jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (94 posts)

contentious ISSUE

  1. gmwilliams profile image82
    gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8197440.jpg
    There has been much discussion regarding racism and who is the most racist, Caucasians or non-Caucasians such as Blacks, Asians, and/or Latinos.  Some pundits staunchly proclaim that all races display some type of racism in one kind or another.  Other vehemently declare that only the dominant and most powerful race can demonstrate racism because this race is in the position of affluence, power, and has the means to control the runnings of socioeconomic, socioreligious, and/or sociocultural occurrences in a particular society.  What is YOUR view on this subject?

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's silly to think that only majorities or the most powerful people can demonstrate racism.
      Where do people come up with such false ideas?

    2. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Every black person in America has to educate himself on the cultural mores of the dominent culture as the basis of survival.The predominent group can take its prejjudices and make it racism, affecting your life, the underdog cannot reioprocate.

  2. SpanStar profile image62
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    It is not difficult to ascertain who has the biggest impact on people's lives.

    If you can impact economy then you have the biggest impact on people's lives.

    Let's say we are in small town USA and their is only one factory which I own. You are one of my employees now if I am a racist which of us (you or me) can have the biggest affect our impact on someone's life?

    1. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The one that has the money, HAS the power, ownership, and rulership.  Thus that person, if racist, has influence, either negative or positive, as to whether the second person is employed.   Racism is oftentimes connected to power, ownership, and/or rulership regarding the lives of others.

      1. SpanStar profile image62
        SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        GmWilliam,

        I can't argue with any of that.

      2. profile image60
        retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wrong two other conditions must exist.  The inability to work for one's self and the inability to travel.  When do  these conditions exist in America, unless self imposed.

  3. innersmiff profile image70
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    Noun
    The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...
    Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

    There is no qualifier here to say that only the race dominant in numbers and economic power has the ability to be racist. Any individual who holds the view that races have inherent qualities and faults is a racist. If a minority does this, they are racist.

    Whoever is arguing the contrary is incorrect.

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      True, such as an African American or Hispanic person saying all Caucasians are racist. 

      I am beginning to wonder though, whether the concept of race is something that we, as human beings, should continue to use, or whether by using it, we actually keep racism alive.

      1. Credence2 profile image87
        Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I would not say that it is based upon individuals more than institutions and structure so that it is difficult to identify an individual or group of individual to blame

      2. profile image60
        retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Race is an absurd concept.  Barrack Obama and George Zimmerman are equally white but which one must be a bigot because of the pollution of whiteness in his blood?  Race is of more use as a propaganda tool than anything else.  It is what Race Baiter must have to shake down governments and businesses.  It is a club to, metaphorically, beat on your political opposition - witness some of the posts here.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Race baiting is much more the area of people such as yourself who attempt to pretend racism does not exist or has little impact in an attempt to further your political ideals.

          As a consequence racial problems are ignored because admitting racism is still a major problem is just not good for business, even though massive amounts of polls, scientific research etc. prove that it is. Isn't it funny how all these people who attempt to deny the existence of racism against minorities are white, I wonder why that is.

          1. profile image56
            Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Of course racism exists, it just doesn't exist in the form that some of you push.

            Its not racist to believe George Zimmerman was justified in killing Treyvon Martin, unless its racist to believe Zimmerman is guilty.

            It isn't racist to dislike Barack Obama unless its racist to dislike George Bush.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What form would that be?

              1. profile image56
                Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That any opinion contrary to yours stems from racism.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No one believes that.

                  1. profile image56
                    Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Really, I see it on these forums everyday!

          2. profile image60
            retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "I know you are but what am I?"

            Nice defense.  I would never say an individual cannot be a racist.  Racism, like every other action or belief, is an individual thing.  Racism is very simple.  Someone, lets call him Kasoj - Kasoj believes that because Tiefre disagrees with the assertion that America is a racist society that Tiefre must be a race baiter and a hater of all things minority.  Actually, Tiefre believes that all people belong to the smallest of all possible minorities, the individual and that race is a convenient means of oppressing those minorities or excusing those minorities criminal actions.

            As for my "race" how is it that you assume I am white?  Doesn't that make you a racist?  I prefer to think of all of my brothers and sisters as part of one race - the Human Race.  Go ahead and assume you know me and my struggles to be accepted as a child of a mixed marriage.

    2. SpanStar profile image62
      SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am arguing to the contrary.

      That is absolutely ridiculous to believe that the powerless control the lies of the powerful. Whoever believes that certainly isn't living in reality.

      How many minorities can bring down the United States government?

      You never saw the Vanderbilts or the Rockefellers marching for civil rights.

      1. innersmiff profile image70
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Then you're incorrect, and what you cite in example is a complete non-sequitur. If a minority displays the view that the majority has inherent qualities and faults to their race, then they are being racist.

        How many minorities can bring down the United States government? I don't know, how many dentists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Nothing to do with what the definition of racism is.

        1. SpanStar profile image62
          SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Frankly I don't know what bizarre understanding of racism you have but you are clearly wrong.

          Based on your understanding as you present it you are saying that the people who were kidnapped from Africa chose to live under a horrid, intolerable, inhumane conditions because they could have stopped this atrocity it any time they had chosen? So for 400 years at least they accepted the government's laws that no Black person was anything other than property.

          What insanity.

          1. innersmiff profile image70
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I just showed you what the dictionary definition of racism was.

            I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to say at this point. Here is my claim: any individual that ascribes specific qualities and/or faults to a race in general is a racist. Nothing more, nothing less.

            1. SpanStar profile image62
              SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              One of the points presented in the topic is who has control in a racist environment?

              If one is a racist as the South was for so many years then the plantation owner has more control over his slaves than the slaves have over him. I find the definition generic and not appropriate in every situation. If you take away my livelihood, beat me, threaten my life, work me half to death chances are I'm not going to look very favorable on you and so if that makes me a racist then so be it.

              1. innersmiff profile image70
                innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The assertion is that "only the dominant and most powerful race can demonstrate racism", the dictionary definition refutes it. If the slave were then to conclude that every single member of the white race exhibited the qualities of the plantation owners, that slave would then be a racist.

                1. SpanStar profile image62
                  SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Like I said insanity.

                  We have a history of racism in this country where the dominant race was in power controlling others who have no power and now you profess to pretend like those without power are equal to those with power insanity, insanity.

                  My recommendation is if one is going to rewrite history they should wait until the people who know better are all gone.

                  1. innersmiff profile image70
                    innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm saying that those with less power can also be racists. You're adding extra parts to the definition of racism where none exist.

                  2. Silverspeeder profile image61
                    Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Apparently the president of the United States of America is the most powerful man in the world, does that make him a racist then?

                    There are racists in all races.

                    It was people with power that abolished slavery.

                    There are still instances of racism in countries that suffered at the hands of racists in the past even though the roles have been reversed (Zimbabwe, South Africa and many African states).

                    Racism is not as black and white as black and white.

                  3. profile image60
                    retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    This assertion that power flows from some collective is, in and of itself, racist.  At a time when society was heavily segregated there were Black owned newspapers that had as much influence in cities like New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and so forth, that a politician could not ignore the publishers and editors in those papers.

                    You treat the Black individual as if he is incapable of slicing off a quality life and influence those around him.  Do you see minorities as inferior?  There have been wealthy and influential Blacks in America since its founding.  You entire premise smacks of a belief in a rigid class structure rooted in race - that smacks of racism.  Are you saying that Oprah is oppressed?  Or Jesse Jackson?  Or Michael Jordan?  Or Denzel Washington?  Or Beyonce?

                    If that is oppression, oppress the hell out of me.

              2. profile image60
                retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So we are to believe that the world today is equivalent to the Antebellum South?  May be in the Muslim world where race isn't as important as religion but where else?

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you suggesting that before the civil war religion was more important than race in the South? I had no idea you could be legally deprived of your freedom and the freedom of your children and generations to come and then used as a labor instrument against your will for profit of you were of a different faith, which is weird because I know for a fact that there were large Confucian, Taoist, Catholic and Jewish communities all of whom were subject to abuse but nowhere near to the same extent.

                  1. profile image60
                    retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There are many fine reading comprehension workshops throughout most communities in this country.

          2. profile image60
            retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Blacks were kidnapped and sold into slavery, mostly to Arabs, that is the ones they did not retain for their own exploitation.  Liberals love to think that they understand the complexity of history but they never have, the biggest reason why they are liberals - limited scope.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And again wrong, The European slave trade far outstripped the Arab one from about the 16th century, which is remarkable considering how much easier it is getting slaves to Arabia from Africa.

              Of course most of the slaves in America were not kidnapped at all, they were the children of slaves who by birth became slaves themselves under American "ownership".

              1. profile image60
                retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Arab trade in Black slaves has never ended and started in the first contact between Blacks and Arabs.  Nice bit of nothing you've got there.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nelson Rockefeller and his cousin? Senator Jay Rockefeller were/are quite supportive of civil rights.

        1. SpanStar profile image62
          SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Being supportive of civil rights is one thing-needing civil rights is another.

        2. profile image60
          retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I wonder if Gloria Vanderbilts son - Anderson Cooper - is an advocate of civil rights?  According to that source of sources, Wikipedia, he is also a descendant of someone who fought in the ultimate civil rights movement - a general who served with Sherman during the march through Georgia.

      3. profile image60
        retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You did see Charlton Heston marching for Civil Rights.  I am wonder how far back you would like to dig into history --- Rockafellers and Vanderbilts?  Democrats would have you believe that it is all about wealth and privilege but wasn't it a wealthy white American President and son of a Nazi sympathizer who was a mover behind civil rights legislation - JFK?  Wasn't it a white bread Kansas farm boy and Republican anti-Nazi who sent troops to Little Rock - Eisenhower?

        If you wish to see the racism in one's out look, look to your own, sir - you will find all the prejudice and narrow mindedness you wish.

    3. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Good evening, Innersmiff. I agree with everything you said.

      Your definition of “racism” is absolutely correct. Your position that racism does not require power in order to exist is also true.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. innersmiff profile image70
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Evening Quill.

        I'm surprised this is so difficult to understand.

  4. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    Congressional Hispanic Caucus

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressio … nic_Caucus

    Congressional Black Caucus

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus

    Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressio … can_Caucus

    Congressional White Caucus

    ??

    Why?

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Republicans. Or the Tea Party.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image91
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

         

        Neither of which exclude members based on race!

        1. Zelkiiro profile image85
          Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe not explicitly with a sign on the door, but they clearly are not comfortable or welcome while inside the clubhouse.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image91
            Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Proof?

        2. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Might as well. Same result.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image91
            Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Is there any evidence that tea party or republicans dismiss members based on race?

            1. profile image56
              Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There are many Black republicans and tea party members.

              You people need to get your news from different sources than this site.

      2. profile image60
        retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Allan West is a member of the Republican Caucus, the TEA party Caucus and the Black Caucus.  If the Black Caucus excludes white people is it racist?  There is no exclusion from the Republican Party because of race or the TEA party because of race, regardless of your own prejudices that suggest, wrongly, otherwise.

  5. SLMitchell profile image60
    SLMitchellposted 4 years ago

    I do believe that there are few who are capable of not being racist however I do believe there are those who don't think of themselves as racist, but they are, so what makes a person racist and is it about race, I think if you only want the best things for those that look and act like you than you are racist, and even if the whole world was one color people would use something else to make themselves better than the next person, such as eye color.

  6. SpanStar profile image62
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    For those who believe that being poor and racist is equal to those being powerful and racist I would consider changing my point of view if they were to give away everything they own and demonstrate how effectively they can rise up against those races in power!

    1. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      THEY can't.   Racism requires power.  A poor person of the dominant  or ingroup society cannot be racist no matter how hard he/she can use his/her so-called dominant status.  By virtue of his/her impoverishment, he/she has no power to influence nor control. He/she is considered to be lesser and an outgroup of sorts.

      A weatlhy person of the dominant or ingroup society has the power to control and influence by combined virtues of his/her wealthy and dominant and/or ingroup status in a society.  A person who is of the less dominant and/or outgroup, no matter how wealthy, HAS NO  power of influence or control over the more dominant and/or ingroup of a particular society.

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Seriously,   you should re-think this.
        Several posters above have defined this, and posted reasonable explanations of this. 
        Why are you stuck on equating power with racism?
        Racism and hatred and etc. are individual feelings, reactions, thoughts, etc., and the individual,  though influenced sometimes by groups or power or whatever, is still responsible for his or her own thoughts and actions.......

        1. innersmiff profile image70
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly. Racism is a belief, a thought pattern. How one chooses to act on that belief is an entirely different thing.

      2. SpanStar profile image62
        SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        gmWilliams

          Exactly-finally somebody with elevated thinking.

        We can apply the same principle even within families take for example a 3-year-old child how much of an impact does that child have on the adult/s? If the child says you made me mad I'm not going to eat that might be a little upsetting to the parents but it doesn't really hurt the parents in any way. Now it's the parents turn what if the parents says to the child I'm not going to cook who has the greater impact?

        1. innersmiff profile image70
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Elevated thinking"?

          Yeahhhhhhh, what we all need to do, man, is open our minds, raise our conciousness: we shall make 2 + 2 = 5, defy gravity, and change the definition of racism. These people who actually read dictionaries man, they're just not elevated, psychically. We gotta think beyond logic and common sense man!

          Peace out!

      3. profile image56
        Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        rac·ism
        [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
        noun
        1.
        a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
        2.
        a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
        3.
        hatred or intolerance of another race or other races


        No power needed to be racist!

        1. SpanStar profile image62
          SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          They have eyes and refused to see:

          I recommend one go Back and read their own definitions that they have provided

          "2.
          a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination"

          How Can the Powerless Discriminate against the Powerful???

      4. Quilligrapher profile image91
        Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Good evening, Ms. Williams. Nice to see ya.

        I think we all agree that racism exists and has existed here and elsewhere for too long. Innersmiff uses the definition of “Racism” to show that it is a belief, or a perception, or a broad attitude about an entire race or a subset within one. The important aspect of his position is how racism can exist in the absence of power and influence.

        The idea that a person without power and influence can not possibly be a racist is simply incorrect. If this poor, powerless individual believes all black people are lazy and inferior humans then s/he is a poor, powerless racist. Furthermore, if the same individual believes all native Americans are alcoholics, s/he is a poor and powerless racist. Again, if the same person has been convinced Barack Obama is unfit to serve as president because of his heritage, s/he is a poor and powerless racist.

        Innersmiff makes a very important distinction: power is not a necessary element for being a racist. Power may be necessary for enforcing or spreading racism in society (you used the terms influence and control) but it is not required for it to simply exist in a person, in a community, in a region, or in a country.

        Nice sharing with you, Ms. Williams. Keep the faith and always follow your bliss.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

        1. profile image60
          retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Point well made.  Not to use a hackneyed example, but when Adolf Hitler was a miserable ex-soldier he was powerless yet a racist.  It required the coupling of real power to his racist mania to make things truly terrible.  When the ex-soldiers of the Confederacy banded together as night riders and racist vigilantes they were able to turn their race hatred into terrible action culminating in the powerful days of the KKK.  Now, though they still exist, the Klan is a pathetic band of losers, malcontents and misfits and more worthy of derision than fear.

        2. profile image56
          Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Which heritage?

          1. gmwilliams profile image82
            gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            However, I disagree.  Although a poor Caucasian may be prejudiced against non-Caucasians, he does not have the power to do anything of significance. He is prejudiced.  He does not have the power to influence the non-Caucasian's getting a job, acquiring health services, and/or housing.   This poor Caucasian does not have the power to do this.  However, a rich Caucasian DOES have the power to do this; ergo, he is a racist.  Racism is mostly based upon the power of the dominant race to control all access of jobs, housing, education, and health services of the less dominant race.

            When Hitler was poor, he was prejudiced against Jews-he had no power to do anything about the situation.  However, when he got into power, he HAD the power to  pass into legislation laws which severely impacted upon the Jews' housing, education, health services etc.  Not only Jews but Roma, Blacks, and other non-Caucasians who lived in Germany at the time.  Hitler before coming into power was prejudiced but when he attained power, he became a racist as he was able to control the latter's access to education, housing, health services etc.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image91
              Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Ms. Williams.

              Your OP states “Other[s] vehemently declare that only the dominant and most powerful race can demonstrate racism.” While your declaration clearly insists power and dominance are needed to “demonstrate” racism, you seem to be insisting that racism can not exist without power and dominance. Racism, by definition, can certainly exist without these elements and I showed you examples of racism alive and thriving in a person who does not have power and influence of any kind.

              You are looking for a discussion of racism but you are rejecting the formal definition and insisting on one not supported by any authority.

              Thank you, Ms. Williams, for starting the thread.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              1. gmwilliams profile image82
                gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You kind sir are more than welcome.

            2. profile image60
              retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So, is it your contention that the men who dragged James Byrd Jr. to death were merely prejudiced not racist because they had no political or economic power?

                Is it your contention that the KKK, which has been an outlaw organization in many places for years, is merely a prejudiced group not a racist group?

              If one individual walks into the Holocaust Museum and starts killing people because they are Jews that is merely prejudice?

              1. gmwilliams profile image82
                gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Not at all, those are egregious racist acts.

                1. profile image60
                  retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The men who dragged James Byrd Jr. to death  had no political or economic power, they were poor and powerless just like James Byrd - but doesn't racism require power?  Is it merely an action rather than an opinion?   

                  Is that your contention, that Paula Dean saying something to her husband is not racist because it wasn't a direct and harmful action and who is Paula Dean, certainly limited in political and economic power.

                  The KKK, which has been an outlaw organization in many places for years and therefore the target of government applied force.  If you are outlawed and pursued can you be racist, even if you do nothing but belong to an outlawed group?

                  One individual has almost no power compared to government or to the whole economy.  If racism requires power how can one individual be a racist?  What if all he does is hate in silence, is he still a racist?

                  It was your contention that Adolf Hitler was not racist when he was in prison hating Jews but became racist when he had the power to punish them.

  7. SpanStar profile image62
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    Here is a true life story that happened when I was a preteen and teenage.. I resided in a predominantly Black neighborhood. From time to time the Ku Klux Klan would come into my neighborhood and find one or 2 African-Americans, beat or kill one or both of them.

    Let's say because of that my hatred for these people can be classified as racist. Okay now let's say I am the biggest hateful racist you ever seen. So now I'm ready to deal with this. There's only one problem every time I step out of my community the police are there to stop me and send me right back to where I came from. With this label of being a racist what does it mean in this situation? Okay I declare myself a racist now what even with that label I can't affect change?

    1. innersmiff profile image70
      innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In this situation you are a racist, simple as. One might argue how significant your racism is compared to the Klan, but 'racist' is still an applicable and useful term.

      1. SpanStar profile image62
        SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Racist-(Term) = "Is All It Is."

        So Explain to Me How a Term Is Anything Other Than a Term?

        In what I have just described Explain What It Is I've Done?

        1. innersmiff profile image70
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If it's nothing more than a term, then you should have no problem with me ascribing it to anything. It sounds like you are asking me not to call racists racists.

  8. Wayne Brown profile image88
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    To limit the concept of "racism" to a given ethnicity is to essentially say that "racism" cannot occur in any other form.  In other words, one concludes that the black man's dislke of the white man is expected and justified but any disrespect of the black man by the white man is "racist".  The logic does not hold up yet, as a society, in all our political correctness, we have embraced it as such.  In Congress, we find it is okay to have a "Caucus of Black Senators" but it would be construed as "racist" to have an "Organization of White Senators".  On television, we see a dating site advertised labeled "BlackPeopleMeet.com" but try advertising a site labeled "WhitePeopleMeet.com" and see the uproar.  These are just a couple of examples in which we see the effects of years and years of associating the point of "racism" only with the black race being the victim of it.  Racism is not just about power, influence, and control over the destiny of another but more simply about any action which degrades, extorts, or defames a given ethinicity.  Use of the "N" word in any fashion by a white person is considered a form of "racism".  Calling a white boy a "cracker" is not because it is a black person doing so and everyone knows that black people are, by definition, incapable of "racism" or at least we have been led to believe such is true by those in our society who place a high value on "political correctness" than they do on equality.

    1. SpanStar profile image62
      SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wayne Brown,

      It seems implausible to me for people to think that when you are in power, and control that you are also the victim.

      The powerless has to go to the powerful to try and find relief from oppression because they don't have the power, the means to do it themselves. If living under the circumstance makes them hostile towards the people who are doing this to them then how can we sit on a high horse and say you are bad people?

      This idea that being powerless equals people in power is something that strikes me as being in never never land.

      Are we to assume that those people that we are bombing are equal to the United States military force?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Does being hostile towards someone treating you ill make you bad?  No, although there are probably better attitudes to have.

        Does being hostile towards someone because they are the same race as a third person that is treating you ill make you bad?  Yes, it makes you a racist by definition.  Although a great many people today have found themselves the subject of hostility because of their race (and correctly feel it to be a bad thing) they are more than willing to repeat the offense towards someone else.  Sad, isn't it, that the very people that suffered from racism are so quick to jump on the same bandwagon themselves?

        1. SpanStar profile image62
          SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Similar to say was a little hard for me to follow however you and I both know you're not really interested in the issue of racism you have a point to make and that's only your primary objective so there is no point even going down that road together.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You are mistaken - I find racism, along with bigotry of all kids, to be a part of the problem of intolerance towards other people.  And that I very definitely have an interest in - it is a true scourge in our country.  Until 911 I felt that it had driven our country so far apart that we could never come together again, and we are still at it.

            That specific post had a point to make all right, and I do believe you understood it.  You don't like it, and don't want to talk about it, but you understood it.

            1. profile image56
              Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "but you understood it.".

              I wouldn't bet on it.

  9. Wayne Brown profile image88
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    @Span Star...I am not sure that I see your correlation here as it relateds to "racism".  If you subscribe to the rationale that the only reason that one man is rich and another is poor is because the rich man took what the poor was rightly due then you see the actions of one focused on another.  I am not a "rich man" but I also do not see that one person's success is directly correlated or at the expense of another's failure. Both events can be totally independent of each other.  Regardless, even if it was directly correlated, I would not necessarily see it as a function of "racism" as much as that of "greed".  In terms of bombing people, that is a function of war and not something that I have seen held up as an example of "racism".  If we go there then we must consider that the Islamic faith teaches that Christians are "infidels" and must be killed.  We can also argue that this is not "racist" for it does not involve race but religious choice making it more an act of "religious hatred" than that of "racism".  At its most basic level, I see "racism" as being an act carried out by a person of one ethnicity against a person of another ethnicity solely on the basis of that singular difference between the two.  A war carried out solely with the purpose of "ethnic cleansing" could certainly be construed as a "racist act".  When it comes to "power" and the "power to oppress", here again, this involves people from multiple races on both sides of the coin so I find it difficult to classify the perceived oppression as merely "racism".  In other words, can we state unequivocally that the perceived oppression of the black race is totally a function of the white race? What does being in power have to do with being called a "cracker" or the "N word" when compared to applying those same labels to those not in power in either race?  Regardless...in either direction, if one ethnicity is doing it to another solely for the purpose of ethnic differences, then it is "racist" in nature...power or no power.  ~WB

    1. SpanStar profile image62
      SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wayne Brown,

      Clearly some aspects of what you say are true unfortunately I don't share a number of what you're saying as being the final word on what is racist.

      One does not specifically have to be racist, one can create an environment which is racist and in the film pertaining to the civil rights struggle one woman stated that she grew up in a racist environment but she simply took it for granted and since it with going on all around her she did not find it strange or unusual.

      If we are saying everyone is equal (which is a total untrue) and that the less unfortunate should not get any more than those who are fortunate I would take that to mean we are denying the super rich the opportunity to obtain food stamps and the likes because everybody is equal.

 
working