the whole picture hahahahhahahahahahahahaahaha

[Lazul]

ahahahahhahahahahahaha some people really cant see the whole picture hahahahhahahahahahahahaahaha

you mean me?

[Ianofsmeg16]

Alright, ok, rascism is a problem, i admit it.
But i will still say shut the hell up if you're not gonna do anything about it!
"oh no, oh dear some poor boy is a victim of racial abuse. Somebody should do something, not me though i'm off to buy some ciggarettes"
My point is don't preach rascism if you int doing anything to stop it

[The Stranger]

no lazul not you. atleast not in general. if you think you fit in, well then to you to. but it wasnt meant to anyone in particular. it is not to flame anyone. but when your main argument against the statement "rasiscm is still a big issue" is no it isnt, look we have a black counceler (sp?). then you fit in.