thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,849
|
Bonds
Jun 14, 2005 16:06:04 GMT -5
Post by thebin on Jun 14, 2005 16:06:04 GMT -5
There are a lot of people who tried to define "racism" as "white racism." I know you were not making that up out of thin air. I am not on board that train.
Surely to be racist and the richer race means you will be able to act on your bigotry more than if you were in the less well-off race. But I see no need to basterdize the word "racist" to acknowledge that. It makes no sense to me to create some sort of legal fiction that blacks can't be "racist," especially multi-millionaires like Bonds.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,849
|
Bonds
Jun 14, 2005 16:18:56 GMT -5
Post by thebin on Jun 14, 2005 16:18:56 GMT -5
"Dude, I said I think you have strong issues with regard to race, and you respond with neurotic tirades. Maybe one day you can be honest with yourself."
Its amazing. You backpeddle (weakly) on the accusation in the first sentence and repeat the slander in the second. Good day.
|
|
|
Bonds
Jun 14, 2005 20:09:00 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 14, 2005 20:09:00 GMT -5
I care a lot about issues of racial politics, and the liberal press, and the liberal domination of college faculties among other issues. I appreciate the intense discussions and have so in the past, mostly. I found the above quote to be particularly interesting considering your other comments in the thread about moving beyond some commonly held perceptions about "racism." Unfortunately, I feel that you fall victim to overgeneralizations in some of your characterizations above. As far as racial politics is concerned, you and I can agree that racism can be exercised by people of all colors. While I may disagree with you in the context of the US, if we define racism and link it to power, we can probably agree that non-whites have acted in a racist manner in other states (read: countries), whether it has been a black/white issue or related to other sociocultural dynamics. At the very least in this country, there have been African-Americans who have advocated for racist policies, although they may have lacked the means by which to implement them. What is disturbing to me, however, is the repeated accusation of "liberal media." I firmly believe that you need to disaggregate that term. If we are talking television, the most watched news network on tv is Fox, if the ratings are to be believed. At this time, I lack any argument that would relate them to anything liberal. Other networks are more left, but I believe that many of them are moving to the right. MSNBC once allowed Donohue to have a show in an evening slot, but he was quickly replaced by Chuck Scarborough. Why? If you look at newspapers, I can agree with you, in a general sense, that the major papers lean to the left. If we associate talk radio with "media," I think it is fair to say that the right holds a significant advantage, considering Limbaugh and the more provincial hosts on the airwaves. Air America, though clearly liberal, does not possess nearly the listenership or broadcast area that Limbaugh does. I guess you could consider Stern as a liberal, but he does not come across as someone who talks politics on a regular basis like what you find with Limbaugh. As for Imus, I think he's pretty much down the middle. He did endorse Kerry last year, but, at the same time, he took most every opportunity to criticize him pretty harshly. In order to accuse bias, I think you need to be able to make an argument that those with the power are pushing the content in a certain direction. You can make a good case in terms of newspapers, but I don't think it is on nearly as strong ground when you consider contemporary dynamics in television and talk radio. I guess that I also have a fundamental question related to your subject of ire. The media is liberal, so what do you suggest that we do? You can't tell them to shut up because that violates free speech. You can't get government involved in content (beyond obvious parameters for obscenity and hate speech) because that goes down a similar route. How would you affect meaningful change at the top to bring about your desired ends, or does the change have to come from below? ---------- BTW, you may be interested in a 6/14 op-ed in the Post about McCain and 2008. I am still supportive of a McCain run for the Presidency, although I will also consider the Dem contender, with particular focus on Gov. Warner (D-VA). I am still very lukewarm, if not cool, to the idea of nominating Hillary, but it is going to take a hell of an upset given where she's polling right now.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,884
|
Bonds
Jun 14, 2005 21:28:34 GMT -5
Post by CTHoya08 on Jun 14, 2005 21:28:34 GMT -5
I think you make good points about bin's generalization about liberal media, but most importantly, he is right on the money with regard to racism. It doesn't matter whether one is in power or not, hate is hate, and racsim is the hatred of a certain race. I have also long had a problem with the distinction between racsim and "ethnic discrimination". While blacks have long suffered from predjudice in this country, I believe that similar (though certainly not as severe) sufferering endured by other groups (Jews, Japanese, Italians, etc.) is just as rooted in racsim, even if the group being hated is not of a different "race".
|
|
|
Bonds
Jun 14, 2005 21:56:46 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 14, 2005 21:56:46 GMT -5
It really depends on who you ask. I differentiate between racism and discrimination/prejudice on a definitional basis and believe it is useful to do so. In my mind, it is much more systemic than to simply identify it with a set of commonly held, yet erroneous, beliefs. For example, we would identify slavery as a racist system, or, at least, I would. However, at the core, it is not analogous to a set of beliefs or ideas. In my mind, it is about power and the systematic exclusion of a racial group from the exercise of power. Discrimination, on the other hand, is closer to what many on this board have identified as racism. It is the carrying out of prejudice in action.
I view it as very important to identify exactly what is meant by racism when people throw around the charge because it is particularly serious in our society as it is in some others. To associate it too much with discrimination or prejudice as if they are one in the same lowers the bar too far, if you ask me.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,884
|
Bonds
Jun 14, 2005 22:34:53 GMT -5
Post by CTHoya08 on Jun 14, 2005 22:34:53 GMT -5
Personally, I think any hatred based on ethnic/racial grounds is racism. I think slavery is an example of why racism is so horrible, displaying the result of racist policies. I think there is a difference between racism and racist acts, with the former being the hatred, and the latter the injustices motivated by that hatred.
|
|
|
Bonds
Jun 14, 2005 22:41:41 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 14, 2005 22:41:41 GMT -5
How do you differentiate racism from prejudice/discrimination? Is racism merely a subset of prejudice/discrimination but reserved for acts/beliefs motivated by racial overtones?
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,884
|
Bonds
Jun 14, 2005 22:49:02 GMT -5
Post by CTHoya08 on Jun 14, 2005 22:49:02 GMT -5
That's how I see it. I view racism as a particularly ugly type of prejudice. It can be held by someone of any race against any other group.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Bonds
Jun 15, 2005 8:55:44 GMT -5
Post by Cambridge on Jun 15, 2005 8:55:44 GMT -5
That's how I see it. I view racism as a particularly ugly type of prejudice. It can be held by someone of any race against any other group. I see your point, but I just choose to utilize a more nuanced distinction between racism and racial prejudice...not that it's correct, according to the esteemed Noah Webster, but more to create a hierarchy of moral repugnancy . Also, to clarify, I was not saying that all whites who hold racially prejudiced beliefs were racists, while blacks who held racially prejudiced beliefs were not. It's just that in our society, it is much easier and more common for whites to acheive all the requirements of racism -- as I see it. But, again, very interesting discussion. I find it fascinating that so much of the disagreement between left, right and center revolves around semantics, tone and definition of terms. The more we can open calm, rational dialogues, the more we can understand that at the core there are far more similarities than we are often willing or able to admit or at least we can see the logic even should we not agree. Thanks to thebin, jersey and CT for your thoughts. Keep it up.
|
|