Disagree With Obama? Are You a Racist?

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Easier said than done though, it depends.

Mom's advice was to ignore them, Dad's was to hit them in the mouth. I heeded their advice and did some of both

[incarcerated]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Yeah, it is just politics.

I lost faith in the Federal Dept. of Justice' Bureau of Crime Statistics in the mid-'90s when they started cooking their books on behalf of Janet Reno and her boss. The Bureau instituted a phased dumbing down of their definition of "crime" and what constituted a crime. This was a politically motivated trick to quietly reflect an artificial drop in crime by raising the bar as to exactly what constituted a criminal act. The Clinton Administration took credit for the lower crime rates, attributing them to the success of their Community Based Policing.

Prior to this, in 1993 the FBI sent some young Junior Agents into our shop to talk to our LEOs while we awaited the approaching 2nd Rodney King verdict. (You may recall seeing the contrails over Los Angeles of high-speed military aircraft that were flown over the courthouse, while the jurors were repeatedly treated to parades of SWAT teams in full dress inside the building: Secretary of State Warren Christopher's idea of preserving the impartiality and integrity of a jury). The JAs were treated like royalty: in the hierarchic world of Law Enforcement, the FBI commands great respect. In a series of mandatory meetings, the JAs proceeded to tell our assembled LEOs about the racial slurs that Stacey Koon, Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind and Theodore Briseno taunted King with throughout the incident, all of which was false. Yeah, it's just politics.

Assuming your FBI stats to be accurate, are you suggesting that this tidal wave of hate crime against blacks justifies Reverend Jeremiah Wright's views and sermons about America? How do those stats explain Bill Ayers and James Carville? How would it be received in the media if a conservative wrote a book entitled "I Hate..."?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by incarcerated

Assuming your FBI stats to be accurate, are you suggesting that this tidal wave of hate crime against blacks justifies Reverend Jeremiah Wright's views and sermons about America? How do those stats explain Bill Ayers and James Carville? How would it be received in the media if a conservative wrote a book entitled "I Hate..."?

IMO, nothing justifies Reverend Wright's views about America.

For me, the question is what can be done to address the legitimate concerns of Americans who encounter racism in their everyday lives? Until we come up with better solutions, there will be those who will lend their ears to the Wrights of America.

And by "solutions" I mean programs that are consistent with our political values (i.e. do not punish/burden/tax some to the benefit of others). Solutions can also mean adjustments to the way we listen, talk, think, and act when it comes to issues of race.

An example that starts off as a non sequitur. I hate cats. But for reasons I couldn't figure, cats like me. After years of memorable of uncomfortable encounters, I stumbled upon a piece of information about felines. To cats, a turn of the head is a signal of approval. So when people who dislike cats turn their head in disgust, a cat is getting a message that says "Hey, come on over and terrorize me." (And that is just another example of how stupid cats are. YMMV.) Now, I glare at friends' cats and they leave me alone.

To go from the feline to the human, might there be things we do that unintentionally exacerbate race relations in America? Maybe if we engaged in the exercise of identifying those behaviors and taking corrective actions we could send a powerful message.

Just my $0.02.

[LongWire]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

And by "solutions" I mean programs that are consistent with our political values (i.e. do not punish/burden/tax some to the benefit of others). Solutions can also mean adjustments to the way we listen, talk, think, and act when it comes to issues of race.

Something that you scholars are not taking into account are the variable factors ingrained into each one of us. Apples and oranges maybe, but we all see things a little different. I think paslode touched most of it, but to each their mileage may vary.

Not to mention those that will bend the rules that are in place to their advantage even though they weren't discriminated in the first place, thus skewing the scales even further.

For that my friends, I feel there may never be a solution.

You show me a disadvantage out in the field and its considered a challenge to overcome. Does it matter how you came to success? Sure it does, but only in the court of opinion. When the numbers are in your favor then you usually end up on top.

Going back to the original question: I can say no, disagreeing does not make me racist since he is only half black. I think the discussion gets off of center from that because even he understands that it is more advantageous to use his race in his favor, omitting the other half, since it allows him the position of being someone who can be discriminated against, therefore leverage. Conjecture on my part, but I don't think I'm far off.

And that's as far in the pool I'm wading...........

[steel71]

The word racism is just a Marxist construct to divide this country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIUa4..._embedded#t=12

[nmap]

Lots of good insights.

Still, I think there is too much sensitivity. Below is a concrete example that caused some raised eyebrows. Two people I know (both smart, rational, and so on) reacted as if this was borderline racism.

“The distribution of grades in all the six classes analyzed demonstrated that the performance of Mexican-American students enrolled in algebra under traditional instruction was better than those enrolled in the Web-classes.” (p. 47)

Esmaeili, G. A. (2001). A comparison of mathematics performance of Mexican-American college students utilizing Web-based instruction versus traditional instruction. Unpublished Ed.D., Texas A&M University - Kingsville, United States -- Texas.

Bottom line, those were the results as reported on page 47 of the cited dissertation - a dissertation that was reviewed and approved by a committee of four faculty members and the Dean of the College at Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

Now one could try to delve into why this was, but as matters stand there seems to be no viable theory of online education. At least, in over 200 references I haven't seen any sign of one, nor have those on my own faculty committee. So finding the whys of the results is likely to represent a research career - not a dissertation. The above represents the results the student/researcher obtained.

It seems to me that we are so badly muzzled that we are more likely to build resentments than we are to avoid them.

[incarcerated]

Originally Posted by steel71

The word racism is just a Marxist construct to divide this country.

Concur. Ethnic Identity undermines the melting pot and displaces the individual's sense of American nationalism, which IMHO is why they teach it.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by steel71

The word racism is just a Marxist construct to divide this country.

Originally Posted by incarcerated

Concur. Ethnic Identity undermines the melting pot and displaces the individual's sense of American nationalism, which IMHO is why they teach it.

I'm not so sure I am following this line of reasoning.

The crux of Marxism is class conflict and class warfare. If one introduces racial identity to the mix (to say nothing of gender) then is the model of class warfare is complicated (if not utterly compromised)? Does not Marxist theory present racism as a cultural construct used to deflect the attention of the working class away from the source of their ills--capitalism? If the proletariat focuses on race isn't it less focused on fulfilling its historical mission?

And if racism is a construct of Marxists, then why have many scholars whose works have been informed by Marxist theories been taken to task by scholars who look at race and/or gender?

Moreover, if racism serves the interests of Marxism, then why were communists the most violent opponents of fascism, which among other things, stresses racial warfare, before the Second World War?

Originally Posted by abc_123

...when do we declare that institutional racisim has come to an end? What is the "exit strategy" from affirmative action programs? What are the metrics that we're using to make that decision? Or, are we hoping for Jessee and Al to tell us?

I've been told, that if by a miracle, we wake up tomorrow and the world is perfect, that we all love one another, when racism is truely over, Jesse and Al will be out of a job? Are you suggesting the plight of racism is being driven by none other than, racists?

[incarcerated]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

The crux of Marxism is class conflict and class warfare.

You are quite right. Sorry, not using the term 'Marxist' in any narrow or historical sense here. All of my college classmates who referred to themselves as communists went into Education upon graduation. Some were Maoists, others Marxist, still others Leninist; those distinctions mean very little to me. The term 'Leftist Educator" would better describe what I had in mind, namely those who teach the Politics of Identity and Multiculturalism. Do you think that today's' practicing Marxist would quarrel with the use of race to divide and weaken America?

[steel71]

Marxism is just an utopian ideology to overthrow the current power structure. Class conflict could never take hold in American since the poorest Americans live well compared to the Russian peasants under the Czar. The peasants never ruled Russia as promised by the Utopians, correct? Then it’s just a subversive tool to gain power, much like racism is used by government to gain power over the majority population. That’s right, it’s in reverse these days since the Marxist already control our government. Their problem is the Constitution and the people. That’s why the government continues to classify people by their skin color. The government gains power over the majority of the population (whites) by enacting racial quotas, affirmative action, multiculturalism, diversity, etc, ect. Hence, government is the protector of minorities (women too) against those evil white males (majority). The government openly promotes discrimination against the majority under the guise of equality and fairness. Then the government can expanded its social/domestic programs (it becomes more powerful) for the benefit of the minorities. Government really doesn’t care about minorities; it’s just a mechanism to gain more power over the people as a whole. If you oppose these programs, you’ll be called a RACSIT!! That’s the worst thing you can be called these days, and it only applies to white males, it doesn’t stick on other groups. Those protected groups are encouraged to be as ethnocentric as possible. Whites on the other hand, better not even think about it, or they’ll be ostracized. Special laws called (hate crime laws) look to protect the minorities, but whites are afforded no protections under the same laws. Whites can’t be victims of hate crime!! Political correctness is another tool that subjugates the majority population, say the wrong thing and your career is over. That’s a direct attack on the 1st amendment. Government gains more power because more (hate) speech laws will be passed to protect the special groups from the evil majority, say good bye to free speech. Marxism is just subversion, it can morph into anything as long as it gains power under the guise of some utopian promise..

[steel71]

Originally Posted by incarcerated

You are quite right. Sorry, not using the term 'Marxist' in any narrow or historical sense here. All of my college classmates who referred to themselves as communists went into Education upon graduation. Some were Maoists, others Marxist, still others Leninist; those distinctions mean very little to me. The term 'Leftist Educator" would better describe what I had in mind, namely those who teach the Politics of Identity and Multiculturalism. Do you think that today's' practicing Marxist would quarrel with the use of race to divide and weaken America?

Ha, you did the fools errand. Never debate a self admitted Marxist about their ideology. I got the run around many times from these useful idiots. You can break it down like this; you are either an individualist or a collectivist. Don’t get caught up in all those “isms” it not worth your time.