Racism

[Josiah]

Without a doubt, racism has been a part of the human experience for thousands of years..... there's often a tendency to look in the mirror and declare what we SEE to be superior to all others. The tendency to classify all humanity as "Us vs. them" is pretty deep seeded. And this took on a particularly horrible and disgusting form in the USA used to support perhaps the most radical (and evil) form of slavery.


But I think there's a lot of hypocrisy. Rev. Dr. Martin LUTHER King Jr. became an American saint with a speech that may be one of the 3 most quoted and admired in all American history, one centered in the point (to paraphrase), "I have a dream for the day when my children will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the character of their heart." He dreamed for two things: Color blindness (a person's race, color, nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, language would be UNNOTICED because it's totally irrelevant) and that character, integrity, morality WOULD rather matter.

While I wasn't alive when Dr. Martin LUTHER King expressed this dream (or even when he was sainted and these words engraved into American conscience), it seems to be there's been NO PROGRESS WHATSOEVER in this during my 29 years. We are a culture absolutely OBSESSED with color, race, nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, language. And I suspect the political left (and their complete control of the press) is primarily to blame for this.


When I was in college..... in my work place...... there was/is a constant OBSESSION with outward things (and pretty much a complete disregard for character, integrity, morality). And I find few do this more than the American Press (which may be the most racist institution in our nation) and the Democratic Party. On and on and on and on and on..... constantly.... about people's race, color, nationality, ethnicity, gender, language. I recall when Obama ran for president - first for the nomination and then for the office - the press couldn't seem to say one sentence about him without mentioning his race (to his credit, I don't recall Obama himself even once mentioning it, I hold him in esteem for that). I know of a folks who voted for him primarily (if not exclusively) because of the color of his skin. And when people disagreed with him or desired to change the topic to morality, character, etc. the charge of racism was not far away. And the press was OBSESSED with how many appointments to various positions were to women and "people of COLOR" and Jews with never a word about character, integrity, morality.

When we applied for the mortgage to our home, there it was..... lots of questions about our race, color, language, gender, ethnic heritage (we refused to answer all these but they were there). Why does it matter if we are white or black or green? If we speak English or Icelandic in our home? And obviously, not a word about the thing king dreamed we would care about: character in our hearts. When I applied for my job, that same long list of questions that prove an OBSESSION with racism, sexism, etc and not a word about character, integrity, honesty, morality ( answered these because we all know I would not have gotten the job if I had declined; racism/sexism being of super importance). Now, evidently my company was okay with a white, male, Germanic, blond/blue, English speaking bloat (cuz I got the job) but obviously all these things MATTER because they asked me..... and perhaps character, integrity, morality didn't because they didn't. Now, you may note that the company asked all this for profiling reasons and for diversity in hiring and to prove to our grant providers that the company isn't racist or sexist but obviously it just proves the exact opposite - about the company AND the folks who demand this information. My wife is a public school teacher... I can't begin to express the deep, deep racism that the liberal legislature and courts in the People's Republic of California have forced the local school boards into implementing. Truly sad.

When the Press goes on and on and on and on about "White" and "Black" and "Color" and "Male" and "Female" and "Hispanic" and so on, they are just perpetuating racism and sexism in our country - and working overtime to keep Rev. King's dream from advancing. And when the Democratic Party does this, it's simply serving a desire to divide us, "pigeon hole" and label people by the color of their skin and making THAT the issue that matters, all working against King's dream. And of course, NO ONE talks about character or integrity (that's immoral).


Sorry.


- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

Consider this tiny part of the Charlotteville horror..... LOTS of "Black Lives Matter" signs - evidently perfectly wonderful, wise, informed, loving, necessary and essential comment insists the Press and Left, which could not inflame anything or anyone because it's so filled with love for all humanity and so devoid of racism. But if anyone had had a sign "White Lives Matter" can you image the uproar, the desk pounding, the condemnation, the charges of racism and hate, the charges of divisiveness? Obama clearly embraced and endorsed the "Black Lives Matter" but can you image what would happen if Trump equally endorsed "White Lives Matter?" Hum..........

Don't get me wrong.... I condemn ALL racism EQUALLY (and yes, I DO know what the "Black Lives Matter" movement is about)... I'm just noting the hypocrisy and "double-standard" of the "PC" crowd and the Press. And noting that what seems to matter here is NOT equal free speech or violence or a dead woman, what matters seems to be The Thought Police, what pov is allowed (and thus Freedom of Speech applies and violence is understandable) and what is to be rejected (and thus Freedom of Speech does not apply and violence is to be condemned). I sense not only some hypocrisy and "double standard" but something far more dangerous: the empowering of The Thought Police and denial of Freedom of Speech. Want to see where this leads? Study the Cultural Revolution of Red China.


Sorry.



- Josiah




.

 

[TurtleHare]

Indeed, I am finding that white guilt is alive and well and living in our midst and the trend isn't gonna go away even though I never owned a slave and can't be sure my great grandpa didn't but the only true slaves now are the sex slave women. Why is it that I am told I'm privileged and yet I don't see a privilege in my life growing up and I've had cops tailing me running my plates and I've had store employees follow me around to watch me so I wouldn't take anything. There is hypocrisy all round us and the President can't be blamed for what's been building up these past 8 years by a former president and media.

 

[NewCreation435]

Josiah,
I would disagree with you that there hasn't been any progress since Martin Luther speech. Obama would have never been elected as President if there hadn't been some progress. The media tends to do a disservice to our country by fanning the flames of hate in my opinion instead of helping to heal. The fact is that more people feel more empowered to speak out against hate and racism than they did even 15 or 20 years ago.

 

[tango]

What worries me about the way society seems to be heading is that there's so much more to it than racism. It seems there are endless ways people can be tagged as "Not Like Me" and therefore dehumanised as "one of those" that are different. It seems more and more that society splits into old against young, black against white, male against female, gay against straight, conservative against liberal, and so on.

People who are Like Me can be considered to be thinking, rational people. People who vote the way I voted have obviously thought through the issues and concluded, as I did, that Candidate A was best for the job even if they do disagree with some of A's policies. People who are Not Like Me voted the other way and therefore must agree with every little thing Candidate B/C/D/whatever has ever said or done. Because they voted for The Wrong Candidate they are obviously intellectually inferior (after all, if they had the same level of comprehension I have and Those Like Me have they would have seen that A was the best candidate).

People who are Like Me are considerate, while people who are Not Like Me merely want to thrust the factors that make them Not Like Me in my face all the time, and agree with everybody else who is Not Like Me in that regard. So, for example, I can safely ignore the black people who merely seek to get on with their lives in more or less the same way I do and conclude that someone who is Not Like Me because they are black is therefore Not Like Me in every other aspect, and indeed is Just Like Every Other black person however extreme. (Feel free to substitute gay/female/transgender/Muslim/whatever in there, it still works). I'd really like to see a focus on what people have in common rather than what divides them - someone might not share my race but still share my political leanings, or they might have a different political opinion but enjoy the same kind of music, or have a different faith but still enjoy the same hobbies, etc. It would seem to make so much more sense than a stance that says "I'm X, you are not-X, therefore we are opposed to each other".

I remember during the 2008 process to determine whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would be the standard bearer for the Democratic party I very much got the impression that Clinton made a big thing of her gender, effectively making the case that this was an opportunity to have a female president so people should vote for her because she was female, while on the other hand Obama came across with far more of a stance that he wanted people to vote on the issues and if he happened to become the first black president then all well and good. Without even looking at their policies, that made me like Obama over Clinton.

I agree that a lot of the monitoring is about creating equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. If a hiring process is truly ignoring race/sex/gender/gender identity/disability/sexual orientation/national origin/whatever then it's entirely possible to find the workforce made up entirely of white men, just as it's entirely possible to find an entire workforce made up of black women. All monitoring seems to do is figure that we've got a job open and we need an extra face that matches some aspect we're allegedly not considering, therefore the search is for the best (irrelevant characteristic) person rather than the best person. Some years ago, in the London borough of Lambeth, it was noted that there were few black people working for the council compared to the number of black people living in the borough. So the council took steps to hire more black staff. They ended up with a far higher percentage of black staff than black residents but apparently that was fine.

Another thing that troubles me is the endless shifting of "approved" language, regardless of which group it relates to. It doesn't take a genius to figure that some terms are offensive and intended to be offensive, but when it seems that words used to describe people shift like the sands and every time a new word is approved every previous word is suddenly considered offensive it does sometimes seem like a minefield trying to do little more than describe someone. What's particularly ironic is the way many terms become ever-more vague - describing someone who is almost blind as "sight impaired" or "partially sighted" makes little difference other than making it much harder to meet their particular needs. Does "partially sighted" mean someone who needs glasses to read, someone whose vision is impaired to the point they would literally walk into things, or someone who can see perfectly well but only out of one eye?

I remember a black guy I worked with years ago and how he used to get sick of white people deciding what terms were offensive. As he said he was quite capable of deciding for himself what he found offensive, he was quite capable of speaking up if something offended him, and he really didn't like people deciding what might upset him on his behalf - he found the implication that he was some delicate little thing that couldn't make his own decisions and speak up for himself highly patronising.

 

[Imalive]

I used to think most white Americans were racist, but our circumstances are so entirely different. Snerfs parents lived in a nice neighbourhood all their life, now drugaddict muslims get the houses and ruin their car and house. They have to leave. His brother has to leave, same thing, it's becoming a violent hood. Yeah no wonder they get tired from it. No excuse to become racist but the situation is not as simple as I thought it was w the only thing you see on tv about America is that cops kill blacks for no reason whatsoever and the prisons are filled w blacks who sometimes are even innocent.
Guess the integration didn't go very well. I understand those blacks too. But black and white can both become racist.

 

[Imalive]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hgExTrqH0n8

 

[Imalive]

Indeed, I am finding that white guilt is alive and well and living in our midst and the trend isn't gonna go away even though I never owned a slave and can't be sure my great grandpa didn't but the only true slaves now are the sex slave women. Why is it that I am told I'm privileged and yet I don't see a privilege in my life growing up and I've had cops tailing me running my plates and I've had store employees follow me around to watch me so I wouldn't take anything. There is hypocrisy all round us and the President can't be blamed for what's been building up these past 8 years by a former president and media.

My grand grand grandfather or something was a Jewish slave owner in Surinam. He married his slave. Am I now the victim or should I feel ashamed?
Funny thing is I still have dark brown family members. Lol my white dad once walked up to a guy from Surinam w the same surname. He said: we must be family! Guy thought he was nuts lol.

 

[Josiah]

It seems more and more that society splits into old against young, black against white, male against female, gay against straight, conservative against liberal, and so on.

I agree.... a seeming INCREASE in the obsession over outward things, "the color of their skin" as Rev. MARTIN LUTHER King put it. And yes, the Press and the Left seem to obsess over this in order to divide and condemn, to suggest some are just to be rejected because they obviously are ignorant, hate-filled, bigots. But the obsession is THEIRS and the trying to use it divisively is THEIRS?

I remember during the 2008 process to determine whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would be the standard bearer for the Democratic party I very much got the impression that Clinton made a big thing of her gender, effectively making the case that this was an opportunity to have a female president so people should vote for her because she was female

Yes. I recall that very clearly.

Her whole strategy was clearly to convince women (and some men) to vote for her BECAUSE she was a woman, getting enough of these to switch over or simply to vote (when they might not otherwise) to gain enough votes to win. It is a strategy of the Left , it seems, which constantly obsesses over race, color, gender, nationality - using racism and sexism to gain/keep power. It probably would have worked except she (quite by surprise!) ended up running against an African-American (talk about your bad luck)!!!


She learned nothing for 2016. She played the same card again: "I'm a WOMAN and thus should be president." Not much else was offered because the Left and the Press didn't think any issue would matter, only sexism. A woman running against a man (a man they could condemn as a sexist pig), HOW COULD SHE LOSE? The Left and the Press is still scratching their heads, still insisting there must have been some fraud ... some tampering..... and if not, then Americans NEED to be condemned for their hatred of women, their foolishness and ignorance, their stupidity and sexism and racism, their gullibility; Americans NEED to learn from 2016 about how stupid they are - and learn to shut up and with docility follow the Left in silent, unquestioning lock-step. Then good will be.

while on the other hand Obama came across with far more of a stance that he wanted people to vote on the issues and if he happened to become the first black president then all well and good. Without even looking at their policies, that made me like Obama over Clinton.

As I posted earlier, as I recall, Obama HIMSELF said nothing about the color of his skin (I give him a lot of credit for that) but then he didn't have to, EVERYONE ELSE did for him; the Press and the Left couldn't get out one sentence without mentioning his race and color in probably the most racist election since the Civil War. The Press and the Left, which obsess over race/gender/nationality.... and use it to divide and conquer, had TWO candidates - one a woman and one African American (well, half so - a point the Press and Left overlooked). I know people who voted for Obama ONLY BECAUSE of his race.

Another thing that troubles me is the endless shifting of "approved" language, regardless of which group it relates to. It doesn't take a genius to figure that some terms are offensive and intended to be offensive, but when it seems that words used to describe people shift like the sands and every time a new word is approved every previous word is suddenly considered offensive it does sometimes seem like a minefield trying to do little more than describe someone. What's particularly ironic is the way many terms become ever-more vague - describing someone who is almost blind as "sight impaired" or "partially sighted" makes little difference other than making it much harder to meet their particular needs. Does "partially sighted" mean someone who needs glasses to read, someone whose vision is impaired to the point they would literally walk into things, or someone who can see perfectly well but only out of one eye?

The "Thought Police" (enforced by the Press) and their constantly shifting "Political Correctness." It's a way to enshrine racism/sexism and to evade issues since some are just to be automatically dismissed and condemned. It's a way to evade issues (people are too stupid to understand such, only the Leftist Elite are smart) and to focus on easy-to-tell outward things (the very things Rev. MARTIN LUTHER King dreamed would become irrelevant, ignored, unnoticed).


I read a book about the "Cultural Revolution" of Red China..... I think of that nearly every day as I read the newspaper and view the evening news..... The Powerful, the self-declared Smart and Loving and Good, are set at destroying any who seem "different" with no regard for right/wrong or freedom of speech: One is Chinese and Leftist and thus good and intelligent and to be protected, all else is ergo bad and stupid and hateful and to be condemned. Yes, that too was a Leftist creation. I'm not saying we're there but I fear we're going that way, simply because the majority of people seem to be swallowing it hook, line and sinker, and because it has the full cooperation of the Press.

I remember a black guy I worked with years ago and how he used to get sick of white people deciding what terms were offensive. As he said he was quite capable of deciding for himself what he found offensive, he was quite capable of speaking up if something offended him, and he really didn't like people deciding what might upset him on his behalf - he found the implication that he was some delicate little thing that couldn't make his own decisions and speak up for himself highly patronising.

The Left (and the Press that promotes its agenda and attitude): People are stupid and incapable of knowing what is good or right - so the Left (the Smart, the Informed, the Loving and Kind) will assume the unmitigated POWER and determine this for him. A central point of the radical Left is that people NEED them because people are just not smart enough or good enough to "get it." I sense this from the Press all the time. I'm GLAD this man objected... but few do.

BTW, just one aspect of this fundamental dogma of the Left (people are stupid, ignorant, self-serving, and left to themselves will do horrible, hate-filled, stupid, divisive things) is a point they make constantly in how Americans are SO sorry they voted for Trump. OH, if only the electorate had listened to the Press.... Americans need to learn their lesson from 2016 and realize how stupid, ignorant, hate-filled, easily-fooled they actually are!!!! They NEED the Left.... they NEED to swallow whatever the leftist press tells them. That the people are swallowing all this is the dangerous part.



Sorry


Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The USA has a number of outstandingly vociferous white supremacy groups. Other countries also have similar groups. Some more so than the USA; though those with more such groups also have low per capita incomes, questionable education, and usually non-democratic governments.

 

[Ruth]

Without a doubt, racism has been a part of the human experience for thousands of years..... there's often a tendency to look in the mirror and declare what we SEE to be superior to all others. The tendency to classify all humanity as "Us vs. them" is pretty deep seeded. And this took on a particularly horrible and disgusting form in the USA used to support perhaps the most radical (and evil) form of slavery.


But I think there's a lot of hypocrisy. Rev. Dr. Martin LUTHER King Jr. became an American saint with a speech that may be one of the 3 most quoted and admired in all American history, one centered in the point (to paraphrase), "I have a dream for the day when my children will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the character of their heart." He dreamed for two things: Color blindness (a person's race, color, nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, language would be UNNOTICED because it's totally irrelevant) and that character, integrity, morality WOULD rather matter.

While I wasn't alive when Dr. Martin LUTHER King expressed this dream (or even when he was sainted and these words engraved into American conscience), it seems to be there's been NO PROGRESS WHATSOEVER in this during my 29 years. We are a culture absolutely OBSESSED with color, race, nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, language. And I suspect the political left (and their complete control of the press) is primarily to blame for this.


When I was in college..... in my work place...... there was/is a constant OBSESSION with outward things (and pretty much a complete disregard for character, integrity, morality). And I find few do this more than the American Press (which may be the most racist institution in our nation) and the Democratic Party. On and on and on and on and on..... constantly.... about people's race, color, nationality, ethnicity, gender, language. I recall when Obama ran for president - first for the nomination and then for the office - the press couldn't seem to say one sentence about him without mentioning his race (to his credit, I don't recall Obama himself even once mentioning it, I hold him in esteem for that). I know of a folks who voted for him primarily (if not exclusively) because of the color of his skin. And when people disagreed with him or desired to change the topic to morality, character, etc. the charge of racism was not far away. And the press was OBSESSED with how many appointments to various positions were to women and "people of COLOR" and Jews with never a word about character, integrity, morality.

When we applied for the mortgage to our home, there it was..... lots of questions about our race, color, language, gender, ethnic heritage (we refused to answer all these but they were there). Why does it matter if we are white or black or green? If we speak English or Icelandic in our home? And obviously, not a word about the thing king dreamed we would care about: character in our hearts. When I applied for my job, that same long list of questions that prove an OBSESSION with racism, sexism, etc and not a word about character, integrity, honesty, morality ( answered these because we all know I would not have gotten the job if I had declined; racism/sexism being of super importance). Now, evidently my company was okay with a white, male, Germanic, blond/blue, English speaking bloat (cuz I got the job) but obviously all these things MATTER because they asked me..... and perhaps character, integrity, morality didn't because they didn't. Now, you may note that the company asked all this for profiling reasons and for diversity in hiring and to prove to our grant providers that the company isn't racist or sexist but obviously it just proves the exact opposite - about the company AND the folks who demand this information. My wife is a public school teacher... I can't begin to express the deep, deep racism that the liberal legislature and courts in the People's Republic of California have forced the local school boards into implementing. Truly sad.

When the Press goes on and on and on and on about "White" and "Black" and "Color" and "Male" and "Female" and "Hispanic" and so on, they are just perpetuating racism and sexism in our country - and working overtime to keep Rev. King's dream from advancing. And when the Democratic Party does this, it's simply serving a desire to divide us, "pigeon hole" and label people by the color of their skin and making THAT the issue that matters, all working against King's dream. And of course, NO ONE talks about character or integrity (that's immoral).


Sorry.


- Josiah




.

I stopped reading your post when you said the political left is responsible for the racism. Sorry, but you lost me there. I totally disagree. What about the KKK, White Supremicists, Natzis? I suppose they are okay??

 

[Ruth]

I agree.... a seeming INCREASE in the obsession over outward things, "the color of their skin" as Rev. MARTIN LUTHER King put it. And yes, the Press and the Left seem to obsess over this in order to divide and condemn, to suggest some are just to be rejected because they obviously are ignorant, hate-filled, bigots. But the obsession is THEIRS and the trying to use it divisively is THEIRS?







Yes. I recall that very clearly.

Her whole strategy was clearly to convince women (and some men) to vote for her BECAUSE she was a woman, getting enough of these to switch over or simply to vote (when they might not otherwise) to gain enough votes to win. It is a strategy of the Left , it seems, which constantly obsesses over race, color, gender, nationality - using racism and sexism to gain/keep power. It probably would have worked except she (quite by surprise!) ended up running against an African-American (talk about your bad luck)!!!


She learned nothing for 2016. She played the same card again: "I'm a WOMAN and thus should be president." Not much else was offered because the Left and the Press didn't think any issue would matter, only sexism. A woman running against a man (a man they could condemn as a sexist pig), HOW COULD SHE LOSE? The Left and the Press is still scratching their heads, still insisting there must have been some fraud ... some tampering..... and if not, then Americans NEED to be condemned for their hatred of women, their foolishness and ignorance, their stupidity and sexism and racism, their gullibility; Americans NEED to learn from 2016 about how stupid they are - and learn to shut up and with docility follow the Left in silent, unquestioning lock-step. Then good will be.








As I posted earlier, as I recall, Obama HIMSELF said nothing about the color of his skin (I give him a lot of credit for that) but then he didn't have to, EVERYONE ELSE did for him; the Press and the Left couldn't get out one sentence without mentioning his race and color in probably the most racist election since the Civil War. The Press and the Left, which obsess over race/gender/nationality.... and use it to divide and conquer, had TWO candidates - one a woman and one African American (well, half so - a point the Press and Left overlooked). I know people who voted for Obama ONLY BECAUSE of his race.








The "Thought Police" (enforced by the Press) and their constantly shifting "Political Correctness." It's a way to enshrine racism/sexism and to evade issues since some are just to be automatically dismissed and condemned. It's a way to evade issues (people are too stupid to understand such, only the Leftist Elite are smart) and to focus on easy-to-tell outward things (the very things Rev. MARTIN LUTHER King dreamed would become irrelevant, ignored, unnoticed).


I read a book about the "Cultural Revolution" of Red China..... I think of that nearly every day as I read the newspaper and view the evening news..... The Powerful, the self-declared Smart and Loving and Good, are set at destroying any who seem "different" with no regard for right/wrong or freedom of speech: One is Chinese and Leftist and thus good and intelligent and to be protected, all else is ergo bad and stupid and hateful and to be condemned. Yes, that too was a Leftist creation. I'm not saying we're there but I fear we're going that way, simply because the majority of people seem to be swallowing it hook, line and sinker, and because it has the full cooperation of the Press.







The Left (and the Press that promotes its agenda and attitude): People are stupid and incapable of knowing what is good or right - so the Left (the Smart, the Informed, the Loving and Kind) will assume the unmitigated POWER and determine this for him. A central point of the radical Left is that people NEED them because people are just not smart enough or good enough to "get it." I sense this from the Press all the time. I'm GLAD this man objected... but few do.

BTW, just one aspect of this fundamental dogma of the Left (people are stupid, ignorant, self-serving, and left to themselves will do horrible, hate-filled, stupid, divisive things) is a point they make constantly in how Americans are SO sorry they voted for Trump. OH, if only the electorate had listened to the Press.... Americans need to learn their lesson from 2016 and realize how stupid, ignorant, hate-filled, easily-fooled they actually are!!!! They NEED the Left.... they NEED to swallow whatever the leftist press tells them. That the people are swallowing all this is the dangerous part.



Sorry


Josiah



.

Lumping all lefties like that is plain generalizing which is not true. Sure you have some like what you say and some on the right who do the same. I am on the left and don't think like what you described.

 

[Josiah]

Lumping all lefties like that is plain generalizing which is not true. Sure you have some like what you say and some on the right who do the same. I am on the left and don't think like what you described.

Sorry. Valid point, Ruth. Of course you're right, not "all" fit this (I don't think I said "all" but I did write in very sweeeping language). My mom is a "bleeding heart liberal" (to use my Dad's description) and is one of the LEAST racist/sexist people I know. I'm sure that applies to you too, Ruth. That confessed, I agree with the general points I make here (lol).


Blessings


- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

What about the KKK, White Supremicists, Natzis? I suppose they are okay??

1. The Press seems to dismiss that the main group, and the ONLY ones who gathered legally, with a permit, peacefully gathering where their permit allowed, were there to express their disagreement about removing a statue. The ISSUE of the gathering was whether it is sound polity to do this sort of thing (a point Trump addressed but the Press chose to entirely ignore and evade; issues not mattering it seems to the press). It was not reported that ANY of them came to the meeting with weapons, they came to peacefully exercise Free Speech. The Press has chosen to ignore this. Yes.... it happened that a tiny number of Neo-Nazis (a TINY and almost universally condemned group) chose to illegally "crash" the event and bring the Press along.... as did some White Surpremists...... and some of them came not only recruiting the Press but also bearing weapons and clearly bearing for a fight that would get a lot of press. Too bad..... and they were there illegally (a point the Press also chose to ignore, evade and bury deep in the articles)..... but yes, a few from these tiny and almost universally condemned fringe groups illegally showed up - and got the press there to put a laser focus on THEM. Also illegally "crashing" the event were some who came to protest - some with "Black Lives Matter" signs and similar, some with weapons, some bearing for a fight, very much with the willing Press in tow.


2 Remember, Trump boldly and clearly DENOUNCED and CONDEMNED their point of view (in language equal to that Obama used) - the Press didn't care and hardly notice, however..... in fact, they went overboard to try to report that Trump MEANT the opposite of what he said whereas Obama MEANT what he said. IF the issues are the views of Neo-Nazis and White Supremists..... IF the issue is whether we must remove symbols and recognitions of those who defended slavery.... then Trump address those, but the press ignored all that because issues don't matter...... images and slogans and signs matter, race matters. This whole thing was about the hatred of African-Americans and Jews (no press cared to point out that Trumps own daughter and his rather important son-in-law are Jews) and therefore, about Trump. Remember, too, that Trump not only clearly condemned and repudiated the views of these groups that ILLEGALLY "crashed" the event, he also condemned all the VIOLENCE. The press twisted that into a charge that Trump (because he's a Republican) is a racist because he should have defended the violence by the many who illegally "crashed" the event - coming with weapons and with the Press in tow. Trump denounced ALL who came for battle, who came with weapons, who were violent, who came to deny the Freedom of Speech of others. THAT we're suppose to believe makes him a racist, sexist, anti-Jewish, neo-Nazi, white supremist pig (as those on the right are).


3. And remember.... Trump is condemned because he universally condemned violence and boldly condemned the views of neo-nazis and white supremist. And because he noted that MOST on ALL SIDES were "good people" (ie, did NOT show up with weapons and did NOT engage in violence; although Trump chose to ignore that the only ones there LEGALLY were the group disagreeing with the removal of all symbols that might suggest a pro-slavery stance). Interesting how much of the Press and some on the Left have spun all this, and SO effectively that even the Republicans have HAD to distance themselves from Trump's universal condemnation of the neo-nazi's and white supremists and anti-Jews AND his universal condemnation of violence AND his note that most here did not come for a literal fight but were willing to respectfully and non-violently express their views, their "freedom of speech." That, we're told, makes him (like the Right in general) racist, sexist, anti-Jewish, hate-filled pigs. Hum..... I wonder if the real race card is in THEIR hands?




Thank you!


- Josiah




.

 

[Pedrito]

Post #11: “I stopped reading your post when you said the political left is responsible for the racism. Sorry, but you lost me there. I totally disagree. What about the KKK, White Supremicists, Natzis? I suppose they are okay??”

Post #12: “Lumping all lefties like that is plain generalizing which is not true. Sure you have some like what you say and some on the right who do the same. I am on the left and don't think like what you described.”

I guess if it’s not right to blame the left, all that’s left is to blame the right.

==============================================================================================

But in reality, the left-right terminology as used is misleading.

On the extreme right, those who control business run the country. On the extreme left, those who run the country control business. So there is no difference in practice.

So instead of a line running left to right, the situation is like a U on its side with left and right at the ends, and moderate (balanced) at the curved base.

How many communist countries were (and are) biassed against racial minorities in their midst?

 

[tango]

I stopped reading your post when you said the political left is responsible for the racism. Sorry, but you lost me there. I totally disagree. What about the KKK, White Supremicists, Natzis? I suppose they are okay??

I think a key difference is that when you get the hardcore groups like the KKK they seem to be pretty much a fringe group and most people (black, white, left, right, male, female, whatever) would regard them as nutjobs and not take them seriously. They're still around, still burning crosses and doing whatever it is they do but nobody draws any flak for saying the KKK are nutjobs, nobody draws any flak for saying white supremacists are nutjobs, and so on.

The trouble with the racist programs typically favored by those on the left is they have a much greater reach. Things like "affirmative action" (which is really little more than racism directed the other way), the referral to "privilege" as enjoyed by all sorts of people who aren't members of today's favored group, and so on. Of course a child like Barron Trump is "privileged" based on the profile and wealth of his parents but what about Chelsea Clinton or Malia Obama? At the same time generational poverty exists in many groups rather than exclusively in black communities. I'm sure an impoverished white family from rural Kentucky would be thrilled about not qualifying for affirmative action because their skin is the wrong color and they are therefore "privileged".

At the same time affirmative action casts doubt on the actual achievements of those it claims to help. I posted further up about a place I worked a few years ago that had a single black guy on an otherwise white team. He was hired for what he brought to the team but often felt like he was the "token black guy" on the team to tick a box. When I was involved in hiring people my approach was clear - I wanted the best person for the job and truly didn't care whether about race/gender/orientation/whatever. I wanted the best person for the job, not the best man for the job or the best black candidate or whatever else - if I let the best person go based on an irrelevant characteristic all it meant is that one of my competitors would have a better employee than I had.

Another aspect of the pervasive discrimination is when companies decide they need more black faces, or more female faces, or whatever else. You know, the things that we're told don't matter until it's decided that there aren't enough of a particular group. How often do we hear of attempts to hire more white people, or more men, into a particular company or field? Quite aside from "we need more black staff" does little more than lead to racist hiring policies, the fact that having too few black faces is seen as a problem but having too few white faces is not is also racist. Yet to oppose such programs is, ironically, decried as racist by those who favor them, who are typically on the political left.

To say that all those on the left are racist is clearly absurd, just as it is absurd to say all those on the right are Nazis or white supremacists. It's about looking at stances and programs rather than making sweeping statements about entire groups of people.

 

[Josiah]

I think a key difference is that when you get the hardcore groups like the KKK they seem to be pretty much a fringe group and most people (black, white, left, right, male, female, whatever) would regard them as nutjobs and not take them seriously. They're still around, still burning crosses and doing whatever it is they do but nobody draws any flak for saying the KKK are nutjobs, nobody draws any flak for saying white supremacists are nutjobs, and so on.

The trouble with the racist programs typically favored by those on the left is they have a much greater reach. Things like "affirmative action" (which is really little more than racism directed the other way), the referral to "privilege" as enjoyed by all sorts of people who aren't members of today's favored group, and so on. Of course a child like Barron Trump is "privileged" based on the profile and wealth of his parents but what about Chelsea Clinton or Malia Obama? At the same time generational poverty exists in many groups rather than exclusively in black communities. I'm sure an impoverished white family from rural Kentucky would be thrilled about not qualifying for affirmative action because their skin is the wrong color and they are therefore "privileged".

At the same time affirmative action casts doubt on the actual achievements of those it claims to help. I posted further up about a place I worked a few years ago that had a single black guy on an otherwise white team. He was hired for what he brought to the team but often felt like he was the "token black guy" on the team to tick a box. When I was involved in hiring people my approach was clear - I wanted the best person for the job and truly didn't care whether about race/gender/orientation/whatever. I wanted the best person for the job, not the best man for the job or the best black candidate or whatever else - if I let the best person go based on an irrelevant characteristic all it meant is that one of my competitors would have a better employee than I had.

Another aspect of the pervasive discrimination is when companies decide they need more black faces, or more female faces, or whatever else. You know, the things that we're told don't matter until it's decided that there aren't enough of a particular group. How often do we hear of attempts to hire more white people, or more men, into a particular company or field? Quite aside from "we need more black staff" does little more than lead to racist hiring policies, the fact that having too few black faces is seen as a problem but having too few white faces is not is also racist. Yet to oppose such programs is, ironically, decried as racist by those who favor them, who are typically on the political left.

To say that all those on the left are racist is clearly absurd, just as it is absurd to say all those on the right are Nazis or white supremacists. It's about looking at stances and programs rather than making sweeping statements about entire groups of people.

:thumbsup:




.

 

[Pedrito]

Pedrito understands that this thread pertains to racism in the USA. However, he begs a modicum of indulgence.

The situation is a little different in Australia.

The two things that have prominence in that country pertain to the original inhabitants (not being addressed here) and a religion (which broadly has a connotation of race – the language most associated with that religion is the second most widely spoken language in the Sydney region.)

The people from that religion are constantly complaining about being discriminated against.

Yet the countries and regions where that religion predominates appear to be the most discriminatory in the world. That discrimination includes (even government-inspired) racism, even against others of their own religion.

==============================================================================================

Can Pedrito be classed as racist for being aware of that, and presenting it in a dispassionate, factual manner?

Some would say, yes. (Including many of the Politically Correct and the complainers.)

==============================================================================================

Maybe its a genetic thing.

When Pedrito was young, his father often used to take the family to the horse races in a nearby city. And Pedrito’s father constantly bet on the races off-track.

Did that make Pedrito’s father a racist?

.

 

[Albion]

Post #11: “How many communist countries were (and are) biassed against racial minorities in their midst?

Most of them.

 

[Josiah]

I saw a little on TV about Hilary "reflecting" on the reason(s) for her loss in the election last year. It was really a litany of how everything and everyone was to blame but her.

But I lost count of how many times she stressed her gender. "I don't think many could accept that a president might wear a dress." Several references to her gender; she tried to blame much of the reason for her loss to sexism. Ironically, the sexism appears to ME to be entirely, wholly, completely on her side. SHE seems to be the one who all during the campaign and now after seems to be obsessed with the issue of gender. During the campaign, she tried to use it to her advantage (it's time for a WOMAN president) noting that more women vote than men, now she's using it to her advantage to "dodge" blame for her superficial and unfocused campaign's loss.

Rev. Dr. MARTIN LUTHER King, Jr's famous speech that Americans CLAIM to embrace but actually hate. "I dream of the day when my children will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the character of their heart." Delete "color of their skin" and insert "gender" and it's the same dream, same point. Yet our American culture (especially the Left) seems headed in the exact opposite direction, OBSESSED with gender, race, color, language, ethnicity.


That's how I see it, anyway.


Pax Christi


- Josiah




.