Is it Actually Racist?

[Pat Hartman]

The current trend of slicing and dicing people so they can be put into boxes and the boxes then are awarded special privileges is the very core of racism. MLK's famous words from the 60's are being implemented in the reverse. He said and I'm paraphrasing that he hoped his children would live in a world where they were judged by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin. Just because racism adversely affected a group of people in the past doesn't mean that today we should adversely affect other people based on the color of their skin. That means that racism lives forever. Racism should not beget racism. Do you treat people with blue eyes differently from people with brown eyes? I doubt it. The only reason the "black" skin has been singled out as something to be discriminated against is because of its association with slavery which ended more than 150 years ago. If you ever read history you would know that far more "white" people have been enslaved than "black" people. We fought a war with Algeria between 1785 and 1795 because they were attacking our merchant ships and selling the sailors into slavery. Virtually every civilization on the planet has practiced slavery at some level at some time. Usually it was the result of wars with neighbors. You killed the men and took the women and children as slaves. The trade between the African tribes who actually captured the slaves and the Americas took place over a pretty short period of time but stands out in everyone's mind. And since it was only blacks who were the slaves in this enterprise, that simply sticks in people's minds.

 

[Dick7Access]

Don't you realize, Dick, that she is automatically disqualified from being President.

She can actually think for herself.

Wish I had said that

 

[GaP42]

@The_Doc_Man
Just as you “call ‘em as you see ‘em” I also feel the same about calling out any form of bullying, belittling or unjustified prejudice. The statement I reacted to was that “Racism is whatever a racist says it is because it is only an actual racist who sees race everywhere.” A few went all in and presumably thought that was worth “liking” or endorsing. However such a statement is in my view absolute . It simply tries to absolve in any instance that the perpetrator bears any blame (similar to blaming the victim for causing her ra**). Racism can exist in many forms. It is blatantly obvious that racism has and is expressed in our societies and often for political purposes. Do you deny that racisms exists, or it only exists through the expression of those that raise the issue? That sounds like it is a good way to try and suppress dissent.

Clearly perpetuating unjustifiable generalisations about someone based on their race is reprehensible and as you say in your view it may arise in the hatred generated through the use of the racial trope of us v them, I do hope it can be seen for what it is.

As an eg. Haitians are humans too. The Haitians in Springfield are immigrants, as I am sure there are many other groups in Springfield. Are the Haitians illegals? Was there any real incident? So why the need to make such claims? Who is really being riled up? Who is the ”us” and “them”. Was it justifiable?

 

[Cotswold]

Unbelievably in this country, children as your as four years old are being sent home by their school for making a racist statement.
The statistics are 1,413 incidents at primary schools, were logged against children as young as four last year.
Childhood does appear to becoming ever shorter thanks to these nut-jobs. The question is; just who is approving and supporting this nonsense?

 

[AccessBlaster]

In Springfield you have a population of 58,000 residents (taxpayers). In a span of 3 1/2 Years the federal government resettled 20,000 Haitian migrants about a 34% increase on state and local resources, schools, police, fire, etc. The taxpayers most likely were blindsided by this and never got a say even though they are the taxpayers.

It's not racism It's math.

In the 70's they did the same thing with Vietnamese, millions were relocated across the country including where I live. It devastated OUR sleeply little town, our culture is changed forever but their culture thrives.

The only answer seems to be accept the radical change and go quietly into the night or leave and be called a bigot.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I also feel the same about calling out any form of bullying, belittling or unjustified prejudice.

On this we can agree.

It simply tries to absolve in any instance that the perpetrator bears any blame

I see the statement to which you objected as being a relevant opinion on racism. It calls out the "Pity me, I'm a victim" mentality, which by the way is NOT limited to racism. It can also be about sexism, genderism, or any ethnic-ism. To the extent that a person claiming to be the victim of racism is in fact a victim of self-inflicted bad behavior leading to a condemnation or other bad result, claims of racism - like ANY OTHER ACCUSATION - need careful analysis and verification.

Want examples?

• The recent "Haitians eating pets" quote, for example, has now been traced to a person whose anger over a sudden Haitian influx in her area led her to fabricate that claim. She hated change and her neighborhood was undergoing change.
• In WW2, Hitler's claims against the Jewish people (and gays and handicapped people and 7th Day Adventists and the Romany people) were ALL a form of scapegoating.
• Modern-day claims that gays want to "groom" children to become gay have long ago been shown to be a fabrication.

The latest trend towards DEI is an example of applied insanity (though I cannot rule a bit of natural issues as well). Diversity? Not a problem, I'm all for it. Inclusion? Totally fine with me. Equity? Depends on what you mean by it. It CAN become a crock of, as you put it, , because it should be Equity of Opportunity, not Equity of Result like Ms. Harris seems to want. To put it simply, if I refuse to hire you because you cannot do the job I want done, the color of your skin doesn't matter. Your gender doesn't matter. Your nationality doesn't matter. Your religion doesn't matter. The only question that EVER should matter is "Can you do the job I need done?" If you don't prepare yourself in a way to be able to answer that question "Yes" then don't expect to work for me. I'm not the headmaster of a school for training. My economics and business model can't afford to support people who can't further my business needs. (Though some such places DO exist, and good for them!)

The question is, do you see my stance on DEI to be racist? Or simply motivated by the harsh reality of economics? This will decide whether YOU are a racist or not. Because if you consider that economics is a well-studied discipline, you would realize that it doesn't actually contain ANY theoretical references to the abilities or inabilities of the various ethnicities. It only talks about abilities of individuals or amorphous groups as applied to problems of a hypothetical or actual workforce.

 

[ColinEssex]

In Springfield you have a population of 58,000 residents (taxpayers).

Isn't Springfield where Mr Trump said that they eat cats and dogs? I thought Springfield was a make believe cartoon place, didn't realise it was real.
Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

It wouldn't surprise me if the Simpsons didn't predict this latest democrat cat-tas-trophy.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Isn't Springfield where Mr Trump said that they eat cats and dogs? I thought Springfield was a make believe cartoon place, didn't realise it was real.
Col

Springfield isn't unique in this condition, but as it happens, it is one of the more common town names. At the moment we have 34 states (out of our 50) that have a small town or small city named Springfield. The two largest cities have about 150K population each (rounded a bit). The number one town name is Riverside, which I believe exists in 46 states.

As whether it is a real place, ... yes it is. As to whether it is anything like a cartoon place, I've only been to perhaps 4 or 5 of the 34 Springfields and didn't see any obvious cartoon characters walking around. But that DOES leave 29 or 30 places left to check.

 

[ColinEssex]

I've never seen The Simpsons. I think I read it somewhere.
What is a mystery is why do they eat cats and dogs in Springfield? Is it just limited to that area or is it a nationwide phenomenon that has been kept quiet until Mr Trump decided to tell the world.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Ah, but they don't, Col. That rumor has been traced back to a disgruntled woman who decided to cast what amounts to ethnic slurs after an influx of Haitian people that resulted in changes to her neighborhood demographics.

Sort of the way that you cast ethnic slurs against Meghan once she "moved into your neighborhood."

 

[ColinEssex]

Ah, but they don't, Col. That rumor has been traced back to a disgruntled woman who decided to cast what amounts to ethnic slurs after an influx of Haitian people that resulted in changes to her neighborhood demographics.

I dont get it.
a) why did Mr Trump say it if its not true? He said he saw it on TV.
b) why did Mr Trumps advisors not tell him it was untrue?
c) did Mr Trump believe it was true? Or does he regularly tell lies.

BTW, Miss Markel is disliked by many people in the UK, especially the press. Its hard to see what a z rated actress has going for her. Thank god she resides in the USA now.
Col

 

[GaP42]

Unbelievably in this country, children as your as four years old are being sent home by their school for making a racist statement.
The statistics are 1,413 incidents at primary schools, were logged against children as young as four last year.
Childhood does appear to becoming ever shorter thanks to these nut-jobs. The question is; just who is approving and supporting this nonsense?

Hmm ... So unbelievably perhaps you think that children at primary school should not be reprimanded for making racist statements? Would you prefer that the child should not be admonished at all?
If not then what should be done? How would you expect the school deal with it? The statistics you provide are there were 1,413 incidents logged where primary age school children had made racist statements. Not 1,4i3 four year olds, not 1,413 students sent home?
What if the behaviour involved a physical assault? What if your child as the target was upset by the incident? Should it be ignored?
An incident being logged would indicate that some assessment/ review of the incident occurred and action determined. Madness, maybe in your view but you have no real information about any specific incident.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@GaP42 - your hypotheticals are getting a bit far afield.

Should children at primary school be or not be reprimanded for racist statements? The first question before that is to determine if the child even understands what statement was made and whether that child was parroting a parent.

When I was a kid, my father was moderately racist. My mother taught me to not use the language Dad used and she eventually calmed him down. He was a good guy in many ways and actually a loving man, but he was himself a product of a very difficult childhood and didn't have a strong father figure to discipline him. (It's too long a story to relate here.) I didn't understand that the words Dad used during my early years were, in fact, offensive. Mom corrected me and informed me that the words were hurtful. She simply told me that good boys don't use hurtful words and at that age, the lesson stuck. I don't remember any conversation she might have had with Dad when HE got home because I think they held that little discussion when I was outside playing.

When you jump to questions of physical assault, most schools here have a formal procedure to deal with violent children. As to racist incidents, a lot more of the incidents are concerned with bullying, and any racism angle might just be a sprinkle on the ice-cream cone. To be honest, I have no clue how to read the statistics coming out of schools these days. Oh, I understand statistics pretty well. Had to study them for my doctorate in chemistry. But Mark Twain once said this: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." If put forward by a politician, the difference between statistics and damned lies become minuscule.

Madness, maybe in your view but you have no real information about any specific incident.

Nor does it matter whether I do or don't. We have 50 states with 50 different sets of state laws governing school districts. Forgive me if I'm not up on state school discipline laws. But I know they exist.

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder. I'm truly sorry that you are carrying that burden. I don't believe in the mysticism of the Bible but I absolutely DO believe that it offers good advice. Like forgiving people by recognizing that often, they are not malicious but instead are simply ignorant. They know not what they do. That should take at least some of the sting out of what nettles you.

 

[Cotswold]

Hmm ... So unbelievably perhaps you think that children at primary school should not be reprimanded for making racist statements? Would you prefer that the child should not be admonished at all?
If not then what should be done? How would you expect the school deal with it? The statistics you provide are there were 1,413 incidents logged where primary age school children had made racist statements. Not 1,4i3 four year olds, not 1,413 students sent home?
What if the behaviour involved a physical assault? What if your child as the target was upset by the incident? Should it be ignored?
An incident being logged would indicate that some assessment/ review of the incident occurred and action determined. Madness, maybe in your view but you have no real information about any specific incident.

Oh, please! How the devil does a four year old know what racist is? Exactly what opinions does a four year old have?
It wasn't a physical assault was it? So why bring that up at all? Pointless. If it was then the assault the staff would deal with it. Just in the same way a parent would deal with one between their children. Simples.
Apparently some children start school unable to use a knife and fork because they've only been fed junk food. Some are still in nappies. Some are effin & blinding in their everyday language. If the teachers have any ability at all they should be able to cope with such things as part of their job. If they cannot then they should leave the profession and get some non-job as a civil servant, or at the local council. It is this type of idiot teacher who is responsible for sending pupils out into the world unable to read, write and do even simple maths.
Sending a four year old home is stupid, ludicrous and clearly displays a high level of incompetence by the staff. I am surprised that you appear to think that incapable teachers are acceptable. All they had to say was "don't say that Jack, (or Jill) " But sending a four year old home is plain wrong. You don't sit a four year old down and try to instruct them in the politics and in the opinions of organisations like Stonewall.

By the way, I wasn't saying a child shouldn't be reprehended. I was saying that sending a child home was not the thing to do. They are there to educate them. So they should educate them and telling them something is wrong should be adequate if they are capable of educating of course.

 

[NauticalGent]

It wasn't a physical assault was it? So why bring that up at all? Pointless.

Sending a four year old home is stupid, ludicrous and clearly displays a high level of incompetence by the staff. I am surprised that you appear to think that incapable teachers are acceptable.

y the way, I wasn't saying a child shouldn't be reprehended. I was saying that sending a child home was not the thing to do. They are there to educate them. So they should educate them and telling them something is wrong should be adequate if they are capable of educating of course.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Hmm ... So unbelievably perhaps you think that children at primary school should not be reprimanded for making racist statements? Would you prefer that the child should not be admonished at all?

Children are not born racists. Racists are made. Children must be trained to be racists by the people around them. If you feel the need to reprimand someone, reprimand their parents. You can tell the child that they shouldn't say what they said and send a note home to the parents telling them that they are raising a racist and see how that flies. At least that puts the blame where it belongs. But making a scene and punishing a 4-year-old for saying a word he doesn't understand is only going to confuse him.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You want to keep kids from becoming racists? This comes from the musical South Pacific in a context where a Navy officer who loves a woman of (I think) Japanese ancestry is bemoaning the way she has been (mis)treated.

This video comes from the mid-20th century and attempts to point out that hatred in adults stems from the way the kids were taught.

If you punish children for something they don't understand, you do nothing except confuse them and cause them to be resentful. If you make it a calm lesson and point out that some words are rude or hurtful (and therefore should be avoided), you are more likely to make headway.

 

[Isaac]

It's not racism It's math.

Well said.

It's not racism, it's factual math - something those who initially questioned that topic are supposedly all about