African-Americans comprise 9% of the population of Los Angeles County, but are victims in 59% of all race-hate crimes

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No. But you're still talking in innuendo. I just keep wondering what you actually have to back it up...

Don Imus.. Where his comments not taken out of context?? Was he not left to hang?

I am still waiting for the apology from people like Jesse Jackson who publicly condemned the guys involved with Duke Lacrosse AND turned it into a race issue.. Or is he, conveniently, an extremist as well??

The statement Imus made was explicitly racist. As to whether he knew that to be the case or not is another question. That said it got way more press than it really should have done, same with Michael Richards and Mel Gibson.

Why would 'you' (as in you personally) want an apology from Jesse Jackson? That said - Jesse Jackson isn't what most people would call a person of 'moderate views'. Regardless of his public standing...

[Stabu 0]

My reading of your statement above leads me to believe that you consciously refuse to associate with certain groups of people.

You misunderstood my quote. I referred to myself as a nobody in order to make sure that no-one would think by accident that I would somehow regard myself more highly then others or look at the world above from a naïve academic ivory tower.

I don't have issues associating with any person as long as he has manners and treats other people in a respectable fashion. As a side note I still currently live in Finland which has the least immigrants in the whole western world (percentage vice) so there aren't really other people to associate with than Whites. I personally know currently only one Black person (an economist), I know like five Chinese, a couple Indians (computer engineers all) and around 20 Turks/Arabs (they run ethnic restaurants). After saying this, I do however use common sense and e.g. avoid certain kinds of people in a dark alley (this however has little to do with race). I learned my lesson after being robbed once a few years back.

The reason why I'm "defending" what some people would regard as "racism" is because I want to defend the freedom of speech and the Western culture in general. It is easy to ban bigotry and even making it illegal but once that step is taken, many more will follow. I find it unfair that White people in general have to constantly apologise for their own existence, especially in the US.

Also, if a white man consciously refuses to associated with, say, men of African descent - does that make him racist, in your opinion? What if the same white man consciously refuses to hire a men of African descent, as a matter of principle? If he a racist?

I've never really defined racism to myself but if I would, I would define it rather narrowly. If you refuse to associate with men of certain race and refuse to hire them, I would see it being in the borderline of being racist. What I absolutely consider racism is supporting of political (or violent) action against certain groups of people. Examples of this include the southern laws (during slavery) which banned the teaching of Blacks. Another good example of this were the southern segregation laws which made segregation mandatory, regardless what the business owner himself thought about the issue.

[Geist 0]

Most of the whites who are blamed for racism are nobodies (just like me for example) who just use the wrong word, refuse to associate with certain groups of people, refuse to hire certain persons or equal.

My reading of your statement above leads me to believe that you consciously refuse to associate with certain groups of people.

That is silly though, because everyone refuses to associate with certain groups of people. Myself, I prefer not to associate with people who are too loud, impolite and generally make themselves look like jackasses in public. The good thing about prefering not to associate with such people is that they are easily seen in advance, and can be avoided (those drunk people dancing on the table tops? Easy to avoid )

[Caladan 19]

This conversation is getting quite bizarre. Do we have people seriously arguing that they think that minorities are genetically less intelligent, that the White Man is the only one to contribute anything to civilization, that they wouldn't hire a black man, that a poll that shows that some Hispanics have negative attitudes about blacks proves that all the stereotypes are true, that it's so unfair because they can't use the word n*gger, and that they want to preserve White America against the hordes of Hispanic immigrants, that they wouldn't associate outside their own kind because you know what those people are like...

....but they're not racist because they haven't actually lynched anyone?

Rather a low bar, isn't it?

[Stabu 0]

Must have forgotten the Mesopotamians (creators of the first written language). They weren't exactly 'white'.

As far as I know ancient history the Mesopotamians influenced the Greeks rather little. The Greeks where more influenced by the Egyptians (who also influenced the Mesopotamians). I didn't say that there wouldn't be high cultures (or civilizations is the more proper English word I assume) outside the Western world. There have been the Chinese, the Indians, the Mesopotamians, the Egyptians, the Carthagese, the Mayans, the Incas and the Aztecs at least. I also pointed out that this has nothing to do with genes or equal, but mostly it's a question of a series of happy events that led the West where it is today. You should realize this at least after you make a list of explorers, scientist and philosophers who you can name. It will consist of mostly Whites (and Jews if you consider them to be non-White) and there's a good reason for this. After say mid 20th century you will find people from other races as well and currently (listing the fames of the early 21st century) it will probably consist of mostly Japanese, Chinese and Indians, which proves how the project of reason has become international and how it can be driven by anyone regardless of race (this will become more and more important especially now when Europe is slowly falling back into darkness).

Edited September 2, 2007 by Stabu

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't have issues associating with any person as long as he has manners and treats other people in a respectable fashion ... I do however use common sense and e.g. avoid certain kinds of people in a dark alley (this however has little to do with race).

Fair enough. We all avoid certain types of people, it's the definition of what those 'certain types' are that differentiate the racist from the prudent.

If you refuse to associate with men of certain race and refuse to hire them, I would see it being in the borderline of being racist.

By saying that's borderline racism, I suspect you see that as an area of some ambiguity. I'd like to better understand your perspective on this? Why is this so ambiguous? Is there a set of circumstances in which a blanket refusal to hire members of a certain race would be acceptable?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

After say mid 20th century you will find people from other races as well and currently (listing the fames of the early 21st century) it will probably consist of mostly Japanese, Chinese and Indians, which proves how the project of reason has become international and how it can be driven by anyone regardless of race (this will become more and more important especially now when Europe is slowly falling back into darkness).

I agree with you that the 'project of reason' (never heard it called that, but I like it) is now international and is being rapidly advanced by people all over the world, outside of the traditional boundaries of Western civilization.

That said, why do you feel Europe is slowly falling back into darkness?

[Caladan 19]

Must have forgotten the Mesopotamians (creators of the first written language). They weren't exactly 'white'.

As far as I know ancient history the Mesopotamians influenced the Greeks rather little. The Greeks where more influenced by the Egyptians (who also influenced the Mesopotamians). I didn't say that there wouldn't be high cultures (or civilizations is the more proper English word I assume) outside the Western world. There have been the Chinese, the Indians, the Mesopotamians, the Egyptians, the Carthagese, the Mayans, the Incas and the Aztecs at least. I also pointed out that this has nothing to do with genes or equal, but mostly it's a question of a series of happy events that led the West where it is today. You should realize this at least after you make a list of explorers, scientist and philosophers who you can name. It will consist of mostly Whites (and Jews if you consider them to be non-White) and there's a good reason for this. After say mid 20th century you will find people from other races as well and currently (listing the fames of the early 21st century) it will probably consist of mostly Japanese, Chinese and Indians, which proves how the project of reason has become international and how it can be driven by anyone regardless of race (this will become more and more important especially now when Europe is slowly falling back into darkness).

But that's only kinda sorta true if you start at the height of Europe's empires. Which really is cherrypicking the evidence. If you start 500 years earlier, all the scientific advances and mathematical advances, as well as preserving all of the philosophy of the West is done by Arab empires.

[Stabu 0]

Fair enough. We all avoid certain types of people, it's the definition of what those 'certain types' are that differentiate the racist from the prudent.

Well, I was robbed (or more like assaulted since he never got to the robbing part) by a Black male. This is a bit ironic considering the fact that there are almost none in Finland. Thus it was more a question of bad luck than anything else. What I mean by certain type of people, honestly, are people who are skinheads, hip hoppers or drunks, since I've gotten into trouble with all those people in the past. In general I avoid drinking and going to bars for the reason that I don't wanna get into fights. I've always been very self protecting and rather avoiding harm in advance.

By saying that's borderline racism, I suspect you see that as an area of some ambiguity. I'd like to better understand your perspective on this? Why is this so ambiguous? Is there a set of circumstances in which a blanket refusal to hire members of a certain race would be acceptable?

Well, I personally would consider it inappropriate and something that I wouldn't do, but I don't think that I have the right to label other people as racist who do this. In general I don't see this as a really harming form of racism, since in a free market it is impossible to shut people out like that. If a person would insist on being racist and not hire more capable workers of minority groups it would only hurt that particular businessman since there would be other businessmen who would gladly hire these people. The self interest will take care of the fact that no established racism is possible, unless it takes a political form. The problem is that if this would become standard practice, it would also show that the society has very racialist values and thus there would be a high risk of it becoming political racism, which is very dangerous and very condemnable.

[Heracles 417]

This conversation is getting quite bizarre. Do we have people seriously arguing that they think that minorities are genetically less intelligent, that the White Man is the only one to contribute anything to civilization, that they wouldn't hire a black man, that a poll that shows that some Hispanics have negative attitudes about blacks proves that all the stereotypes are true, that it's so unfair because they can't use the word n*gger, and that they want to preserve White America against the hordes of Hispanic immigrants, that they wouldn't associate outside their own kind because you know what those people are like...

....but they're not racist because they haven't actually lynched anyone?

Rather a low bar, isn't it?

You seem to be beating around the bush on this one.

Is it okay for someone black to talk highly about black people? yes/NO Therefore does the same apply to someone Caucasian bragging about white people, in the 'same' manner?? YES / NO

It just seems the second someone mentions the world white, in a positive way, they are branded a KKK loving, plantation owning, racist bigot.

[Caladan 19]

I haven't branded anyone anything. Nor am I beating around the bush. You haven't been praising white people; you've been putting down, well, pretty much anyone who isn't Australian. It isn't intellectual to think that the only ones who contributed to civilization are white people. It's false.

[mawilson 2,133]

But that's only kinda sorta true if you start at the height of Europe's empires. Which really is cherrypicking the evidence. If you start 500 years earlier, all the scientific advances and mathematical advances, as well as preserving all of the philosophy of the West is done by Arab empires.

It's not cherrypicking - we're looking at the end result.

True, the Arabs were advanced during the Dark Ages (of Europe), but what have they contributed lately?

Civilization as we know it was created in the last 300 years.

[Caladan 19]

Not the Dark Ages, mawilson. Through at least 16th century. How far do you think the Renaissance and Enlightenment gets without having Aristotle as a starting base? How do the medieval Europeans get their hands on Aristotle if not through Africa and the Mid-East? Bear in mind, too, there's a whole hell of a lot going on in China and Japan at the same time.... Japan was a world power before America was.

History just isn't teleological. It's just one damn thing after another. It would be like me saying that Americans are the only ones that contributed to world history because we're on top now. Well, okay, but America didn't create civilization then. If China flips the dollar, do we suddenly get narratives where the Chinese are the only true civilization?

[Heracles 417]

I haven't branded anyone anything. Nor am I beating around the bush. You haven't been praising white people; you've been putting down, well, pretty much anyone who isn't Australian. It isn't intellectual to think that the only ones who contributed to civilization are white people. It's false.

I don't have a problem with black or white or anyone not Australian. What I do have a problem with is the blatant double standards here.

Just the other week I spoke to someone who left a job because she was intimidated to do so, by her new manager. The manager told her that she only hires and works with black people. Call it second rate anecdotes or whatever other BS you guys can think of but this double standards is a reality; And is happening daily in America. The only difference is that people like yourself will deny it and the media will not touch it as they do not want to be branded a racist. It happened with that Michael Vic, who tortured those dogs. Even though his own friends admitted he did it, so many black people called this a witch hunt against a successful black man. Do I need to provide direct quotes or what..

Edited September 2, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Stabu 0]

But that's only kinda sorta true if you start at the height of Europe's empires. Which really is cherrypicking the evidence. If you start 500 years earlier, all the scientific advances and mathematical advances, as well as preserving all of the philosophy of the West is done by Arab empires.

Well... let's say we have a timeline of 10,000 years. Then you will get a result that civilization has been advanced by Whites and Arabs (almost) alone until around the 1950's. My point wasn't that Whites as such would be somehow superior. It's a color in the end. If you wanna find some absolute physical superiority it would probably be a grey bear and grey hair. The point was that the Western culture has proven itself to be superior and that culture starts comfortably with the Greeks (it doesn't mean that human culture itself would start with the Greeks, but the Greek contributed so much that the contributions before the Greeks can be said to be negligible).

Still, what comes to Arabs, I'm not sure how much they contributed themselves. In my view they more or less preserved the Greek tradition (which was of course extremely important). The only Arab philosopher who I can name without cheating is Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Muhammad Ibn Khaldun (I can name more Turks but they are more or less Whites I suppose if we want to stick to a few aggregates).