Racism - Ignored?

[Scaff]

Enjoy Scaff, took me all of 5 seconds on google.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html

Sorry but your response only shows one side of the reality, statistics rarely tell the whole story especially government ones

I have to disagree, your link shows only one side, in fact one specific case and a single case can never be representative of over77,000 processions and 55,000 convictions a year, which is approx 15,400 processions and 10,450 convictions a year from non-white ethnicities. I've clearly shown both sides of reality in providing figures for all prosecutions and convictions against population breakdown.

Your single case (as are mine from above) are all included in the overall figures provided in the linked sources.

Please keep in mind that you did say:

Hate crime laws in the UK dont apply to everyone which is why they are so unjust.
A group of white kids beat up an asian kid and its a hate crime. Switch that around and its an 'assault' or GBH/ABH.

Clearly implying that non-whites never get charged with hate crimes, when in truth around 15,400 processions and 10,450 convictions occur each year for non-white. A slightly higher percentage the non-whites make up in terms of population (19% vs 12%).

Oh and the figures are the CPS's which makes them independent from government as they are a Non-ministerial department, the are no more run by the government than the Police or ONS are, and in fact figures and stats produced by these departments (in particular the CPS and ONS) regularly cause governments headaches.


Scaff

 

[berty1979]

So there are no ambiguity in those statistics ?
I dont buy it personally.
My link shows a disgusting case of a vicious racial assault which was highly publicised at the time but I suspect it is only the tip of the iceburg unfortunatley.

My point is that everyone should have the same protection in law, not one more than the other.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

My point is that everyone should have the same protection in law, not one more than the other.

Which Scaff just proved...you see it differently even though it has been shown to the level you want it.

So I'm still confused? I also (not you specifically) see an issue with people crying wolf in and of themselves to get a reaction. In other words when a black person or white or whatever does something wrong and is called out for it they jump to a race factor. I had this issue some time ago at a place I use to work, a black teen was riding around on a motorized cart while his friends were laughing. I was informed that they had been doing this for a while and asked by another worker to see if he really needed it, it was obvious he didn't because he and his friends were driving around laughing it up. I asked him and he instantly jumped to saying we were racist all but me probably "because you're the same color as me" he said.

So I see other people projecting racism upon themselves as well that is a big issue. That is unacceptable and irritates me, he was misusing the one motorized cart we had, and in a place where a majority of our customers were 50+ and usually needed it. Yet instead of taking responsibility for not acting his age or being mature, he uses the race card. This goes for those saying that one race is discriminated more than another and they happen to be the race they're claiming that has this injustice. It all become ever so tiresome.

P.S. In reality I'm only part black so I also find it stupid that people like to jump to the idea that if you see a certain color they're a certain race.

 

[berty1979]

Definitley not proved by the CPS document. Proof is in people experiencing racism whether it is positive or negative (or both) and this only applies to that one individual.
We all know that there is good and bad in all races and patterns in behaviour can usually be put down to many other factors aside from skin colour/culture.
Playing the race card is all too common in todays society, I could go into my own personal experiences but that would be utterly pointless because we all have our own mindset on the issue.
This is the opinions section, and you have mine

 

[Nessy]

Playing the race card is all too common in todays society,

See, this is what worries me, i'm not denying and naive enough to believe that this doesn't happen from time to time (playing the race card), what bothers me, is that when people are actually racially discriminated against, or find themselves a victim of hate crime etc, and when they speak out against it... they are usually met with the comment "oh he/she, is just playing the race card" (apologies, not pin-pointing on you berty, just the commonly used phrase). It seems to me that the phrase is used sometimes, to just brush the real issue under the carpet (so to speak)... i actually have worked with racist people who like to use this phrase to somehow justify their bigoted attitudes, and i feel the term/phrase is banded about far too frequently in today's society... imo.

 

[berty1979]

Very good point^^
It is used by both racists and victims of crime.
This is where it becomes very complicated

 

[Scaff]

So there are no ambiguity in those statistics ?
I dont buy it personally.
My link shows a disgusting case of a vicious racial assault which was highly publicised at the time but I suspect it is only the tip of the iceburg unfortunatley.

My point is that everyone should have the same protection in law, not one more than the other.

Ambiguity exists in everything but I don't understand why you would willingly dismiss independently produced statistics but are quite happy to accept a single news report (from a paper with a fairly large bias).

You're link is to a news report (as I freely admit I also provided) and as such will always contain bias, the CPS stats I provided document prosecution requests received from the Police and how many of those resulted in prosecutions, broken down by ethnicity.

Now while a few anolmolies may well exist in them I'm a lot more confident in using data from a sample set of tens of thousands than the one you are using.


Scaff

 

[berty1979]

This is not about me arguing with you, that wont make a difference. My link was just an example of something that happened excactly as was described (as reported by the BBC and various other newspapers at the time).
I will state once again that I believe the system to be unfair and I dont trust official statistics.

 

[dautolover]

Okay, if we are to take racism as a negative bias because of appearance, I can say I naturally find women that are not caucasian in general less interesting. Am I being racist?

I would hardly say that your lack (or decreased) interest in non-Caucasian women is natural, though. We inherit notions of beauty from a bunch of places (parents, friends, media, advertisements--most women in fashion magazines are white) and most these notions of beauty are influenced by notions of race.

Here's one question... when you say "less interesting" are you saying that a woman's race determines whether you will approach them or not?

So do you know anything about the case? For instance if the person arrested was even a different race than the arresting officer?

Oddly enough, why does this case get no attention from the media at all?

I don't think it matters what race the person that arrested the young man was. And yes, not all hate crimes are given the attention they deserve. That needs to change, soon.

I remember promising this link such a long time ago: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/

And what do you guys think about the Trayvon Martin case?

 

[dautolover]

This is not about me arguing with you, that wont make a difference. My link was just an example of something that happened excactly as was described (as reported by the BBC and various other newspapers at the time).
I will state once again that I believe the system to be unfair and I dont trust official statistics.

Then what kind of information or stats will move you to change your mind? Who funds it? How should it be conducted? What questions should be asked?

 

[Liquid]

So we all know that each country has its people who are tolerant, and those who are intolerant.

I'm in an area of Germany where there are a fair few intolerant people. It's not all of them, but there are a few. But the thing is, is that it's prelevant in the school where I teach.

It's a case of "If you're white, you're alright". Several times in lessons there have been instances of children using the N-word, including to directly answer a question where the person in the picture was Naomi Campbell; we were doing indefinite pronouns (The one, this one, that one) and the answer this student gave was "The one who is a...". I've been told that when the school have gone to London in the past, they point and laugh at black people on the train, which I found disgusting and horrifying.

With the Naomi Campbell incident, the teacher phoned the parents and told them that that sort of language was unacceptable in the classroom and something needed to be done and the father responded saying that it's okay because they say it and think it's fine and he won't discourage his son in any way.

I brought this issue up with some other collegues to talk about racism in Germany generally and we agreed that saying the N-word was unacceptable, but then they said that they were so used to saying it that it's difficult for them, even as adults, to stop. It's apparently been acceptable in German society to say it for a number of years, and it's only started to change recently. What doesn't help for example, is that there's a sweet in Germany which is a chocolate bell filled with cream and its name is "N-word Kiss". When I said that you just can't say that, one of my collegues said that I have no right to speak on the behalf of the black community. My response was to ask her if she would address a black person directly, to their face, as an N-word, given that it's "okay" to say it.

I got no response.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

... racism is a product of fear and ignorance, I've never seen a single piece of evidence to support the claim that racism is natural at all.

I do not see a contradiction in fear and ignorance are natural.

In that discussion I believe both are right.
1) Racism is natural.
2) Racism is the result of fear and ignorance.

I was reading yesterday evening a professor that claimed that we all try to belong, e.g. if a 1.5 year old see the mother hurt herself, the infant will try to comfort the mother, to be moral in the environment they belong. This moment is where we are most receptive and where we build our habits. We learn where we belong and what does not belong.
We get defensive compared to the unknown, the one that does not belong. Racism is obvious, unless you come out of a very mixed family you will have some xenophobe reactions against the "races" you do not know.
This is purely based on "fear and ignorance" and intellectually you can put yourself above that seeing that there is 1 Human Race: Homo Sapiens. However that will not change your impulses, your instinct (fast not reflective reaction), you will remain racist, you know what belongs and what not.

This is not exclusive between races, it is valid for language, social behavior, ... anything different, even sexism.

To behave correctly is not only an intellectual step of recognizing there is 1 Human Race: Homo Sapiens; It is a continues struggle to fight the instincts you built to protect yourself and that steer you impulses.


@AlexGTV: If you discriminate on the basis of what you call race (caucasian), that is racism. Discrimination is natural as well. As long as you respect the rights of all people equally, you can have a racist way of choosing .... Actually you probably will not be able to avoid it fully.

@ MazdaPrice You are talking political correctness. I do support political correctness, but it seems up to the people attacked to defend themselves. I came across this quote on the subject today:

It is not he who reviles or strikes you who insults you, but your opinion that these things are insulting. (Epictetus)

@ dautolover Trayvon Martin I started a discussion in the Human Rights thread, defending the rights of both parties. It is a good illustration of the struggle I talked about above.

@At 1ness The Race Card is not the one to pull, all people are equal, if your rights are violated you should defend your rights, no matter what the motives of the violation. Aggravated circumstances is a cultural thing as much as mitigating ones, it does not change the rights, it might change the judgment, but it should never be based on race.

 

[berty1979]

dautolover
Then what kind of information or stats will move you to change your mind? Who funds it? How should it be conducted? What questions should be asked?

My own personal experiences of people from different races along with my ability to rationalize are the only things that will change my mind on this subject. I consider this a topic that unfortunatley cannot be 'solved'.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

My point is that everyone should have the same protection in law, not one more than the other.

You are not the only one luckily. I fully support the point above.

Now I have been struggling with Hate Crimes in this context.
When people have done a crime because they "Hate" a certain group (their definition of group) this can be an aggravating circumstance on the crime. It will show the persons are ready to fall in the crime again when they encounter that group. Thus punishing harder for "Hate" crimes seems logical, compared to "Not Hate" crimes. But it has all to do with the motivations of the aggressor, which are difficult to prove; it has nothing to do with the victim, they should all be equal in front of justice.

 

[Keef]

My point is that everyone should have the same protection in law, not one more than the other.

The only way to provide equal protection is to have broadly-written laws that make no mention of any race or religion or "minority" or "majority" in any way. We used to have that in this country, but nowadays we have an entire suite of "affirmative action" laws which specifically benefit minority races in various ways, and that fact is written in the language of these laws.

 

[Pupik]

Discussion of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman (and/or the Sanford Police Department, et al) can go in this thread.

Seems to be relevant enough to warrant its own thread, although similar in nature.

 

[dautolover]

My own personal experiences of people from different races along with my ability to rationalize are the only things that will change my mind on this subject. I consider this a topic that unfortunatley cannot be 'solved'.

If you are going to base your views on your own personal experiences and on your interactions with people of different races, then it would be sensible to assume that a good, well-informed viewpoint can only arise if you actually interact with people of different races (considerably) and can objectively rationalize these experiences...

But then we get to some problems. Consider this... I, for instance, I have never seen any plantations of any sort. Someone tells me how irrigation systems work, how a plantation is dependent on this system, and that some plantations prosper in certain seasons. This person can produce documentation that proves these things. Assume that I say that all of those things are crap, that I don't believe them, that they're made up, that I've never seen these things in my entire life, so they're probably not true.

Just because I've never seen plantations or irrigation systems at work doesn't mean that they're bs. Similarly, just because you haven't personally seen something, does not mean that it does not exist. Odds are, you will not meet every single person who is not white, ask them about their lives, etc. That's what stats are for. Your drive to base your views merely on personal experience is noble, but it misses a lot of aspects that you may be unfamiliar with.

The only way to provide equal protection is to have broadly-written laws that make no mention of any race or religion or "minority" or "majority" in any way. We used to have that in this country, but nowadays we have an entire suite of "affirmative action" laws which specifically benefit minority races in various ways, and that fact is written in the language of these laws.

When was this?

I do not see a contradiction in fear and ignorance are natural.

In that discussion I believe both are right.
1) Racism is natural.
2) Racism is the result of fear and ignorance.

Racism is not natural. It's actually socially learned. The reason we don't "trust" people of other races is because
a) we have preconceived notions of who they are (we learn these notions from family, media, etc, but not from nature)
b) we don't interact with them. We don't interact with them not because we're scared but because we're still residentially segregated, to the point that neighborhoods are mostly white, mostly black, mostly Latino, etc. And we're still segregated because of housing regulations back in the day that maintained these neighborhoods racially exclusive. Why would we do such a thing? Because we believed, back then, that some races were more superior than others and that intermingling would lead to chaos and to the degradation of the white race. And we believed this because, even further back, we had to construct a meaning of race that would legitimate the enslavement of blacks and that would give poor whites, as WEB DuBois argues, a psychological wage for their white skin (a wage that compensated for their poverty, a wage which currency consisted of white skin color).

No, there's nothing natural to racism. Racism is as natural as a TV (for Americans) or as smog (for Californians).

 

[AlexGTV]

No, there's nothing natural to racism. Racism is as natural as a TV (for Americans) or as smog (for Californians).

I disagree. Maybe the degree to which the media feed racism is greater than the natural tendency, but for me it's a delusion to speak of racism as entirely artificial.

I won't go further than myself for justification. While now as an adult I'm not racist to gyspies as I can put myself to their position and feel their culture, I remember as a little child feeling uncomfortable close to a gypsy kid because his darker skin and more loud attitude seemed to me as more primitive, as less human. And it was the first time I saw a gypsy.

The truth is humans are shaped by their environment. I can't live the lifestyle of bushmen hunting down rhinos, just as they can't put a tie and exercise their public relations in an insurance office. Or at least it would be a tough transition. As long as we reckognise that, we rationalise racism, i.e. not taking account of the other's environment, and its bubble bursts.

 

[photonrider]

The visually impaired aren't racist. Naturally.

 

[Caz]

The visually impaired aren't racist. Naturally.

Google Clayton bigsby.

 

[photonrider]

LOL.

"That Clayton Bigsby did me in. I'm baked, man!"

But fictional, and therefore a parody. I prefer my 'Black Bush', Irish, and out of a bottle.

Now I'll have to go google Desmond Morris. Just to re-orient.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Google Clayton bigsby.

I was nearly about to drink my soda, then I saw your post. If I had seen it I would have choked on it. Too funny. Dave Chapelle reference for the win.

 

[dautolover]

I won't go further than myself for justification. While now as an adult I'm not racist to gyspies as I can put myself to their position and feel their culture, I remember as a little child feeling uncomfortable close to a gypsy kid because his darker skin and more loud attitude seemed to me as more primitive, as less human. And it was the first time I saw a gypsy.

The truth is humans are shaped by their environment. I can't live the lifestyle of bushmen hunting down rhinos, just as they can't put a tie and exercise their public relations in an insurance office. Or at least it would be a tough transition. As long as we reckognise that, we rationalise racism, i.e. not taking account of the other's environment, and its bubble bursts.

Well, I don't think that as kids we even think about notions of primitivity and civility. We learn what is customary and normal from our families. The ideas that we ought not talk with our mouths full, dress a certain way in certain social events, how we talk to friends, parents, elders, and teachers... None of these customs are embedded in nature. They are embedded in society.

As such, attributing skin color, and the way gypsies talk to notions of primitivity, you were drawing from socially established ideas of what a civilized person should look like (white) and how he or she should talk...

Yes, we are shaped by our environment, whether it be natural or social.

Google Clayton bigsby.

Lmao. +1

 

[LeMansAid]

I think it may have been last year some time that I heard talk of a possible one off black vs white game in Australia's sport of AFL. It didn't happen, but do people here find that an offensive proposal?

After enduring hearing footy bogans trying oh so hard to sound pc, the stance that I ultimately ended up with was that if anything it'd be a sign of maturity to be able to stage such an event. To be able to view it as no more than an arbitrary point of difference, no different to: country vs country, state vs state, suburb vs suburb, or friend vs friend.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think it may have been last year some time that I heard talk of a possible one off black vs white game in Australia's sport of AFL. It didn't happen, but do people here find that an offensive proposal?

After enduring hearing footy bogans trying oh so hard to sound pc, the stance that I ultimately ended up with was that if anything it'd be a sign of maturity to be able to stage such an event. To be able to view it as no more than an arbitrary point of difference, no different to: country vs country, state vs state, suburb vs suburb, or friend vs friend.

If the players themselves want to do it, it's nobody else's business. If people don't like it, don't go to the game.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I think it may have been last year some time that I heard talk of a possible one off black vs white game in Australia's sport of AFL. It didn't happen, but do people here find that an offensive proposal?

After enduring hearing footy bogans trying oh so hard to sound pc, the stance that I ultimately ended up with was that if anything it'd be a sign of maturity to be able to stage such an event. To be able to view it as no more than an arbitrary point of difference, no different to: country vs country, state vs state, suburb vs suburb, or friend vs friend.

Was it a black v white game, or was it an Aboriginal Australian team in much the same idea as the New Zealand Maori All Blacks, where it is the player's ancestry that is the qualifying factor?

 

[Encyclopedia]

I think it may have been last year some time that I heard talk of a possible one off black vs white game in Australia's sport of AFL. It didn't happen, but do people here find that an offensive proposal?

After enduring hearing footy bogans trying oh so hard to sound pc, the stance that I ultimately ended up with was that if anything it'd be a sign of maturity to be able to stage such an event. To be able to view it as no more than an arbitrary point of difference, no different to: country vs country, state vs state, suburb vs suburb, or friend vs friend.

Seems like a pretty weird idea for a game to me, offensive or not.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Seems like a pretty weird idea for a game to me, offensive or not.

When I was in high school many moons ago, we had an annual baseball game called the "Annual Wops vs. Cakes Baseball Game". We put up flyers around the school with those very words on it. Hundreds of fans turned up, Italians down one base line, Anglos down the other, other nationalities sat where they pleased. A good time was had by all, lots of shouting and poking of fun at each other, racial slurs flew left right and centre, then we all went home. You had to be Italian to be on one team, Anglo on the other, other nationalities weren't allowed to play. No one got hurt, no one got angry, no one fought, everyone had a great time.

If someone tried to do that now, it would make national headlines, heads would roll at the school for allowing the posters to go up, we'd all be thrown into sensitivity training and legislation would be proposed outlawing the use of both "wops" and "cakes".

 

[Keef]

Why on earth would the white team want to guarantee a loss by playing a black team? That's idiotic.

Extreme racism against blacks is part of my stereotype of Australia. I see it as a much more widespread thing than the regional problems we have in the US. The idea of a black vs. white sports game is more evidence of it. The idea isn't necessarily racist but the conclusions drawn after the game will probably be. The whole point of a sports game is to decide a winner and if the only difference between teams is the color of their players ten the natural conclusion would be that one is better than the other. That's a recipe for all sorts of retarded accusations that will inevitably get tossed around.

 

[Encyclopedia]

When I was in high school many moons ago, we had an annual baseball game called the "Annual Wops vs. Cakes Baseball Game". We put up flyers around the school with those very words on it. Hundreds of fans turned up, Italians down one base line, Anglos down the other, other nationalities sat where they pleased. A good time was had by all, lots of shouting and poking of fun at each other, racial slurs flew left right and centre, then we all went home. You had to be Italian to be on one team, Anglo on the other, other nationalities weren't allowed to play. No one got hurt, no one got angry, no one fought, everyone had a great time.

If someone tried to do that now, it would make national headlines, heads would roll at the school for allowing the posters to go up, we'd all be thrown into sensitivity training and legislation would be proposed outlawing the use of both "wops" and "cakes".

Well we live in a very global world now and things tend to spread to a much larger amount of people when before it would just get kept within the group. And racially charged derogatory comments do rile up emotions (and rightly so). So it is only natural that it would create controversy in todays world.