Tolerance of Racism?

[Thorgnor]

What I was saying is that skyscraper, bungalo, condo, doesn't fucking matter, you can be racist. Toronto, Bangladesh, Antarctica, you can be racist. If you want to talk about sustainable living start a thread hijacker. If you want me to start an arguement, act defensive every time I post and accuse me of things like a lack of integrity, hypocrisy or a lack of kindeness.

You've got a conveniently short memory, genius.

Is them fightin werds enough for ya?

How'bout, brush that fucking chunk of your shoulder, put on your glasses and get back to reading carefully.

Spend some time in those small towns instead of driving through and you'll learn a lot. They aren't all being choked out, community doesn't mean urban, all kinds of neat stuff.

I don't actually believe that we're at the point of overcrowding yet, my statment was intended to demonstrate, Mr.English Major metaphor king, that where you are is secondary to which brain you use and which paradigms it recognizes as true and false. If the brain you employ does not realize that its corrupt operating system is functioning based on premises of racist thought, you could be with one other person and you might find a racialized reason to consider yourself superior, but it doesn't mean you pack up and move.

The meaning of my statement re;overcrowding is this, limited resources, living area and access to them is determined by people, not land forms or erosion. By that I do not mean that we don't interact with our environment, we do. However, ideology is the thing which we use to structure our discourses, so it is far more important in a discussion about racism than solar panels or agrarian reform. Although I appreciate the idea that equity and diversity are integral to sustainable living I just don't see how that stuff is relevant to this study which you so heartily disagree with, no? I also see what you're saying that when we acheive this we won't have to worry about race. But to ignore racism in the hopes that compassionately hanging around with bigots will change their ideology is suspect logic. If I continuously tell you that two plus two is five are you doing me a favor by holding my hand while I say it again?

This is a discussion board right?

Here's a question that doesn't belong here. Is greed responsible for the possible extinction of the White Rhinocerus? Or is it the effect of impotence on the minds of men who believe that the ground horn of a rhino will cure them?

Answer; Ideology. (Trick answer, greed is rationalized through ideology)

Edited February 11, 2009 by Guest

[Esau.]

I never said racism is a rural/urban issue, but people moving to the country to get away from city strife is definitely a part of it. socio-political yes, but geography and society without a free flow of thought and travel contributes to people holing themselves up in the woods or shitty small towns to 'get away'.

It also contributes to people moving to urban areas to be 'with people like us' or away from ignorant and clueless bigotry.

wow.

[SaggyBalls]

Wow is right, Greg. Agree with it or not, I've seen it happen again and again and again. People don't just move to the country to get away from crime and bustle. It's not an epidemic, but it happens.

TB, Ideology is definitely the major aspect of this, but how are we going to massage change when people hole themselves up with their own kind?

Compassionately hanging around with bigots will not change their logic...though bigotry comes in many forms from all sides.

Whether ideology rationalizes the greed or not, it's still the greed that drives the poacher. Ideology has no place as an answer to a 'this or that' question where it is not one of the options even though you can make it relevant.

So you say it's ideology behind the greed, but it's more specifically Ego, and though I don't think everyone should abandon fighting unkind and unwell Ideologies, Ego is a far bigger problem than the ideologies they hide behind to make themselves right...and if anything my Ego just used itself on you. Moist Towelette?

so...

Any ideology that allows people to seperate good from bad based on skin color limits how we solve the problem of overcrowding.

??

I understand that you didn't mean what you wrote initially as I'd reiterated it - and though you had to call me a metaphor king (which I feel I rarely use) in the process, you really repeated yourself amazingly for me. Thanks for spelling it out. It makes a giant difference.

You are right and though I've picked at your sentences over and over and over, it's been the most efficient way to get anyone really saying much of anything about this.

Not to beat a dead horse, but we're at a point in Humanity where we have the ability and potential to shape this world conscientiously, with abundance, and true value. Now, Unlike in the history books, we don't have to put a giant strain on resources to do so. We don't have to fight a civil war to free race slaves, but we'll undoubtedly see much more strife and hatred (racism for sure) before it lets up.

So although we probably have bigger fish to fry, this is definitely an important aspect of human evolution as it's tied into so much else.

That's why I'd begun to hijack the thread - what kind of solutions can we bring about to ending racism aside from bringing people together?

TB, As someone studying this subject you must find it challenging to not take it to heart when much of our world acts so backwards and could move past all this ridiculous bullshit.

[Thorgnor]

I do take it very personally and not only because I study it. I study it becasue I take it so seriously. It is something that involves all of us and has had a huge impact on my mixed family and myself.

I feel that the systems (such as the english language) that we employ to make meaning in and of our lives are largely part of greater social "structures", but it is through the process of interacting with them that we either change the social structure or we "reify" it, we make it real, again and again, daily and by the moment. We wake up everyday and re-produce our society the way it is.

I suppose I have a problem with what people feel they can "know" and expect about people based on "race", something I don't believe exists. Simply put, there is no bounded human group that is different enough to class them as a seperate species, we are part of a gradient of skin color, height and other phenotypical traits. Having studied this stuff, I feel comfortable saying so. This is one of those subjects that can be counter-intuitive.

[SaggyBalls]

It's sort of like saying tabby cats and persian cats act differently because they're persian or tabby...or that German Shepherds and Huskies act differently.

[M.O.B.E]

It's sort of like saying tabby cats and persian cats act differently because they're persian or tabby...or that German Shepherds and Huskies act differently.

Thats very David Ike like.

[SaggyBalls]

Yeah I probably say a lot of things that most people can't accept, but I doubt much of it will be as hard to believe as reptilians.

Though I do think it's hard to people to separate anti-zionism from anti-semitism, this isn't anything new or entirely earth shattering, and I also don't think it's so shocking to acknowledge differences between peoples because people have way more in common than they have in difference.

Why the hell have I written so much in this, of all threads?

So, aside from massive catastrophe that will demand us working together, how will we collectively be able to end racism and begin tolerating everyone?

[Thorgnor]

My push (and my point in the name of this thread) is that we won't ever "tolerate" enough, but we can celebrate more than enough.

As long as we support views that suggest we need to either assimilate or minimize (background) differences we'll get nowhere. I do see your point YT but I just don't think it's right, or helpful, to say that "they" are different because of some racial profile. We are different because we expect different things, come from different places and speak different languages with different philosophies and religions, not because of our skin tone, or so-called race.

[SaggyBalls]

I'm not saying that 'they' are entirely different because of specific genetic differences I'm saying that people everywhere, in certain groups have specific genetic differences.

People are different for all sorts of reasons, and to ignore that some people are similar in some specific ways because someone would term it racial profiling, while not near blineness, is still ideologically nearsighted. Doesn't need glasses to drive...still less than totally crisp vision.

I think that differences between people are awesome. I love it - and by that I mean that it makes me feel way less different and a part of something bigger. Instead of it being an attack, it's freeing. Skin colours, accents, speech patterns, logic sets, opinions, experiences, cultures, arts...it's the learned 'differences' that individuals create (war, strife, deceit, hatred etc) that are the big problem, and those have nothing to do with genetics - so it would be understandable to leave biology out of the fight against racism.

I also am not suggesting that we 'assimilate' - but coming together in community, 'celebrating' virtues and strengths (even if they happen to be different), and working alongside oneanother to improve our lives on a much grander scale would be awesome.

It's all a part of the whole - which needs to be celebrated and fostered with respect which is a learning (or unlearning) process for everyone involved.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Guest
don't really need to be a douchebag.

[hamilton]

I think you should all read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

[Thorgnor]

Article regarding Racism in Nursing... insidious language

[StoneMtn]

I have a new Indian client (East Indian) who, of course, has a very Indian-sounding name.

He has a company that he named after two last names - his own, and one that sounds very British. He finds that having the British-sounding name in his company is good for marketing.

He is incorporating a new company. It will be named after himself, and a very Jewish-sounding name, for the same reason.

What do you think? Is he tolerating racism against his own people? Perpetuating racism regarding Brits and Jews? Is he just a pragmatist?

If you met the guy, you certainly wouldn't think of him as racist. I found him very interesting.

[Thorgnor]

I've moved away from classifying people as racist to concentrating on actions, and in his case, I'd have to say that he is taking advantage of racial stereo-types, and in the process, reifying them (or making them seem real). He is pragmatically supporting continued stereotyping in order to gain personal advantage. The most complicated part of the problem these days is in how to tell the difference between "playing Indian" and being an Indian, East or "West"... being different vs. capitalizing on difference, imo.

Doesn't mean that he's a "bad" person though, just shortsighted. If he's got kids it'll be a shame when they have to do the same thing in 40 years to get business, jus'sayin'

[phishtaper]

would that make robert zimmerman a racist?

[Thorgnor]

I've moved away from classifying people as racist to concentrating on actions

dunno, does it?

[SaggyBalls]

For a guy so 'shortshighted' he sure seems to have absolute reign over his perspective, especially with that few steps back.

I would have to say that the racists, or those perpetuating the stereotypes are the ones that choose his companies because of their names.

[Thorgnor]

and I'd have to say that the guy who builds the first atomic bomb is partly responsible for the deaths it causes.

He's offering people an opportunity to racialize something that has nothing to do with race, and is therefore offering an opportunity for people to beleive that their racialized understandings are legitimate. Not only that, but he's hoping that people continue to see other races differently in order that he can gain from the misunderstandings and misconceptions of others. He has created a vested reason for the proliferation of differences based in race that are in fact cultural.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Guest

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Announcer: Good evening and welcome to "Looking for a Job in Quebec." We have here Mr. John O'Leary.

John O'Leary: Hi, how are ya? How ya doin'?

Announcer: Mr. O'Leary here is a unilingual anglophone who is attempting to apply for a bilingual job. Now, he has an interesting approach to overcoming this obstacle.

Interviewer: Oh, hi Mr. O'Leary, sit right down, nice to meet ya and all that, okay I want to point out one thing right now, okay? You have to be bilingual if you want this job, you understand? You've got to be bilingual.

O'Leary: Uhm... (in a bad Quebecois accent) I am bilingu-yoo-uhl. But my henglish is a little rusty. So, uh, if you don't mind if we could do dee interview in henglish so I could practice?

Interviewer: Sure, sure, that won't be a problem, that will be fine, really.

Announcer: Bluffing is an acceptable part of any interview. However, once you begin it can get quite sticky.

Interviewer: It's occuring to me right now, O'Leary, that's a very very anglophone name, any yet you seem very, very french. How come?

O'Leary: It's pronounced, uh, Thibodeau.

Interviewer: Thibodeau, really?

O'Leary: Yeah, it's like you go Thi'Bodeau.

Interviewer: Right, well, listen you seem a little nervous, why don't we do the rest of the interview in french?

O'Leary: No! Actually, I'd much prefer to practice.

Interviewer: No, I want you to be as comfortable as possible.

O'Leary: That's nice of you, but...

Interviewer: I insist, I insist. (very quickly) Okay, pourquoi avez-vous choisi a faire un application a notre companie? Qu'est-ce que v'voulez nous emporter qui serait unique?

(translation: Okay, why did you choose to fill-out an application with our company? What will you bring that will be unique?)

O'Leary: (pause) Oui!

Interviewer: (very very quickly) No no no, vous n'avez pas comprendre le question: qu'est-ce que vous apportir donne qu'est especiallement dans la companie, pourquoi me choisir vous parmis tous les autres personnes qu'eus applications et donne des raisons.

(translation: No, you didn't understand the question: what would you bring to this job that is special in the company, why should I choose you over the other applicants, and give reasons.)

O'Leary: (pause) Il'y a des oiseaux ... dans la fenetre. Avec, de petit caoutchuc, et uh. Oui, eh, mes cahiers des excercises c'est pas dans la bibliotheque aujourd'hui. (long pause) Puis, eh-uh, il n'y a pas de service ce numero. (long pause) Pamplemousse?

(translation: There are some birds ... in the window. With the little rubber, and uh. Yes, uh, my workbooks they are not in the library today. And, uh, the number you have dialed is not in service ... grapefruit?)

Interviewer: Pamplemousse, huh.

O'Leary: Deux pamplemousse?

[SaggyBalls]

And...now that we have the +absolute answer to what the guy's doing, why does it really matter?

I don't think that it does. Anyone that's really racist would look into the company roster and see who's handling his/her account and would make sure whoever handles his/her money are to be of his/her liking.

The guy who builds the first atomic bomb was also responsible for all the the lives it saved by stopping the war.

[Thorgnor]

I think you've missed the grey areas in the idea of racism... The idea that if one is "Racist" they will always behave in a particular fashion, or that if one is not "A Racist" they will never say racist things. "Racist" is not the name of a character in a play, it is the naming of an act based on race. To say someone is a "Racist" is silly, as I noticed through my own mistaken identification of certain people as "Racists" instead of saying that they are participating in racism, and that participation can be an act of violence. Not that they are "bad", hence the old debate between Birdy and I. People aren't Good or Bad or Racist, they are contextualised as such, and it's far easier to understand an action as motivated by Racism than it is to say that someone is a "Racist". And you're right-o there Rob when you say that it doesn't do anything to classify someone as "Racist", but to point out when someone is unknowingly, or unwittingly participating in Racialized discourses, or Racism, allows them the opportunity to see the violence they are commiting through their participation.

imo

Edited July 14, 2009 by Guest

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

That sounds like a very Gandhi-sympathetic view - the idea that there is no such thing as an evil person, but only a person caught up in evil behaviour, so that the most sound thing to do is to get that person to become aware of the violence that they're doing so that their conscience will direct them to act otherwise.

[Thorgnor]

thanks dog

[Birdy]

No such thing as a bad person Thorgnor? Eek! Isn't this what I've been telling you all along...? Man is good but corrupted by his surroundings? Caught up in evil surroundings?

I've enjoyed reading what you've wrote here, and am happy you've come to your conclusions. Now to break down your findings and share them with the rest of the unenlightened world... well. Thing is, aside from starting fresh post-atomic-bomb, how do you change the way the world sees itself?

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Lisa: The only reason to apologize is if you look deep down inside yourself, and you find a spot, something you wish wasn't there because you feel bad you hurt your sister's feeling.

Bart: This is so stupid. I'm not going to find anything. Just because I wrecked something she worked really hard on, and I made her cr---... Uh oh. ... I'm sorry, Lisa.

[phishtaper]

is it racist to think that a tall black guy dressed in athletic wear walking around the gym here is probably a good basketball player? or is it social, inductive reasoning?