Defining racism. Your thoughts?

Post Reply New Topic

Racism to me is the belief that one race is superior to another, simple as that. I don't believe there are racist words or that anything is racist in general without context, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Prejudice isn't the same as racism, all racists are prejudice but not all prejudice is racist. Everyone is prejudice, we all make judgements about other people without knowing them. This is human nature or probably more appropriately just nature since animals do it too. We shouldn't be afraid of having a dialogue with each other, people are way too sensitive nowadays.

http://www.8bitbro.com/offbeat/replacin ... ss-racist/

There were a couple of posts in the mod attn. thread about removing someones opinion about politics and it used the word thug to refer to Obama. With lots of research. and links so you can go look at why the word thug, when used to describe a politician that makes you feel like your back is up against the wall, is racist. But it wouldn't be racist if we called Bush that. The original post was removed because it was offensive. And I'm not jumping on the mod that removed it, he's not from the US and isn't all that familiar with our culture, he was doing what was asked. I'm not jumping on anybody, but I'm wanting to point out how silly that is to call racist when it's not. Obama is rich, privileged, educated, and at the absolute top of the social ladder in the US. Nobody would seriously call him a "thug" in that sense. The sense it was used in was that he's forcing his own way on people and making them feel like they are robbed, if not of money then of the freedom to make their own decisions. If you notice when somebody commits a "street crime" they are usually young, and no matter what color they are referred to as thugs. But, because some rappers want to "live the thug life" and "do it thug style" and even have a freakin "thug - o - rama" doesn't mean that 1) rappers are actually thugs (Lil Wayne), 2) rappers are black (Eminem), 3) all black people are thugs (Duh), 4) the use of the word thug means black gang members (it's not, lots of people who strongarm others and lots of criminals are called thugs - people only get upset about it when the person is black and not a criminal).

To me, the word "racism" has an inherent connection to ethnicity and heritage. People are not a "race" just because they happen to agree on a subject, or pursue a common behavior.

Regarding ethnic concerns, I think we all have them to a certain extent, but true racism involves hate fueled by fear. No offense intended, but hanging someone from a rope is very different than publicly stating you're against homosexuality or abortion. They're not sourced from the same ideology.

Indeed, the first is Racism the second (homophobia) is bigotry and the third is an opinion. 2 and 3 are often, but not exclusively, brought about by a belief in religion. All three have a history of lynch mobs,

Actually, in the Deep South, part of the entire reasoning for segregation was that "God was against mixing" and it was "against the natural order". I went to an all white, private, Baptist school in Birmingham Alabama from 1970 on. My school came about as a backlash against bussing and integration. We were told over and over why mixing was wrong, what the Bible supposedly says about it, etc. No, I don't think the Bible says that about mixing, and I also don't think the Bible paints homosexuality as the be all and end all of sinning either though. But, I can show you how our preachers got their doctrine from the Bible, on both accounts and I can also show you how it can be interpreted other ways.

Early versions of the Klan were called the Legion of White Decency and they wanted to make sure no overstepping of the God decreed bounds take place. If you don't think anybody can use the Bible to talk about class, then simply look at the Divine Rights of Kings, which the Church of England certainly embraced. (I'm not saying they are racist - it's about a doctrine). That doctrine says that God puts those in charge who He deems fit and it shouldn't be questioned. This is the very same idea that Southern men used when they were founding their Legion of "Decency". It's the same idea in their heads when they lynched some black guy for something he did or (probably) didn't do. They felt that he was overstepping his God given limits and so they took matters into their own hands.

I'm not defending it. Not at all. Not even saying "Well, they thought they were doing right", which they honestly did think. But that isn't an excuse or even a good reason. I'm saying that both of them came from the same place. People trying to prevent others from doing what they think God doesn't want them to do, and these things hurt no one at all except the pride or sensibilities of some others.

Just like the Old South man used the options at his disposal which were common for the day, when he lynched the black guy because he was caught with the white girl and it was consensual, the modern man uses the options at his disposal which are common for the day when he protests and votes against allowing same sex marriage. Both believe they are defending God's word, and both believe that God doesn't want this. Both seem to think it's up to them to make what God wants happen. Neither one thinks back to all the smiting that happened in the Bible and figured out that if God really, REALLY doesn't want this to happen, he can stop it. Neither civil rights, interracial marriage or same sex marriage hurt anybody, anywhere. It simply hurts the pride of some self appointed speakers for God when others find different interpretations for the same thing they do.

Moviefan, I'm sure you really can't look in the Bible and see where it tells you flat out to not mix races. I can though, because I had it shoved in my face for years at that school, as the complete and utter truth. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now, just like I don't buy that the Bible so flat out condems gay people to the lake of fire for eternity either. I can see other interpretations of those scriptures, and if you gave it a chance, you might too.

Gay marriage and gay people in general, aren't something that is blowing up our country. You don't see the Gay Army out there in the streets shooting people left and right do you? You don't see gay suicide bombings here, and them being terrorists trying to force their beliefs on us, or if you believe some preachers, doing all that just because they are gay and that's what gay people would do. They are just wanting to live their lives, quietly, with the same rights as you do. The offense you feel at that idea is the same offense that the man from the Old South felt when confronted with the idea of Black Civil Rights. People asking for gay marriage aren't asking to abolish regular marriage. They aren't asking for churches to recognize them if they don't want to. They aren't asking for you to be forced to recognize it on a personal level if you don't want to. They aren't asking to forcibly "convert" a certain number of straight folks either (I know that's not possible, but some think it is so I thought I'd just point that out) and they aren't trying to make anyone do anything they don't want to do, except to allow them to have the same rights to marry the person they love as you do.

And, in Leviticus when it says don't lay with man the way you lay with woman, have you ever stopped to think about that? In all that before that one sentence it's telling you who you can't look at naked. Then it says not to lay with mankind the way you lay with womankind and then it goes on to tell you not to do it with animals and on top of that, a woman can't entice an animal for sex, etc. So, you think all this was going on that God had to make special laws about it for that particular group, and that by then men hadn't figured out other ways of laying with men that they didn't do with women? Cause if you do think that then you aren't giving those perverts enough credit. When you have to tell somebody not to look at their sister and mother naked, and not to do it with animals, they got some perversions going on which the least of which would be figuring out different ways of gay sex, so that person has already got lots of other ideas in their mind. Plus, look at the whole big list of who you can't look at naked. If man couldn't do anything at all with man, besides not lay with him the way he lays with women, don't you think He would have listed it? He even goes into specifics about animal sex! The girl can't come on to the donkey! If people needed Him to be that specific about looking at family naked and having sex with animals, do you think they wouldn't have figured out all sorts of things that two guys can do together? Two unrelated human guys? Hell, that's practically vanilla if you look at whats going on AROUND that verse! So that verse is talking about the way you lay with women. And I'm not talking about the va-jayjay here either. So, you figure it out. Why didn't He say "Don't lay with mankind at all!" He was pretty clear about animal sex. If gay sex was so important to Him, I would think He would be more clear on it. So, then what is ok for man to do with man that he doesn't do with woman? I'm not even getting into that, you can if you want but I'm not. But just think on that a little bit. And, because I know protestants have a penchant for adding other unrelated verses and using that to prove your point, I want to tell you that "how man lays with woman" is covered by the sodomy law which about not to spill your seed if it can be put into fertile ground, and we all know sodomy isn't just butt sex, it's also oral sex too, so there you go. Because of the sodomy laws a guy couldn't have butt sex or oral sex with his woman. What in the world was left? Oh, only that one way. Yeah, so she can get pregnant. Otherwise it's a sin cause she's there and it's fertile up in there. But, that law wouldn't apply to gay folks, cause fertility don't mean diddly there. And since God specified a way not to that meant he was singling it out.

But, you don't have to understand or believe that to understand the fact that when you use your options available to deny someone else a right that doesn't hurt anyone else, you are doing so with the same mentality that the cracker had when he strung up some black guy. His ways were more violent but that was the way of the time and used for lots of things not just this. Just like we use voting, cops, and lawyers now.

If you really believe God is against it, then vote to allow it but also pray. Pray very, very hard for the gay people to become straight. I'm not being mean here. I mean it. If you are so convinced that God is so against homosexuality, then pray for their conversion or whatever. Because if you believe He is that serious about it, you obviously believe in the power of prayer (maybe a little less after this past election, but still) and if you vote to allow it but pray for all the gay people to be straight so it's not needed, then you are like in the prodigal son. Let him go and wait for him to come back, if God is willing. If you were to actually vote gay marriage in, and base your entire reasoning on doing that on the fact that you are going to just pray homosexuality out of existence, then you would be showing true faith and not just going on your own understanding, which Paul tells us not to do. Would I be offended if I heard you were trying to pray everybody straight? No, I'd think it was a bit over the line, but it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't stop anyone from living their lives, and it doesn't put you in the same mindset as the Tennessee cracker, circa 1895.

I assume you are aware that the various aboriginal tribes did not welcome us with open arms. there was a war of resistance. We have treated the aborigines in a disgusting manner over the past couple of centuries and we continue to do so. Flag burning enrages people, I find the worship of nation states anthems and flags nauseating.

Australia is demonstrably racist.

I don't see why burning a flag would really bother anyone. I mean, I understand the concept and that I'm supposed to be furious with it, but it's just a piece of cloth that represents something. It's not the thing itself. And there are millions of flags. It's not like they are burning the one flag from <insert important battle> here.

Then again, I'm not very sentimental about things, so that may be why.

Origin of the word Thug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee

I addressed this on the previous page, and no one has responded to that part of my post.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATBXTgO1vUE[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtshwPsxXUk[/youtube]

I always thought racism was treating someone different because of their skin color or discriminating them because of their skin color or disliking them because of their skin color or excluding them because of their skin color. That is what I was taught about racism from my mother when I found out about racism and I never even knew it existed until I was ten and I had no idea black people were treated differently before and still were sometimes or how people hated Jewish people so they were all killed during WWII or how people still hate them to this day and will throw bricks through their window or burn a cross in their lawn. hat is why people say ignorance is a bliss when people are not aware racism still exists. I always thought they were normal people and my mom said they are normal people, people are just stupid so they hate them for their skin color or for being Jewish, that is like disliking someone for having blonde hair, that is how stupid racism is.

The well known fact didnt seemed to need a response, but Ill respond to it now by saying that it just underscores my point.

The term had its origins in India two centuries ago. Pronounced "tug" back then it referred to a murderous criminal cult of sorts that was eventually stamped out.

Then by the mid twentieth centurey it had somehow crept into English (with the TH sound) as a term for any strong arm, or goon, or extortionist.

And thats what it still means now, even in the context of rap music. The term has never had anything to do with being an ethnic label for African Americans, and thus has no relevence to the subject of racial slurs.

From the previous page


naturalplastic, your assertion that the term thug has not been used as an ethnic slur has no basis in reality. It has been repeatedly used to mischaracterize black men by being used to refer to them when they have no association with any criminal activity. It employs an old racist stereotype with which everyone is familiar, and is an ideal racist dog whistle thanks to twisted logic like that cited above.

How does the use of the word thug in India differ from the use of the swastika as a religious symbol across Asia? How does the use of the word thug by self-proclaimed gangster rappers differ from their use of the word n**ga? Do you seriously expect to raise the same defenses if you go around wearing a swastika and calling people the n-word?

I am not comfortable with this definition. When you reduce racism to a legal construct like this, it gives governments the power to define the parameters for what does and what doesn't constitute racism.

Last edited by thomas81 on 24 Dec 2013, 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think everyone is just sick of the way Aborigines keep banging on about what happened over 200 years ago are they still going to go on and on about it in 1000 years time.