What is a racist?

No that is a bigoted assumption. Racism or isms and ists come in every ideology as you are well aware. You are an example of it.

 

You do realize there are people like me who come from cultures with similar histories of discrimination?

You do realize for someone claiming to be against racism you engage in it and insist on engaging in it to make your points?

Everyone of your answers is predicated on segregating the issues of blacks from the same issues experienced by whites.
No one came to the US receiving hugs and kisses. They faced discrimination.

Instead of segregating that discrimination I argue we need to call on the shared negative experience its impacted on us to unify us not segregate us.

Everyone struggles to be better and achieve. We are all slaves seeking our freedom.

Sorry but your rhetoric means nothing to me. That is because I had to tend to people blown up by bombs and bullets. They all become the same mush when they blow up. They all cry the same way. They all have the exact same smell of death.

I am and identify with most Americans of any colour. We are over-taxed, worried about our ability to look after dependents, worry about the state of the world, and we take the time to know people and if we don't like them, most times its because they are a-holes not because of their nose size.

You seem obsessed with a world where everyone sees your skin colour. Maybe they don't. Maybe what they sense is your anger.

 

Anyone that thinks the American white male has any special privileges; some seat at a table - even as an equal is dishonest and out of touch with reality. edna has tried to pass me off as right wing; however, I did not endorse Trump's agenda (though I voted for him as the lesser of two evils). I'm just stating a fact. Today, you're watching Trump backpedal on his own signature legislation, even denying that he encouraged private individuals to get involved in the building of a wall. Trump never believed that crap. He was a Democrat that ran as a Republican, realizing that the courts were going to shoot down most of that idiotic legislation.

What white person told you that stuff was going to fail and did not endorse that charade? How many people support his position (If you can name anyone)? Don't you find it odd that the white males have but one person to rally around and he's a privileged snot that never had to work a day in his life? The man representing whites has NO background in activism to support whites. He was a Democrat! What table can any white male sit at and offer any counter argument to social liberalism and still be considered a human being?

 

My table. I will define you as hungry and share my food. That's usually a good start.

 

The subject of my response only took umbrage at calling him right-wing. I should have been more specific and said white supremacist.
An example of my racism is.....

Again, I realize there are other parts of the world and people that have had terrible things done to them but I am referring to the US and not the world. You can list your grievances from your reference point but to say "we are all slaves seeking freedom" is hyperbolic nonsense. You obviously have no idea of the issues involved. I am not a slave seeking freedom, over taxed or worried about taking care of my dependents. I am also not black. If you actually read the statement you are responding to you will see it is not the same for African Americans and that's the problem.

A counterargument is not a sign of anger.

 

You can disagree with Mussolini and still be a fascist.

Blacks do not have social equality. They are less likely to be hired, given a loan, thought of as competent or trusted, more likely to be seen in a negative context because of there skin color. Now they and many white people are angry about an inequality that has gone on for too long. If you can not see it you can not understand it. Pity.

 

If you understood real problems, you would realize that white people have very real problems in today's society. They are just as bad as anything black people are facing - perhaps more so. You just don't want to hear about them. And, like I keep pointing out most of us are not looting, shooting, and making unreasonable demands on the government with expectation of favortism.

 

"An example of my racism is.....found above" ^
You can fight racism by not falsely accusing everyone of it.

 

Your post is utter nonsense. If you intended to call me a fascist, it's just another cheap shot aimed at working your way around the rules. And I have vehemently disagreed with you, but have done so in a respectful manner.

The absolute opposite of what you claim relative to the treatment of people based on race is more likely the truth. If you've ever watched the tv show What Would You Do? the host has proven time and time again, the average American will not give a white supremacist the time of day. And, in corporations, blacks are favored, less likely to be fired for fear that the black person will play the race card. The last company I worked for had 56 employees. Only 5 were white. All but one of the management team was either black or Hispanic. And it is not an anomaly. Unless we're talking about an older company here, what I just told you is the rule in the county I live in - not the exception. Be glad to show you around if you're ever in the area. The county I live in was 83 percent white only 20 years ago. When the next census is counted, they will only represent about 47 or 48 percent. That is one of the fastest growing counties in the United States. So, it's pretty much a bird's eye view of the changing demographics that prove you don't know what you're talking about.

Newt Gingrich was one of the most powerful Republicans to ever be elected to the House of Representatives. His old district is only two counties away from me. Today the Congressional seat he held is occupied by a black woman by the name of Susie McBath.

I know that there is a war against whites from the United States. You look at your television set and see "white" people, and the reality is, virtually NONE of them are American white males. Fact is, in the remake of the movie Red Dawn (really popular with the right wing), they could not find white Americans to play the lead roles - no way, those positions were taken by Australians. For every ONE white American male actor under 40 you can mention, I can name FIVE non-white male actors in the lead roles on screen / tv. You would have to use special categories to even be close (gays, transgender, Jewish people who do not identify as being "white" and so forth.) But, be my guest. Give it a try.

 

This is who you are defending? ." And the thing that bothers me about threads like this (as if I don't point it out continually) is that America was founded by white people for the advancement, preservation and protection of the white people."

 

I'm not aware of all his post but I AM aware of how quick you are to toss the card.

 

The problems of blacks "are just as bad as anything black people are facing - perhaps more so." is nonsense. I will not waste my time with inane opinions.

 

Did I falsely accuse him? Was I too quick to toss?

 

When I hear "racism" I tend to think of the accepted definition. Considering your race superior and others as inferior.

 

Why is it that you cannot accept the truth? You are not being fed political propaganda, what you want to call "racism" or "white supremacy," but the facts... the truth. The very FIRST naturalization law on the books was implemented within months of the ratification of the Constitution. READ IT:

"United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof..."

Anti miscegnation laws were passed in the colonies as far back as 1664:

https://www.abhmuseum.org/anti-amalgamation-law-passed-this-day-in-1664/

In Dred Scott v. Sanford back in 1857, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Taney wrote over twenty pages devoted to the facts above and to the presupposition that you are throwing a hissy fit over. That ruling served as the basis for the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393

The provided info is accurate, honest, and not political propaganda. You might not like it. It may offend you, but it is the truth.

 

Opinions? Opinions? Have you ever worked with the Department of Family and Children Services? I have. I was a DFACS asset. Lots of children came and went in my home. Black, White, Hispanic, and none of the above have passed through here. EVERY culture has its own issues. The problems are different. For example, the first child placed in my home had a Mexican mother and a Honduran father. Both skipped out on him. So, the immigration debacle affected his life. Black kids tended to be the children of drug pushers; whites use drugs at a disproportionate rate compared to other races. The problems the families face are quite different. They are also very real.

I have the distinct feeling, especially since you are one of two people that go out of their way to insult me daily, that you are on this board only for bias confirmation. If enough people tell you the truth isn't the truth, then a popularity poll will settle it for you. Right? That doesn't prove anything.

AND, as someone who has spoken out, I can tell you that the black people hold NO monopoly on police brutality. Because of my own political beliefs, two cops once handcuffed me, then hung me up on the bars so that my toes barely touched the floor. It was just enough that when my wrists got tired, I could shift some of the weight to my toes. Then they took a billy stick and a phone book that was just under two inches thick. They would place the phone book on my ribs, then beat me with the billy stick. It cracked most of my ribs without leaving a mark to show how it was done. That was over a political statement I made that they didn't like. At times they have threatened me, family members, and even work associates. If not for my good fortune to have a legal education, they would have railroaded me years ago. But, their own have been had to be held accountable in court for their actions. I was one of the lucky ones.

You may have an aversion to the truth. You might not like it. It may be uncomfortable, but you can't change the facts. Being nasty to me; even taking polls to prove that the truth isn't the truth won't change anything. It is what it is and it is not "nonsense." It's just the truth.

 

First off the US was first inhabited by non white people so to say it was found by whites is pointless.

Next your depiction of whites taking over America to preserve and protect white people is classic example of how you set out seeing whites doing things for whites.

You do not see people revolting against an unfair tax system, you see whites simply creating a country to promote white interests because you define them by their skin colour and not other motives.

You can not see anyone with pale skin as not being motivated by their own skin colour.

The war between aboriginal or native peoples and Americans may have of course been fundamentally fueled by a concept aboriginals were inferior, but that prejudice was also fueled by religion and culture two elements you simply throw into racism.

It also does not reflect on the fact that aboriginals and blacks and other non whites were racist to one another in US history and whites were discriminatory against other whites if we must use the word white the same way they were with blacks.

You keep justifying your racism by saying its only specific to the US. That now is tiresome. The context in which you use white is to take anything you think unfair against blacks, and throw it into the concept of racism and assign it all as having been caused by whites in the US.

Most of us debating you are actually moderate. We don't advocate on behalf of white supremacists, the kkk, or deny racism was an integral component to history in all nations including the US we just do not use it as conveniently as you do to avoid looking at far more complex reasons for why humans discriminate against other humans and we don't melt it down and simplify it to skin colour. We look at economic and material distribution, culture, religon, politics of the day.

Now you mentioned its hyperbolic to suggest many people are slaves or were slaves not just blacks in the US. That is because in your perception of the US, you can't imagine any one "white" being discriminated against the same way as blacks. You create a stereotype where any white automatically is an oppressor in the US.

You clearly do not wish to consider how political systems to one degree or another enslave us all. None of us is free. The degree of freedom we want and argue for is relative to who wants or asks for it.

You engage in what Nietzche would say or argued is "slave mentality". You have had it predicate every concept you pronounce as the starting point and it "colours" your ability to differentiate anything but black or white.

Others have argued what I have and its pointless to say it further because you simply restate your hypothesis that all things white in the US oppress blacks.

I also find it interesting for someone who refers to all blacks as "African" you use an African name but deny being African. Sorry to be personal because on one level its not relevant but on another level you have made race an integral starting point in analyzing any white American so in reverse one can hold you to the same standard.

Using your analogy should I analyze everything you say as not being based on being "African" American and seeing whites as slave owners of "African Americans"? How can your words not lend to that appearance and I challenge you on this point"w hat is more hyperbolic, to use the analogy we are all slaves in the sense that none of us is truly free, or that all whites in America are oppressors? Compare the two "hyperboles" side by side and ask which one is actually more hyperbolic. Maybe they both are but I believe my "hyperbole" is a little more accurate than yours.

All said respectfully. I come from a minority group, Jews, who were slaves. It sometimes because of the harsh conditions we faced made some of us, not all of us, quick to see people in a certain deliberate way when it might benot so much deliberate as it is perhaps ignorant, insensitive, or just unaware of history of our people.

As a young man many things about anti-semitism and the holocaust and the double standard used with Jews by so many people angered me and made me react with anger. I have now mellowed. As I have aged I see some people who make incredibly stupid comments about Jews, not doing so deliberately but because of a lack of awareness of something and when that something is explained they apologize and express what they really meant and I find as I age I have more in common and less difference than most people I meet probably because as I have gotten older, I have forgiven myself for many of my own weaknesses and failures so find it easier to do that with others. Pride is necessary for people ashamed of themselves or their history but excessive pride becomes the kind of element that fuels racism and extremism.

That's just my subjective opinion but for me American history which is much different than Canadian history emphasizes more of the individual identity conflicting with the collective one. In Canadian history we were more prone to accept the collective identity sybolized through Royalty and not question it the way Americans did. This Americans rebelled to demand fairer tax laws while we in Canada kept paying the King and were only to happy to bow to him.

Monarchy enslaved everyone. The degree in which we were slaves is something I urge you to consider because its a crucial element in why people treat each other the way we do. We often treat people the way we were once treated and if our inital treatment was negative we pass it on unless we develop insight as to what it is we repeat and try challenge it to transform into a positive and not negative reaction.

That is why I described your conceptualization with my subjective comment, "angry". I don't see much in your comments other than to keep setting up all whites as oppressors and to blame. There's no discussion as to any other element involved with the whites you refer to. So for me I find that angry. I of course agree that is my subjective opinion as to your words, and do not intend it to be personal. In fact if any of my comments are personal I apologize. I only mean to challenge the implications of the words, not you as a person or your intentions or motives. I apologize for that. It is arrogant if I am doing that and it is not my intent but your responses have been very civil and respectful and not chastized me for it so I thank you for not taking it personally.

I am as you know advancing a type of argument very much held by Reform Jews and typified by and best explained by the way Martin Luther King practiced his Christianity. We believe in the same principles he used. So I am trying to argue that kind of approach which I believe is really and call me naive, the approach of most Americans and today Canadians.

In fact I see Conservatives if we use that word correctly emphasizing individual rights and warning how over reliance on collective state identity dangerous to democracy and Liberalism or the believe the state as an intervention agent to lead change can be dangerous and lead to totalitarianism if not checked and balanced.

So I am classic conservative on individual rights and civil liberties but like most people just a typical person on other stuff. We don't start off being racist or ist or ism. We try our best to treat people the way we want to be treated and give people the benefit of the doubt until they break laws, become violent, advocated hatred.

See I can choose to see the US as being a bunch of slave owners from the South and racists all over the place or I can see it as a country of over 350 million people each an individual with a complex script for why each individual became to be what he is at the given moment.

I am like all people tempted by the first but I can't. If I used your approach I would suspect all gentiles all the time and say to this day anti-semitism is systemic and built in to all systems. I could easily make an argument for it. That however would make me unable to see gentiles in any way but as an enemy. I can't and won't. Gentiles may have done horrible things to my people but gentiles also died hiding and saving my people and fighting Hitler. It works both ways.

I lived in Israel. I volunteered there. The Zionism I was taught is we created a state there to provide refuge to Jews who were state persecuted by Muslim and Christian nations that did not seperate religion from state. Our Jewish state was designed to guarantee never again would the state persecute us but protect us.

It was NOT intended to discriminate against non Jews and the fundamental laws of the state provide Christians and Muslims the right to own land and practice their religon the way we were never allowed in their countries.

However it has led to an unresolved war with Muslim states who can not conceive of Jews as having a right to a state under any circumstance. Its led to a conflict Zionism did not envision. Our dream was to live peacefully side by side Muslim states not war with them. As part of my Zionist training if you must call it that, I was taught to understand living in Israel I would have to learn Christian and Muslim history. I lived with Beduins. I volunteered providing medical services to Palestinians.

I find it a sad testament we have not yet achieved peace. I don't cherish that fact. I am a Canadian first and foremost. It comes first because my father fought in WW2 for it and after the war served as a career soldier for it.

I was ironically taught the monarchy was a symbol of stability and although it was an oppressor of my people in Israel for me had another meaning as well-it was a symbol of assuring all people including Jews could live in a stable country in Canada because of the Parliamentary system. Hey I am the son of a rejected refugee who only was able to stay after a special law was passed allowing her in because she was a specialist physician needed otherwise I would not be alive. I still have her deportation notice.

I come from a country where wide spread discrimination against many peoples whether they be Chinese, Seikh, Irish, aboriginal, Jewish, black, French Canadian, was a fact and might still be but my country like the US is about people of all kinds taking the democracy that was failing us, protect us. To do that we had to stop seeing others as blacks, Italians, Irish, and just as humans. That was our starting point in turning it around.

I don't want to live in a world, where I am segregated and see people only by the amount of pigment in their skin. Thanks.

 

the difference is that you chose to represent a religion of a ppl that had been enslaved 2,000 years ago. you chose to represent that today. Black ppl in america didnt choose to be black, they were born that way and cannot change that. being black was designated as a slave in america and your attempt at normalizing this condition of race based chattel slavery in america 50+ years ago is not becoming.

 

The "accepted" definition is the one you accepted. Mine is bigotry based on race. A black who thinks all whites are racist is racist for example.

BTW you are the one too quick to toss the racism card.

 

Okay, let's say the US was meant to be a "White" nation. No 14th Amendment. No right to citizenship for ex-slaves or non-whites, no civil rights laws....what do you think the US should have looked like in your perfect world?

 

Continued denial of institutional racism against African Americans is denial of US history.
But you have an interesting story. What was the "political statement" that caused the coppers wrath?

 

I am trying to pick through this wordy mess since you did put so much effort in it.
First the quote that you are referencing and calling me out on as a racist on was not made by me but by Resistance 101. I was using it to illustrate his racist tendencies, so much of your argument has nothing to do with me.
When "humans discriminate against other humans and we don't melt it down and simplify it to skin colour" unless the discrimination is based on skin color then it's called racism. You don't seem to get it, sure everyone is discriminated at one time or another. That's life, but blacks since emancipation have been systematically discriminated against by the government and by the dominate society. Things have much improved but they are still far behind and the right is in denial that any of that ever happened.
And "I don't want to live in a world, where I am segregated and see people only by the amount of pigment in their skin."

 

Epic projection on your part ^
The definition is very clear unless you ask a SJW then they spot it in the clouds and a bowl of cereal.

 

"Did I falsely accuse him? Was I too quick to toss?"

 

Did he claim whites were superior and others inferior?