Disagree With Obama? Are You a Racist?

[kgoerz]

Obama's presidency is truly a remarkable commentary on the goodness of Americans and how far we've come in resolving matters of race.

This is all good and definitely a true statement today. IMO, if he is voted out of Office in 2012. That statement is going to be reversed. Even thou he would be voted out of Office for a failed presidency. It won't matter. The accusations of America being Racist will be screamed from every Mountain top.

[kgoerz]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Yeah, it is just politics. Source is here.

Table 1 is attached in PDF format.

Do's the 5:1 ratio of Whites to Blacks living in the US have have any impact on those statistics? This was info from one year ago.

[LarryW]

Do's the 5:1 ratio of Whites to Blacks living in the US have have any impact on those statistics?

Racism and behaving with prejudice against anybody becasue of their background, skin color, what-the-heck-ever, IMHO, is indicative of a weakness in moral courage. In some folks it's a condition that supercedes all else, and with others (the majority of so called "racists" (white or black)) it is eposodic behavior. It comes and goes. Regardless, a tree is known by the fruit it bears. So far Obama has demonstrated that he is overwhelmed. He may get re-elected in 2012, but it won't change him into a great President.

The accusations of America being Racist will be screamed from every Mountain top.

I think this is unfortunate but true. Again, a weakness in moral courage...this time coming from the ACORN's and and other squirrels.

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Yeah, it is just politics. Source is here.

Table 1 is attached in PDF format.

Perhaps the FBI should have posted the same warning used to preface the 'Crime in the United States' statistics:

Caution Against Ranking

Each year when Crime in the United States is published, some entities use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges or universities solely on the basis of their population coverage or student enrollment.

2008 crime statistics by race (Table 43, Arrests by race attached):

Overview

* In 2008, 69.2 percent of all persons arrested nationwide were white, 28.3 percent were black, and 2.5 percent were other races.

* Of all juveniles (persons under the age of 18) arrested in 2008, 66.4 percent were white, 30.9 percent were black, and 2.7 percent were other races.

* Nearly 70 percent (69.7) of all adults (persons aged 18 and over) arrested were white, 27.8 percent were black, and 2.4 percent were other races.

* White persons were more often arrested for violent crimes than were black persons, accounting for 58.3 percent of those arrests.

* The number of adults arrested for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter was almost equally divided between black arrestees (49.1 percent) and white arrestees (48.8 percent).

* Black juveniles accounted for 51.6 percent of juveniles arrested for violent crimes.

* White juveniles accounted for 64.7 percent of juveniles arrested for property crimes.

[SF-TX]

In the crime statistics by race, there is no breakout of crimes committed by Hispanics. Are these numbers included in the category White? I have been unable to find an answer on the FBI's website.

[metelliana]

Yes, Hispanics fall under the White category.

This information is a bit dated but interesting. (if the link works)

http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf

Metelliana

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Pete

Sigaba;

You posted data on hate crimes but that leads to the question "What is a hate crime?" and then that leads to "Who decides if a crime is a hate crime?"

Until the listing requirements are equal and fair the numbers you posted are very questionable and subject to the bias of the listing agency.

Just because a white does it to a black does not make it a hate crime and just because it was a black that does it to a white does not make it not a hate crime.

QP Pete, your points are well made and raise at least one additional question: when is a crime not hateful? A CPA pillages a retirement fund, a parent abuses his kid, a quality assurance manager turns a blind eye to an engineering defect that makes a vehicle unsafe--are these hypothetical examples any less hateful because the assailant doesn't use slurs of one type or another?

Originally Posted by Paslode

JMO....

1. If you want to go out and inflict physical pain and suffering on a person because of the skin color, ethnic background or Religion. That is racism in my book.

2. If you call me a White or Cracker M F-r and I call you a N$@Ger. That is name calling. It is not acceptable behavior but is no more than a harmless insult in my book.

If you happen to be of a different skin color, ethnic background or Religion than myself and we do not agree on a matter, and I voice my opinion or discontent. I am not racist, I just don't agree with your line of thinking.

Paslode, a question for the sake of clarification (this is to say, I'm not sharpshooting you). In your first point, you indicate that the desire ("want") to hurt someone due to racial, ethnic, or religious differences is racism and your second point suggests that the use of slurs constitutes harmless insults.

My question is: where would you fit in hateful comments and/or remarks and/or behaviors aimed to damage someone's sense of self? Everyone has buttons and it doesn't take long to figure out what they are and how to push them. As an example, the last person to aver that I couldn't insult him was offering to kick my ass five seconds later.

[SF0]

For clarification, I thought true racism was based on race, and nothing else. Caucoid hates Mongoloid. Mongoloid hates Negroid, etc. I suppose it would be somewhat unusual (unless we're talking about the Aryan Nation) to simply hate one of the other two races based on genetics, so "racism" is a byproduct of specific prejudices based on stereotypes tagged to race, instead of say, geographical location. However, how is it racism if the only prejudice is religion, or otherwise non genetic? For an Afghani muslim to claim racism against a white american who hates islam does not make sense, for they are of the same race. Nor does it make sense for a hispanic to claim racism against a white american for supporting deportation and closed borders.

I believe the misuse and misunderstanding of racism and race contribute to their sensationalistic usage. Be aware that I don't read up on the subject, so these points may or may not be malformed.

To have a truly racist bias against Obama, wouldn't you have to be asian? I'm of mixed race, and while I say I'm half and half, it doesn't really work that way. I don't have a dotted line separating the two races that I am composed of, so you can't hate half of me.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

QP Pete, your points are well made and raise at least one additional question: when is a crime not hateful? .....

Which is why I don't believe in the "Hate Crimes" law.

It's application is subjective based on the perp, the victim and the local LEOs.

If you curb stomp somebody your crime is curb stomping them.

It is not the governments job to look into the hearts of thugs - except the premeditated area, you went out looking for somebody to curb stomp.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by SF0

For clarification, I thought true racism was based on race, and nothing else.

SF0--

It would depend largely on how one defines "race." Is it just about fundamental genetic differences among the three racial types that you delineated or is it also about other factors?

In the case of racism in America, the other factors include ethnicity, gender identity, sexuality, morality, culture, religion, concepts of work and of play, the art of war, political activity, the acquisition of knowledge, the arts, and communication.

FWIW, there is broad agreement among Americanists (historians who study America) that while there have always been notions of racial difference in America--dating back at least as far to the "settlement" of the Americas by Europeans--the deliberate construction of American racism occurred during the 1830s and quickly permeated.

While Americans have worked together (and continue to work together, as evidenced by this thread) to uproot this toxic plant, it continues to flower in different forms and in different places. Even in those places where it has been uprooted, purged and burned, its shadow may still remain, haunting all who cast their gaze upon it, though they themselves may be blameless.

[SF0]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

SF0--

It would depend largely on how one defines "race." Is it just about fundamental genetic differences among the three racial types that you delineated or is it also about other factors?

In the case of racism in America, the other factors include ethnicity, gender identity, sexuality, morality, culture, religion, concepts of work and of play, the art of war, political activity, the acquisition of knowledge, the arts, and communication.

FWIW, there is broad agreement among Americanists (historians who study America) that while there have always been notions of racial difference in America--dating back at least as far to the "settlement" of the Americas by Europeans--the deliberate construction of American racism occurred during the 1830s and quickly permeated.

While Americans have worked together (and continue to work together, as evidenced by this thread) to uproot this toxic plant, it continues to flower in different forms and in different places. Even in those places where it has been uprooted, purged and burned, its shadow may still remain, haunting all who cast their gaze upon it, though they themselves may be blameless.

My traditional view has always been that the "three races" are sub species of the human species. After some research, it seems most bio-anthropologists don't believe race is adequate to describe the variation of humans. "Cline", or the gradual change in the form or frequency of a trait over space seems to be the standard. This indicates there are no sub species as I believed. If this is true, it further invalidates the "race card" as many like to call it. Yet, this apparently common scientific observation is unknown or ignored by organizations with agendas, and public in general. I have to believe that the Obama administration and supporters have access to this information, but choose to ignore it for their benefit.

At a different level, I can imagine the backlash the scientific community trying to introduce the concept to the "mob". While you and I may comprehend it without issue, the un-thinking would not. The organizations that are in the best positions to do so, would effectively eliminate their purpose if they did. It does seem like hate is being perpetuated for personal gain as the Americanists suggest.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by SF0

My traditional view has always been that the "three races" are sub species of the human species. After some research, it seems most bio-anthropologists don't believe race is adequate to describe the variation of humans. "Cline", or the gradual change in the form or frequency of a trait over space seems to be the standard. This indicates there are no sub species as I believed. If this is true, it further invalidates the "race card" as many like to call it. Yet, this apparently common scientific observation is unknown or ignored by organizations with agendas, and public in general.

SF0--

Part of the issue may be that the construction of the concept of racialized differences used scientific studies that 'proved' the inferiority of some races relative to another.

A second part of the issue may be how we Americans approach knowledge in general, especially if information is being presented from experts to laypersons. As an example, I would point to the resistance I encounter when I suggest to people whom I know that they come to a BB such as this one to learn more about the American armed services that they so casually vilify.

A third part of the issue may be that even when confronted by a scientifically verifiable piece of information, some may still decide to favor other sources of information and teaching. Recently, HBO aired a documentary on Morgan Freeman's effort to subsidize a single prom in a small town in Mississippi.

The documentary, Prom Night in Mississippi <<LINK>> features residents offering their views on race and race relations. While some residents were open to the idea of a single prom, others remained skeptical.

Some of these skeptics focused on factors such as how they were raised and their faith as Christians, and simply how they wanted to live their lives while also acknowledging their understanding of differing viewpoints. Given a wide range of information, residents of this town, like people elsewhere, made their own decisions for their own reasons. Such is life.

ETA. FWIW, I believe that comments such as these are not helpful and I cringe when I hear them.

"I live here," Freeman tells an assembly of seniors. "I think it is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of that in this time...you children are being brought up this way. It hurts me deeply."

I've never changed anyone's mind or even gotten them to take another look at their views by belittling them. (And I sure have tried. I mean, give me a break. How many times does one have to scorch the popcorn before realizing that two minutes is too long in the microwave?)

[SF0]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

SF0--

Part of the issue may be that the construction of the concept of racialized differences used scientific studies that 'proved' the inferiority of some races relative to another.

A second part of the issue may be how we Americans approach knowledge in general, especially if information is being presented from experts to laypersons. As an example, I would point to the resistance I encounter when I suggest to people whom I know that they come to a BB such as this one to learn more about the American armed services that they so casually vilify.

A third part of the issue may be that even when confronted by a scientifically verifiable piece of information, some may still decide to favor other sources of information and teaching. Recently, HBO aired a documentary on Morgan Freeman's effort to subsidize a single prom in a small town in Mississippi.

The documentary, Prom Night in Mississippi <<LINK>> features residents offering their views on race and race relations. While some residents were open to the idea of a single prom, others remained skeptical.

Some of these skeptics focused on factors such as how they were raised and their faith as Christians, and simply how they wanted to live their lives while also acknowledging their understanding of differing viewpoints. Given a wide range of information, residents of this town, like people elsewhere, made their own decisions for their own reasons. Such is life.

Good points, as unfortunate as they may be. I can only imagine the backlash from certain groups if these common views held by bio-anthropologists were pushed onto the general public via MSM, or possibly by a new organization dedicated to it.

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

An action motivated positively or negitivly by race is racism. With that I suggest that the greater numger of Obama voters are racists.

On another note Obama's failure to get the Olympics to Chicago is a great example of his belief in his "popularity" but fact that he's not.
He places himself on a pedestal he cannot defend.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

QP Pete, your points are well made and raise at least one additional question: when is a crime not hateful? A CPA pillages a retirement fund, a parent abuses his kid, a quality assurance manager turns a blind eye to an engineering defect that makes a vehicle unsafe--are these hypothetical examples any less hateful because the assailant doesn't use slurs of one type or another?

Paslode, a question for the sake of clarification (this is to say, I'm not sharpshooting you). In your first point, you indicate that the desire ("want") to hurt someone due to racial, ethnic, or religious differences is racism and your second point suggests that the use of slurs constitutes harmless insults.

My question is: where would you fit in hateful comments and/or remarks and/or behaviors aimed to damage someone's sense of self? Everyone has buttons and it doesn't take long to figure out what they are and how to push them. As an example, the last person to aver that I couldn't insult him was offering to kick my ass five seconds later.

NOTICE: My response is unedited. No Offense intended.


Not at all, I thought someone would bring that up. And yes, a verbal insult is meant to be hurtful or to prompt a action, but the recipient has a choice to react or not to react. And while it maybe insulting it is only a word.

Around Aunt Nannie, Aunt Mary, Uncle Conner and Uncle Jimmy you never referred to person of color as Sir, Mister, Ma'am, Miss or Misses. They were Niggers. You might get your ass kicked or your faced slapped for referring to them by any other name and the person of color might receive the same or worse treatment because of your actions.

They didn't just dislike blacks, they 'hated' them. They didn't just want to insult them, they wanted to cause physical harm to them.

They went as far as to frame a young black for stealing chickens so he couldn't get his scholarship to Ole Miss.......they didn't want Ole Miss tainted.



That is racism in my mind. They were on par with what my Jewish German Teacher described as Nazi's.

Whereas if my Grandpa (Nannie, Mary's and Connor's brother) happened to call someone a nigger it was because a person of color wrong him or someone else. And actually I never heard him use the word, rather he substituted coon.


In my mind that is the difference between insult and hatred. Racism is hatred and more than insulting words in my book.


And sure, some Shrink can come up with all kinds of evidence that words cause all kinds of trauma.....In my book, getting called a Nigger, Coon, Spic, Jew Boy or whatever, it ain't any different than being the kid that has Green Teeth from Tetracycline.

Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me......unless of course I let them.

As insults go you can be a Victim, or you shrug it off and get on with life.