"Racism" is a negitive reaction to behavior, not skin color

Wrong. Modern policy is based on the assumption of genetic equality. I agree it is unconstitutional.

 

... really? How did you come to that conclusion? I find it hard to believe an assumption that we're all the same height, hair color, skin color, and more is actually a policy assumption.​

 

TWENTY -FIVE YEARS OF BEHAVIOR GENETICS
Today there are more and better data concerning genetic influences on behavioral and neuroscience variables than ever before in history. We have tremendously benefited from the revolution in molecular genetic techniques - the new genetics. In 25 years behavior genetics has come from being a small field on the fringe of the social sciences to being recognized as central to an understanding of the human condition (Wiesel, 1994). Just a few weeks ago Science noted that the new director of NIMH should be someone who appreciated the role of genetics in mental health (Marshall, 1995). This is an amazing shift from 25 years ago when behavioristic environmental determinism still reigned supreme. We are obviously well into a paradigm shift of major dimensions, perhaps a true Kuhnian revolution in Science and Society (Barker, 1985; 1992; Kuhn, 1970). In the future it might be referred to as the Galtonian Revolution, on a par with the Copernican. The shift is but one illustration of the long-term self-correcting nature of science: Objective investigation of the real world, conducted with integrity and interpreted without intentional ideological bias, can eventually lead to real advance.

As has sometimes been the case for these after dinner talks, I want to take just a few minutes to share with you some personal reminiscences and some personal views. Twenty-five years ago I got my first full-time faculty position. This was after student days at Minnesota, a bit of a time-out for military service, and a post-doctoral stint in Colorado. At Colorado the Institute for Behavioral Genetics was a wonderful setting. Gerry McClearn and John DeFries, along with Jim Wilson, were running the place. There were a bunch of stimulating graduate students around: I recall Tom Klein studying the taste of mice and Boris Tabakoff messing with alcohol. Doug Wahlsten and I were side-by-side post-docs, Joe Hegmann had just left and Carol Lynch was just arriving. Wonderful friends and colleagues, all of them. The best of days in a stimulating environment.

Well then, I got hired to represent behavior genetics in the neuroscience program at Florida State University. A good program but vastly different in orientation. Not a lot of geneticists. I was there only a brief time when one of the old-timers who ran the place came by for a friendly chat. As polite southerners do, he began with a lengthy discussion of weather, trees, traffic, chiggers, and children. And then, finally, by-the-way, he said "Glayde, you know we hired you because we want genetics in our psychology program, but, as a Professor at a southern university, we hope you will have the good sense to keep away from that human business. Because of your location you would have no credibility, and none of us need the flak"!

Well. That in fact was consistent with my plans, I was busy setting up a mouse laboratory at the time and sure-enough had enough good sense to do passably well with mouse research. After all, I've still got the job and I've been invited here tonight.

To understand my mentor's concern, we need to view it in historical context. 1970 was an interesting time. Tallahassee, being a state capital with two state universities, had already had its share of demonstrations, riots, burning and looting. It was in 1970 that Black Panther supporters got around to killing jurors and a judge; 1970 that a mathematics building was bombed on the campus at Wisconsin, also with loss-of-Iife (Collier & Horowitz, 1995).

It was also in 1970 that our colleague Arthur Jensen was taking a lot of flak (Pearson, 1991 ). As everyone in behavior genetics knows, Jensen published an interesting review paper in 1969 (Jensen, 1969). Interesting but hardly ground breaking. As a student at Minnesota, I had had the course in differential psychology .With interesting textbooks (Anastasi, 1958; Jenkins & Paterson, 1961) and team taught by such professors as Lykken and Meehl. We had considered 50 years worth of data, and various interpretative theories. Jensen in 1969 had a few new data, by-and-large consistent with all that had gone before. No big deal scientifically, at least not to any student of behavior genetics from Minnesota. But obviously a great big deal in some circles.

Over the intervening 25 years it has become obvious that Jensen's sins were, and continue to be, two-fold. First, he did not stay within the confines of a reigning dogma, and second, he violated a current taboo.

The dogma of course is that of environmental determinism for all important human traits. This dogma has relaxed in recent years, at least for individual differences, and at least within science. But the dogma has not relaxed for group differences and has not relaxed within politics as differentiated from science. The attacks on Jensen, and by extension on all human behavior genetics, are clearly political, ideological, philosophical.

The Marxist-Lysenkoist denial of genetics, the emphasis on environmental determinism for all things human, is at the root of it (Davis, 1986; Medvedev, 1971; Pearson, 1991; Weiss, 1991). Economic oppression is at the root of all group differences and don't you dare say anything else. The Marxist invasion of left-Iiberal political sentiment has been so extensive that many of us think that way without realizing it.

It has been suggested that I should talk about "Marxitis" that is, the Marxist infection of ideas. Many of the scholars that suffer from Marxitis do not realize that they are infected. The symptoms of this disease include an intellectual bias, an insistence on environmental determinism as the acceptable cause of group differences. In severe cases, it includes an unbending intellectual absolutism akin to medieval scholasticism. It is lethal to honest science.

 

The only complexity of this issue is the mental hoops you jump through to deny your racism.

See a (*)(*)(*)(*) shrink to deal with the denial or just go down the street and call some black guy a ni@@er , to his face.

 

Color is more than just skin deep.........


Everyone recognizes race. Africans, Europeans, and Asians can be distinguished at a glance because the races differ so obviously from each other. Although the differences are popularly referred to as “skin color,” as if this were where they began and ended, color is one of the least important ways in which the races differ.

Although many physiological differences are well established and easy to measure, they are often completely unknown to the general public. Perhaps this is because the cumulative effect of a list of physical differences can give an impression of alienness even more powerful than do assertions about mental differences.

Just as it was once universally accepted that races differ in intelligence, so the study of physical differences was once entirely respectable. Some 19th century investigators, however, hoped to find justifications for slavery and not all were good scientists. Therefore, in the revolt against “racism,” good data from the past has been thrown out along with the bad, and the study of physical differences has languished.

The modern data now becoming available confirm many 19th century views. The best evidence suggests that races differ markedly in such things as maturation rate, brain size, bone density, susceptibility to disease, and perhaps even personality.

The races differ in skin color because of different levels of melanin production. All races have approximately the same number of melanocytes, or melanin-making cells, but they differ in how actively the cells make melanin.

Anyone who has seen an albino African knows how trivial a racial difference skin color really is. The albino may actually seem more strange to a European than a normal African, because negroid features and tightly curled hair seem incongruous in a light-skinned person. No one would mistake the albino for a European. Likewise, West Africans, Dravidian Indians, and Australian aborigines are all “black,” but they are racially very different.

Color does have one physiological effect: three and a half times as much ultraviolet light from the sun passes through the skin of whites as through that of blacks. Light skin is beneficial in the northern regions where whites evolved, since ultraviolet light converts ergosterol in the body into vitamin D. Dark skin protects against the tropical sun.

Adaptation to Climate

There are other racial characteristics that are obviously adaptations to the climates in which the races evolved. Many East African peoples have elongated limbs and bodies that easily dissipate heat. North Asians, on the other hand, have evolved in a cold climate. Their bodies are more squat, they have thick, dark hair, and the epicanthic fold that gives Asians almond-shaped eyes is thought to reduce glare from snow and ice. A flat nose is less exposed to cold, and the virtual absence of facial hair means that condensation from a man’s breath will not freeze on his beard and chill his face. All of these characteristics are most obvious in the Asians who live in the coldest climates.

Some racial differences are not so easily explained. Phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) is a chemical that can be synthesized in the laboratory. To some people, it has a strong, bitter flavor, but to others it has no flavor at all. Seventy percent of Australian aborigines can taste PTC, but only 13 percent of Navaho Indians can. Fifty percent of whites and about 38 percent of Japanese can taste it.

For whatever reasons, the races do not smell the same. Blacks and whites have strong, but differing smells, and many Asians have scarcely any smell. Koreans often have no odor-producing glands in their arm-pits at all and Japanese have very few. Nineteenth-century Japanese found Europeans so foul-smelling that even today, a common Japanese expression for anything Western means “stinking of butter.”

Though they may not always be willing to say so, sports physicians have found physical differences that give different races advantages in different sports (see “May the Best Man Win,” AR, Oct. 1992). Whites and West Africans, for example, differ in proportions of body fat, width of hips, thickness of thighs, bone density, and proportion of fast- and slow-twitch muscle. Even East and West Africans differ in important ways that explain why they excel in different sports.

Because blacks have such dense bones, they are less buoyant and less likely to be swimming champions. However, their bones are more resistant to aging. After their mid-30s, white men lose about 2.5 percent of their bone mass every year. Blacks lose less than one percent. Loss of bone mass speeds up greatly under conditions of weightlessness, so blacks could probably survive longer space voyages than whites.

Studies have repeatedly found that black men have more of the male hormone testosterone in their blood than whites do. Testosterone is directly related to physical and sexual aggressiveness, but it also combines significantly with intelligence. Men who are intelligent but who have high testosterone levels are likely to be more successful, socially and professionally, than intelligent men with low testosterone levels. Men who are unintelligent but who have high testosterone are more likely to be criminals than unintelligent men with low testosterone. High crime rates among blacks are consistent with low intelligence and high testosterone.

Although egalitarian partisans—most notably Steven Jay Gould in his 1981 book, The Mismeasure of Man—have tried to discredit the evidence, it is well established that average brain size differs from race to race. A study by K. L. Beals, published in Current Anthropology in 1984, reported that a survey of 20,000 skulls shows that the average size of the brain case in Asia is 1380 cc, while in Europe it is 1362 cc and in Africa 1276 cc. Other studies have found that the brains of American blacks are approximately eight percent lighter than those of American whites.

Studies of brain size and weight can be difficult to replicate because researchers do not often have access to enough skulls or cadavers and may use different measuring techniques. A 1989 study overcame these difficulties by using magnetic resonance scanning to determine skull capacity. Brain size was found to have a positive correlation of about 0.3 with intelligence.

Not surprisingly, the bones within which brains reside can be markedly different. A child could distinguish between the skulls of Eskimos and Laplanders as easily as he could tell cucumbers from zucchinis. The skulls of Australian aborigines have characteristics not found in any other race, but common in fossils of pithecanthropus. The bones of the skull are twice as thick as those of any other race (10 mm v. 5 mm), and the skull has heavy frontal and parietal ridge lines typical of pithecanthropus. The teeth and lower jaws of aborigines are also larger than those of other races, and more similar to those of our remote ancestors.

It is little known that Africans have identical twins twice as frequently as Europeans—who in turn have them twice as frequently as Asians. Some African populations have identical twins seven times as frequently as whites. Blacks also have shorter gestation periods than whites or Asians. By the 39th week, 51 percent of black babies have been born but only 33 percent of whites. By the 40th week, the figures are 70 percent and 55 percent. Shorter gestation seems to be a characteristic of blacks that is independent of social status or access to medicine.

Due To Length.....will be continued.....................

 

Prof. Rushton has found that blacks reach sexual maturity earlier than whites. By age 12, 19 percent of black girls have full development of breasts and pubic hair, whereas only two percent of white girls do. Black American women menstruate at an earlier age than white women. They then go on to have sexual intercourse for the first time at an average age that is two years younger than that of whites.

Although it has long been the subject of ribald speculation, the races do appear to differ in the size of their sex organs. The best data seems to have been gathered in 1979 by P. H. Gebhard and A. B. Johnson. They actually took measurements and found that popular myths are correct: blacks are better endowed than whites. In extensive interviews, they also found that black men at least report themselves to be less restrained than whites in their willingness to commit adultery, likelihood of frequenting prostitutes, and number of sexual partners.

Somewhat comparable differences have been found between whites and Asians. Even after controlling for body size, Danes have testes that are proportionately twice the size of those of Chinese. Whites are also estimated to produce twice the number of spermatozoa per day as Asians.

Earlier maturation and early sexual activity among blacks may have a biological price. In the United States, blacks, on average, can expect to die six years sooner than whites. Higher homicide, accident, and disease rates contribute to this difference, but it is entirely possible that blacks may also have a naturally shorter life span.

Medical Differences

Our society generally keeps quiet about physical differences between the races, but information about them occasionally surfaces in news stories about disease. Alcoholism, for example, appears to strike different races at different rates. Asians (and American Indians to whom they are related) react more strongly than whites to alcohol. More Asians than whites show an allergic reaction to alcohol and therefore do not drink, whereas many American Indians seem to have a biological predisposition to alcoholism. Curiously, Asians are twice as likely as whites to suffer from motion sickness.

In the United States, the most frequently reported medical differences concern blacks and whites. It is well known that only blacks suffer from sickle-cell anemia, for example, a condition that helps the body resist malaria, and is therefore a benefit in the African jungle.

Most of the known medical differences, however, seem to disadvantage blacks. Black women are twice as likely to have strokes as white or Hispanic women, and they suffer more damaging aftereffects. Blacks are three to four times more likely to have dangerously underweight babies. This could be due to bad diet, poor general health, or scant medical care, but some studies indicate that even when these factors are equalized, black babies are more likely to be underweight.

Kidney disease is eighteen times more common among blacks than whites. Left untreated, AIDS kills blacks more rapidly than it does whites or Hispanics, and blacks do not respond as well to the drug AZT as do patients of other races. Glaucoma strikes blacks five times more often than it does whites. It sets in earlier, and the likelihood of getting the disease does not appear to be affected by social status or availability of medical care.

Blacks are also twice as likely as whites to have high blood pressure, and five to seven times more likely to have dangerously high blood pressure. This is often attributed to the pressures of “racism,” but physiology is certainly part of the cause.

A study at the University of Maryland found that when black and white students were paired for age, diet, fitness, and medical history, and given a mild stress—their hands were put in ice for 30 seconds—blacks reacted by constricting their blood vessels (a hypertensive reaction) for at least ten times longer than whites. Research in Barbados has shown that mixed-race blacks are more likely to have high blood pressure if their maternal rather than paternal ancestors were African; genes passed down from the mother seem somehow to be involved. One reason for high blood pressure among blacks may be their relative inability to secrete sodium, so a salty diet can be more dangerous for blacks than for whites.

It has long been known that blood transfusions and organ transplants work best between people of the same race. Until the Second World War, stocks of blood were routinely segregated by race for this reason. Classification by race was ended when it was discovered to be “racist,” but blood banks are reinstituting segregation.

The distribution of the common blood types is different from race to race, and some rare types are unique to certain races. Only blacks have U negative blood; only whites have Vel negative or Lan negative blood. Dr. W. Laurence Marsh of the New York Blood Center justifies racial classification: “It makes no sense to screen 100,000 whites for U negative when no U negative white person has ever been found.”

Kidneys and other organs are classified by race for similar reasons. About 20 percent of blacks are so genetically incompatible with whites that they reject organs from all white donors.

Origin of Species

Clearly, all these differences cannot be dismissed with the fashionable notion that race is nothing more than a matter of skin color. No one knows for how long the different races have been evolving independently, but it might be necessary to go back one million years or more to find an ancestor common to all races. Clearly, a great deal of divergence has taken place during that time.

In his magisterial work, Race, John Baker suggests that certain racial groups are already so different from each other that they are not, technically speaking, the same species. Certain matings between extremely unrelated stocks—Bushmen and Europeans, for example—are thought to have produced only female children, or in some cases hybrids that could not mate successfully among themselves. These are well-known signs of an unrelatedness that is so vast as to be verging on separation into different species.

Indeed, according to Dr. Baker, in the prehistoric past different races and sub-races probably avoided cross-breeding and behaved as if they were different species. He points out that in nature, animals that are no more different from each other than northern Europeans and southern Europeans never breed with each other. It is only in domestication that a horse, for example, can be made to mate with a donkey. Man is, of course, the most domesticated of animals. As the French anthropologist Paul Broca remarked, “Man, especially civilized man, is of all the animals the least exclusive in his amours.”

Separate development is, to use Charles Darwin’s phrase, the origin of species. Apes and humans once had a common ancestor but are now distinct species. Likewise, racial differences are nature’s first steps towards the creation of new species. Left to themselves for long enough, the different races of man would have become so different that they could no longer produce fertile young. This might well have happened if the domesticating effects of civilization had come later, or if discovery and travel had not brought isolated peoples into contact with each other.

One of the great ironies of today’s quest for “diversity,”—the forcible mixing of peoples as unlike each other as possible—is that it is a destroyer of diversity. It is only through separation that nature can produce that culmination of true diversity: a new species.

 

I do not deny being a "racist". It's a stupid word, the natural root of which is "a person who applies the concept of race". But it's been redefined by the left to mean "a person who applies the concept of race in a way that I don't like". So a person is "racist"? So what? It isn't a valid counter point to anything. Sadly, many people seem to think it is.

 

"Racism is the belief that different characteristics in racial groups justify discrimination."

That's an imprecise definition. Are you discriminating because of the traits, or because of the race?

 

Any discussion of 'Racism' should begin with a definition of it.....most confuse it with discrimination etc. Also---unfortunately---too many make up their own definition of the word to reinforce their own political prejudices.....the word thus has been politizized.

Popular dictionries are of little use in attempting to get to the true meaning of the word..... To really understand the meaning of a word one must study the etymology of the word...and the only dictionary that does that in depth is The Oxford Englsh Dictionary.....the authority on the English Language.

What the popular dictionaries do is to merely cite the popular usage of a word...how they perceive the word is used or what they think most people mean when they use the word. Now this may be ok for most words but when dealing with a topic as serious and controversial as the concept of racism....we need to dig as deep as possible to uncover the essence or true meaning of the word.



I pulled this definition of 'racism' off the Oxford English Dictionary website. Most people can't access it unless they have access through a university or other academic organization, so I'll quote the whole thing here.

[f. RACE n.2 + -ISM; cf. F. racisme (Robert 1935).]

a. The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.

 

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the definitive record of the English language.

The OED is one of the largest dictionaries in the world and the accepted authority on the evolution of the English language, tracing the use of more than 600,000 words over the last 1,000 years through 3 million quotations. The OED defines and illustrates how a word has been used, where it came from, when it first entered the language, and how its meaning has changed over time and around the world, by quoting from more than one hundred thousand modern and historical texts, from classic literature and specialist periodicals to film scripts, wills, cookery books, and blogs.

The OED is a historical dictionary, with a structure that is very different from that of a dictionary of current English such as ODO. In ODO, only present-day senses are covered and we describe the most common meanings or senses first, making it easy for you to find guidance on today’s language quickly. For each word in the OED, on the other hand, the senses are dealt with in chronological order according to the quotation evidence. This way the senses with the earliest quotations appear first, and the senses which have developed more recently appear further down the entry – like a ‘family tree’ for each word. Also, unlike current English dictionaries, senses are never removed from the OED. For example, if a word developed with a particular sense in the nineteenth century but has more recently changed to mean something quite different, the OED will show you both senses.

 

THE TRUE ORIGIN OF RACISM



The Real Origin of Racism


It is too bad people do not look more carefully into the term "origin of racism" before discussing the topic. Better still, if they went to church and asked your pastor what the good book has to say on the topic. They would be surprised.

The Man said ... (Matthew 15:24 NKJV) But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Ahhh! Not to the Jews, but the diaspora of the Northern tribes of that nation. Sounds racist?

It gets worse, or better depending on your perspective ...

The prophet said ... (Jeremiah 50:16 NKJV) " For fear of the oppressing sword everyone shall turn to his own people, and everyone shall flee to his own land." Oh! he was not very multicultural with his end-time prophecy.

Now HEAR this ... (Deuteronomy 17:15 NKJV) "you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may NOT set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother."

Wow! It is a good thing the Jews of both New York state, and Florida did not read that before voting for Obama. Do you think the average Caucasian American would have voted Obama in as president, if that was preached from the Sunday pulpits? I think not.

What is missing in our Judao-Christian culture is that the Old Testament (the Torah) teaches us how to build a nation and keep the peace within. The New Testament teaches us how to build a church or synagogue. Yes, the apostles kept "Shabbat."

Maybe we should all read The Book, before talking about racism. The origin of racism is from those who HATE the idea of a "chosen people". The surprise is, who are the rest of the chosen few. That is -- the "lost friends" of the Jewish folk, talked about by the man called Jesus.

 

The problem with your definition of racism ......is that one can be a racist without discriminating against any race in any way shape or form.

For example I am a racist based on the definition of racism in The Oxford English Dictionary......and I hold to the definition of racism in The Oxford English Dictionary...."The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race. "

Yet I do not discriminate against the Negroid Race or any other race.

Personally I dislike most negroes...but that is based on behavior. I also dislike most white people...that also is based on behavior.

The reason there are so many 'false' definitions of racism is because of political correctness.

The Liberals managed to convert just about everyone into believing their politizized false definition of racism....involving superiority etc.

Discrimination because of race, ethnicity or nationion origin, sex or sexual preferance or religion .....is illegal in the workplace....and in the housing arena. It is federal law.


There is no law against racism ....only against discrimination.

Thus your defintion does not hold water.

Racism and discrimination are two entirely different concepts.

That is not to say all racists do not discriminate.


This is not to say a non-racist never discriminates.

The bottom line is simply this....everyone discriminates every day in one shape or form. That does not make them either racist or non racist. That does not make them good or bad...it only shows they are human and have the freedom to discriminate aka...make personal choices.....just as long as they do not violate federal laws against discrimination in the work place or in the housing arena.

I hope I have cleared up some of the confusion regarding 'racism' vs. 'discrimination'.

 

the banksters for this reason created the eu,un, to mix up all nations

 

If someone holds to the "The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race." Then that person does believe in differentiating between people based on their race, they believe in racial discrimination.

That said, there are two definitions of racism, both consistent with the one provided above (Webster for example will list both). A reason why OED might offer only one and Webster and others offer two is that the distinction lies in the definition of discrimination. Academics and historians, the target audience OED, appreciate that discrimination has multiple meanings and so, from a purely academic point of view it might not be necessary to offer both. Webster is a guide to our current language. It's more likely to provide current connotations and include newly adopted words. So Webster provides both the literal meaning and the meaning with it's currently accepted social associations.

Discrimination literally means to differentiate. More significantly, people mean to suggest a type of value judgement accompanying differentiation when they use the word discriminate. If you see the word 'against' used in combination, the meaning is clearly the latter. When you discriminate against brand X, you don't just differentiate it from brand Y -- you disfavor it for a reason other than individual merit.

The same with racism, whose definitions are based on two meanings of discrimination. The primary meaning includes an assumption of inherent superiority. The secondary meaning is just racial discrimination -- which may be without that assumption. Folks less often appreciate or intend that subtle distinction.
​

rac·ism noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Definition of RACISM by Webster

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination ​

The distinction might not be as important in this case. If someone wants to eject blacks from his country... well both definitions probably apply.

.​

 

One is either racist or he is not. Of course there are many definitions of what a 'racist' or 'racism' is......but that does not make them all correct.

Now for example....say a racist white man kills a intruder in his home....if the intruder is a black man he will probably be arrested for murder like zimmerman because he was a known racist and killed a black man.

Now let us say if the intruder was white then nothing will be done...he may even be called a hero for defending his home......you see how ridiculous this obsession with racism in this country has become?

I stand with Abraham Lincoln on the Colonization of Africans in America back to Africa.....Lincoln was correct....would you call the Great Emancipator a discriminator? or a racist?

 

You really know how to confuse yourself .....first of all there is nothing wrong with discrimination....we all do it every day...if you are talking about illegal discrimination such as in the work place or housing arena....then that is a different story.....the federal government has made laws against such forms of discrimination.

So bottome line.....there is legal discrimination and there is illegal discrimination...do not get them mixed up.

iN ORDER TO TELL BLACK FROM WHITE ONE MUST HAVE VISION.....BY YOUR LOGIC ONE WOULD HAVE A FORM OF RACIST VISION IF HE CAN DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN COLORS...DO YOU SEE HOW RIDICULOUS YOU ARE SOUNDING? YET WE SEE LIBERALS SAYING ALL THE TIME....SOCIETY MUST BE COLOR BLIND....CRAZY TALK.

 

There is nothing wrong with making a distinction, discrimination. There may be something wrong with distinguishing categorically rather than individually, discrimination. There is often something wrong with prejudicial treatment of people, discrimination. Discrimination has multiple definitions, some more socially acceptable than others.

Whether a particular discriminatory act of the latter kind becomes legal is not inherent in the action, but whether it's necessary.

The DMV is allowed to discriminate against the blind because they argue it's necessary for public safety. When we get around to developing robotic cars, that necessity may disappear and the same discriminatory act will loose it's necessity -- the law will change.

I agree that the unoffensive definition you offer for racism is less appreciated and less likely intended. When someone announces themselves a racist, they more often are saying they believe one race is superior due to racial traits. Like most people, my opinion of that individual is adjusted accordingly.​

 

Let's apply that statement to dogs instead of humans, and then in your own head, apply it to races of humans.

You walk to the store 10 times per week. You are viciously attacked by a different pit bull every time. This happens for 5 months. You move to another town, walk to the bank and see a pit bull. Do you 'judge' it for the actions of pit bulls in the other town? Of course. You may still take the chance and walk by it, but you give it two thoughts, at least. (if you're sane)

Same with whites or blacks or prestons.

If a large % of one of those races beat up on PoliticalForum.com posters, you WILL "judge" most anyone of that race whom you don't know, when you first see them.That doesn't mean you're a racist, it means you're a statistician.



In case you haven't thought of it though, people who call racism where it doesn't really exist, might accurately be called racists, in that they're seeing things in terms of skin color when it's not necessary.

 

It's largely believed that people owe each other more consideration than we offer dogs. I would not fault someone for acting instinctively when there is no time for consideration, even when it demonstrates learned racism. No one's perfect; myself included.

A more calculated, less urgent, decision to judge a man based on what other folks, folks who may share no more than his skin color, have done... affording that man so little consideration is offensive.


.​

 

Of course he would. ANYONE would, even another black.

One time my wife and I were at a 4 person dinner given by liberal's girlfriend. I asked that very question to the liberal. He said, 'no' he wouldn't look more suspiciously. I tried, civilly, by example and debate to point out that of course he would.

No one was yelling, I wasn't upset. I was probably smiling, actually. HE GOT UP AND WALKED OUT OF THE HOUSE for the evening. Out of HIS OWN girlfriend's house.

That has always made me aware of how far a liberal can get themselves into a corner trying to defend the indefensible, and to what incredible ends they'll go to in order not to admit something that would undermine the liberal cause, even if it's obviously true to everyone present.

 

I'm having difficulty not thinking that you are being insincere.

Yes, of course if we had time to think through it, we would conclude, "Well, this guy's black or green, and he has a gun, but I shouldn't really judge him by what others of his race have done."

But I think that even after having taken the time to think true things like those, you would STILL be suspicious, especially if he had a gun, since he is of that "oft-criminal race". But that DOES NOT make you a racist. It makes you a wise gambler, based on probabilities.

I think you're being unrealistically ideal in order to teach people here a lesson that you think they need, (that's okay) whereas in reality, you know it is realistic to act in the manner you claim you wouldn't.

We all know there IS too much racism, and that we shouldn't take part in it. But all YOU are accomplishing with your overly idealistic and inaccurate propositions is to substantiate the evidence that liberals are not sincere and that in fact THEY may be the true racists--because I know that I MYSELF am not one, and I imagine most of the non-liberal posters here know that same thing about themselves.

I respect your rights tho.

 

In this, I'm sincere. I would not fault someone for a reflexive action. I would not fault him for recognizing that he tends to be more suspicious of people because of learned prejudices and fears (we all have them). I would fault him for deciding the man in front of him is more likely a criminal, because he's black.

A wise gambler reads the people at his table, and doesn't assume he knows them because of the color of their skin.​