Don't Crowley me bro!

[jrrrrrrr]

Although it is a fact that cops are notorious for having a much more watchful eye when black people are involed (I can find studies to back this up if someone is really so lazy that they cant look them up, I am just assuming that everybody already accepts this fact), I really don't see any racism in this case. The usually honorable Mr. Sharpton is misguided here. If it was a white person who looked like they were trying to rob a house, the cops would have arrived and responded in just the same fashion. I think people in the media are looking at the "white cops arrest black man" part and not the "man acts like a douche to cops and gets arrested" part.

Granted, nobody here knows all the facts, but from what we do know this is a retarded story that only furthers racial divides in this country. Gotta love American media, who actually watches this bullshit?

 

[Oddish On Fire]

There is no such thing as "reverse racism."

Racial preferences are racial preferences regardless of which particular race they favor or impede. Just call it what it is lit, racism proper.

Just the same as there isn't "reverse sexism" for whenever a woman engages in misandry. Sexism is actually more ironic given that in most of the places it is given any attention (ie women are not inherently inferior or private property like in China or the Middle East), women are the majority of the population. However, they tend to be too busy backbiting each other to get anything done, and are usually subservient to some other cause before the sisterhood. Usually it involves being a physical extension of a white male democrat politician's trousers, with predictable impact on credibility.

I hate collectivism based on immutable (or supposedly immutable) characteristics to begin with. I have absolutely no legitimate claim to the greatness of the Founding Father's, Plato, Gallileo, or Albert Einstein just because I was born with a comparable skin pigmentation.

If people want to celebrate achievements by racial or cultural proxy, fine by me. It's ultimately a productive economic activity.

I think the greatest unintended consequence, at least on the national scale, is that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly" is going to be on Obama's epitaph, just like "I am not a crook," "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," and "Read my lips. No new taxes." Never mind it sets up its own attack ad campaign in the formula "President Obama did x, President Obama acted stupidly."

By reverse racism, I meant racism towards the majority instead of the minority. It just simply shortens what otherwise would be sentence. Also, I did not mean to imply that no curtural/racial groups should exist. I just meant to imply that only allowing minorities to celebrate their differences is simply racist.

Great post though DK, and I agree with the large majority minus the obvious (although hilarious) stabs at the left.

 

[Wishy]

By reverse racism, I meant racism towards the majority instead of the minority. It just simply shortens what otherwise would be sentence. Also, I did not mean to imply that no curtural/racial groups should exist. I just meant to imply that only allowing minorities to celebrate their differences is simply racist.

Great post though DK, and I agree with the large majority minus the obvious (although hilarious) stabs at the left.

Racism: hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

How is 'yippee I'm black!' racism? Neither is 'I'm white, yay me!'. I urge you to go back and read my post, which was directly bellow yours.

 

[The Plant]

Racism: hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

How is 'yippee I'm black!' racism? Neither is 'I'm white, yay me!'. I urge you to go back and read my post, which was directly bellow yours.

By the definition used by almost every authority yes it is. I actually tried to found a white heritage club. Do you know what I was told by the coordinator of student activities? "White people have no culture."

 

[Lexite]

By the definition used by almost every authority yes it is. I actually tried to found a white heritage club. Do you know what I was told by the coordinator of student activities? "White people have no culture."

Wow that is just narrow minded and retarded, not to mention racist. Yes white people have culture. Take a look at Sweden, Scotland, Ireland just to name a few, they have lots of culture. I could see that not as many white people in the US have much cultural enrichment but that would be due to no longer caring about their culture from the countries that their ancestors are from.

 

[Doctor Heartbreak]

well, the massive differences between irish, scottish and swedish culture kind of suggest that white-skinned people don't have one universal culture, which is probably what the co-ordinator meant

in fact right now i can only think of one cultural trait all predominantly white societies share: social/religious consumption of alcohol. anyone got any others?

 

[akuchi]

Just the same as there isn't "reverse sexism" for whenever a woman engages in misandry. Sexism is actually more ironic given that in most of the places it is given any attention (ie women are not inherently inferior or private property like in China or the Middle East), women are the majority of the population. However, they tend to be too busy backbiting each other to get anything done, and are usually subservient to some other cause before the sisterhood. Usually it involves being a physical extension of a white male democrat politician's trousers, with predictable impact on credibility.

Because that wasn't sexist at all!

 

[Oddish On Fire]

Racism: hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

How is 'yippee I'm black!' racism? Neither is 'I'm white, yay me!'. I urge you to go back and read my post, which was directly bellow yours.

I already read your post. Perhaps you should read the world "only" in mine? I'm saying that if only certain groups are allowed to celebrate their diversity instead of all groups, it is racist. I stated that VERY clearly.

 

[WaterBomb]

The usually honorable Mr. Sharpton

lol...

Incidentally, there is an actual term for this "reverse racism" you guys speak of. It's called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!

I would like to point out one thing that many people have overlooked. Most of us who have posted in this thread are educated enough to see the idiocy of this event, and the equal idiocy of Obama's statement. But try to remember that the majority of the United States population is exponentially more ignorant, and probably is buying into all this shit. Consequently, the ignorant portion of the population far outnumbers the educated portion, which ends up translating to one thing: VOTES!!

I'm willing to wager Obama thought the exact same thing we did when we read this story. "What the fuck?" But as a President who wishes to remain in office for another term some day, you must be careful what you say when the camera is on you. Obama could have sided with the "right" people, but the consequences in bad publicity because of it would have been far greater than those of what he actually said. Do you see a huge uproar over his defending Gates? No. Would there have been a more massive backlash from the ignorants had he defended the "white" police? You bet your ass there would. Obama is not stupid, he's being a shrewd politician, and trying to keep as many voters on his side as possible.

 

[Polis4rule]

Just some minor nitpicks

Hispanics don't have their native tongue, they have Spanish, adopted (or some would say forced), upon them through their Spanish conquerers,

Ignorant. Most of Latin American nations are made up of Mestizos, which is the admixture of European and Amerindian. So no, they were raised to speak Spanish (as they have Spanish genes in them). Additionally, pure Amerindians make up a minority of the population of Latin America; whites outnumber them greatly. Hispanic isn't a racial group as well, it is an ethnic group.

African Americans speak English because they were raised (even as slaves), in an English-speaking household. European influence, i.e. Europeans have re-invented certain minorities' cultures, so much so I find it sad when someone is trying to say "I don't wanna be whitewashed" while speaking perfect European tongue, and attending a European religious facility, like Church. The culture they had is already disolved, they can only try and re-invent what they have been forced to learn and make it their own, such as "Ebonics" or common slang being used by some African Americans, geared towards exclusive use within their communities.

The point isn't to bring about African culture, it's to bring about African American culture.

The point is, white culture is rampant in America.

And this isn't being racist?

In fact, many American minorities, like African Americans, will have to admit that White Americans have (including negatively) molded their culture from the beginning,

Bolded for truth

Point is, white culture took over and affect other cultures they conquered,

No, as the cultures in Africa and Asia remained largely intact for the most part (unless there was significant European immigration). In fact, the only places where Euro culture truly "took over" was in the New World, where European immigration and diseases destroying the native populations made Europeans either the majority or significant minority of the land. Others, whether moving on their own or forced to enter this world, assimilated. They weren't taken over.

I can't believe people see past the "I'm filled with white culture in school, holidays, language, religion, educational set-up, and rampant majority all around the country overall.

Seriously, how do you not see this as racism? I am assuming you live in the US, in which case whites at one point made up 90% of the population. They currently make up 68%, which is a healthy majority. When there is a large majority, you can be sure that they will set up things how they like to live.

whereas trying to learn about some minority cultures in school or even in libraries is much harder especially in 3rd world countries like 'Uruguay'"

Two things. One, there is plenty of information on Uruguay, and two, Uruguay has a HDI of .859 >.>

Try saying that when you are American with French, English, Italian, etc. in you. You have a much easier time finding your own heritage than some children born in American whose parents or grandparents are born in unpopular (mostly non-European) 3rd world countries.

So white people can't have heritage or have spouses of different ethnicities? That's what you just told me.

 

[Wishy]

I already read your post. Perhaps you should read the world "only" in mine? I'm saying that if only certain groups are allowed to celebrate their diversity instead of all groups, it is racist. I stated that VERY clearly.

Well it obviously didn't click.

It isn't racist for African-Americans to celebrate their heritage because, you wanna know why? When I open a history text book, or when I go to school I don't have to look very far (at all) to find white culture. White culture is so ingrained within everyone's daily life. We rarely discuss other races/cultures in history class (aka modern western school system) I cannot name a single important figure in Mexican culture. Why shouldn't other cultures be given a time to teach their young ones and celebrate their own cultures to escape the whitewashed society they live in?

 

[WaterBomb]

We rarely discuss other races/cultures in history class (aka modern western school system) I cannot name a single important figure in Mexican culture.

I'm not sure what they are teaching these days in school, but it can't be too radically different from what I learned. And I can tell you we learned about several important figures in Mexican culture, including Pancho Villa, Santa Anna, and Montezuma (going back to the Aztecs). Not to be rude, but I think the problem is that you're not paying attention, not that the teachers aren't discussing it.

I can tell you, being an actual History teacher, that embedded in our curriculum is a wealth of relevant knowledge that involves minorities and their culture. Teaching about all sides of our history, in fact, is one of our main focal points and is DEMANDED by the administration. Don't go generalizing about the entire western school system when the only knowledge you have of it is the schools you've attended, which accounts for about three or four out of the hundreds of thousands of schools in the country.

 

[Eraddd]

I'm not sure what they are teaching these days in school, but it can't be too radically different from what I learned. And I can tell you we learned about several important figures in Mexican culture, including Pancho Villa, Santa Anna, and Montezuma (going back to the Aztecs). Not to be rude, but I think the problem is that you're not paying attention, not that the teachers aren't discussing it.

I can tell you, being an actual History teacher, that embedded in our curriculum is a wealth of relevant knowledge that involves minorities and their culture. Teaching about all sides of our history, in fact, is one of our main focal points and is DEMANDED by the administration. Don't go generalizing about the entire western school system when the only knowledge you have of it is the schools you've attended, which accounts for about three or four out of the hundreds of thousands of schools in the country.

I'm sorry, but he has a point. Just because you learned about all about those figures doesn't mean that eveyrone else definitely has. History bias is everywhere. Hell, my textbook glorifies Canadians as the majour players in WWII when really, the Americans, British and the Russians had majority of the roles. It's just a shift of views. Western Canadian culture pretty much is against separatism. Guess what? Our textbooks portray separatists as irrational terrorist and the anti separatists as glorious heroes. I'm surprised that as an actual History teacher, you don't know what selectivity is.

 

[WaterBomb]

I know what selectivity is, I'm constantly fighting battles against it in efforts to give my students a more balanced education. Of course I'm not denying that there's selectivity in textbooks, as the textbooks in my classroom tend to glorify American deeds in certain situations like WWI, where in reality we didn't even enter the War until 1918, a few months before it ended. Of course the country you learn in is going to play up their own accomplishments, humans wrote the textbooks. I can obviously tell you're Canadian from your post, and it doesn't surprise me either. Despite that, I still find it hard to believe that the person I responded to before had not been taught ANY relevant Mexican culture/history, as all the names I mentioned were people that impacted US history as well. Just as I accused him of not having sufficient knowledge, I guess I have to admit that I, too, am somewhat "insufficient" in a relative sense, as I obviously have not attended and taught in every school in the country. I have lived and taught in several different regions however, and I attended some of my school in Scotland, so I got a good comparison picture. I still have faith in the American education system, and I think there are plenty of teachers out there that will see beyond the bias and teach their kids the truth.

 

[Deck Knight]

Because that wasn't sexist at all!

Nina Burleigh speaks for me:

"I'd Be Happy to Give Him [William Jefferson Clinton, serial womanizer, and 42nd President of the United States] [Monica Lewinsky's Forte] Just to
Thank Him for Keeping Abortion Legal"

As just one of countless examples where both my figurative and literal point stands.

RE: Mex History: You don't remember a significant figure in Mexican history? Do they not teach about Hernan Cortes anymore? Granted he's usually made into a villain of epic proportions for bringing literacy, agrarianism, religions not based on human sacrifices, and permanent housing war, disease, and RACISM to Mexico.

Furthermore, the idea that all African cultures are the same is equally silly. I somehow doubt the Nigerian, South African, Kenyan, and Egyptian share the same cultural values despite all being African and with dark skin tones.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

lol...

Incidentally, there is an actual term for this "reverse racism" you guys speak of. It's called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!

Typical white dribble. It's amazing that you would call others ignorant and implying that they are just sheep, immediately after saying something as laughable as this. Affirmative Action is based off of the fact that diversity benefits everyone. There are proven benefits to having a diverse workforce, in terms of social, educational benefits and boosts in productivity. There was a thread here a while ago on Affirmative Action where I posted a bunch of sources on this, idk where though. Affirmative Action isn't "reverse racist" or racist at all, you should read more about it instead of listening to what Glenn Beck is telling you.

I don't want to turn this into an affirmative action debate, but even if your baseless claim was true it would have no connection to this topic whatsoever. Acceptance and diversity in the workplace have nothing to do with a police situation involving one man, there is nothing about "white cops cant arrest black dudes" anywhere in affirmative action

Racist, not even comical.

The point is, white culture is rampant in America. In fact, many American minorities, like African Americans, will have to admit that White Americans have (including negatively) molded their culture from the beginning, and their effects will always affect the origin of Black American culture, so even in the distant future, there will be historical references to "...And so during times of slavery, African enslaved would sing as a symbol of unity... in an effort to overcome feelings of... due to the status given to them by their white, European slave masters..." (which is already in history books).

Point is, white culture took over and affect other cultures they conquered,

You missed Doctor Heartbreak's point. There is no "white culture" because white people come from everywhere. Are you saying that French culture is the same as Russian culture? Is German culture the same as English culture? When you say "white culture" you need to specify which white culture you are talking about, which is what he said. You almost figured this out yourself when you started talking about Africa and Latin America. English culture dominated the slave trade, while Spanish culture dominated Latin America. English culture and Spanish culture are so different that I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider them the same.

RE: Mex History: You don't remember a significant figure in Mexican history? Do they not teach about Hernan Cortes anymore? Granted he's usually made into a villain of epic proportions for bringing literacy, agrarianism, religions not based on human sacrifices, and permanent housing[/white] war, disease, and RACISM to Mexico.

Hernan Cortes is made into a villian because he arrived there uninvited and unannounced then immediately started murdering the natives and put himself in charge. That would make me a little upset if I were Mexican.

Oh and then there were all of those organized massacres of unarmed people he carried out, I'm sure that was just exaggerated so that ol' Hernie would look bad though!

 

[WaterBomb]

Typical white dribble. It's amazing that you would call others ignorant and implying that they are just sheep, immediately after saying something as laughable as this. Affirmative Action is based off of the fact that diversity benefits everyone. There are proven benefits to having a diverse workforce, in terms of social, educational benefits and boosts in productivity. There was a thread here a while ago on Affirmative Action where I posted a bunch of sources on this, idk where though. Affirmative Action isn't "reverse racist" or racist at all, you should read more about it instead of listening to what Glenn Beck is telling you.

I don't want to turn this into an affirmative action debate, but even if your baseless claim was true it would have no connection to this topic whatsoever. Acceptance and diversity in the workplace have nothing to do with a police situation involving one man, there is nothing about "white cops cant arrest black dudes" anywhere in affirmative action

I love how you say something like "I don't want this to turn into an affirmative action debate", right after you type a paragraph outlining your argument. That's like the prosecutor in a trial presenting his evidence and then saying "I don't want this to turn into a trial" so the defense doesn't have a chance to present their side. You accuse me of being ignorant, and using other insult tactics to try and irritate me such as referring to what I'm saying as "typical white dribble" and telling me to "stop listening to what Glenn Beck is telling you." All you're doing is stating your opinion and trying to make us believe it is absolute truth. You are entitled to think what you like of affirmative action, as am I. But the difference between us is that I am not accusing you of being ignorant or inferior. I respect your opinion for what it is, and I am not going to stoop to the level of petty insults.

And PS I don't listen to Glenn Beck. I'd much rather listen to Clarence Thomas, the black Supreme Court Justice who said that he hated Affirmative Action because "he wants to achieve a position because of merit, not the color of his skin."

I will concede to the fact that SOME people who are pro-affirmative action have their hearts in the right place. I think the idea of trying to undo some of the damage we [whites] have done to the black population is a noble one. Where I disagree is when this idea ends up only further asserting racial differences. I believe in complete racial equality. How does forcing a corporation or college to accept a minimum number of minority people bring down racial barriers?

Anyway, I don't care if you disagree with me, I'd just prefer that you do so in a respectful way. Please don't go around toting your opinion as if it were fact, and talking to others as if they are not entitled to have theirs.


EDIT: Incidentally, after going back and reading what I had posted before, I can see why it came across as ignorance. I could have found a more intelligent and less vague way of stating my opinion about affirmative action, but the statement was supposed to be more for humor. Guess I fail at jokes ;)

 

[Deck Knight]

Hernan Cortes is made into a villian because he arrived there uninvited and unannounced then immediately started murdering the natives and put himself in charge. That would make me a little upset if I were Mexican.

Oh and then there were all of those organized massacres of unarmed people he carried out, I'm sure that was just exaggerated so that ol' Hernie would look bad though!

Hernan Cortes, Che Guavera, same difference. Welcome to colonialism. Also, at the time I don't think there was a nation of "Mexico" inasmuch as the Aztec Emprire's capital was called Mexico City. By the Spaniards, mind. Either way most of the important figures in Western Hemispheric History are conquerors of one kind or another. Until you get enough tech to actually get some science going.

 

[Luduan]

RE: Mex History: You don't remember a significant figure in Mexican history? Do they not teach about Hernan Cortes anymore? Granted he's usually made into a villain of epic proportions for bringing literacy, agrarianism, religions not based on human sacrifices, and permanent housing war, disease, and RACISM to Mexico.

Ah yes, Hernán Cortés, exemplar of mission civilisatrice, nobly bringing the light of Christian Europe to those benighted heathens!

Unfortunately, I doubt the Amerindian populations of Hispaniola, Cuba, and Mesoamerica could enjoy the boons of literacy (they already had a written language, for that matter), after he killed most of them through massacre and disease; enslaved the rest; and had his men rape, pillage, and set dogs on recalcitrant natives -- all in the search for their gold and silver. But of course racism played no role, as your BOLD LETTERS seem to intimate.

Besides, it is rather silly to say that Hernán Cortés is an 'important figure in Mexican history'. It is a bit like saying Hitler is an important person in Polish history; it is technically true, but it obviously is not what one means when discussing marginalized ethnic histories. One would think of such figures as Copernicus or Lech Walesa.

You do make a good point about African cultures; one of the greatest inhumanities of the Atlantic slave trade was the singular identity imposed upon Africans from different (perhaps hostile) tribes, speaking different languages, stripped from their families, coalesced into one monolithic Other.

And finally, what does Che Guevara have to do with Hernán Cortés? I cannot think of a single point of meaningful historical comparison between the two.

 

[Deck Knight]

And finally, what does Che Guevara have to do with Hernán Cortés? I cannot think of a single point of meaningful historical comparison between the two.

You're right. Hernan Cortes killed enemy warriors primarily using swords and attacking from the front.

Che Guevera shot innocent, bound, disarmed people with guns from the back. He's also a mighty fine t-shirt salesman.

Both terrorized Latin America, although where Che succeeded only in bringing forth a single third world nation, Hernan Cortes' reputation rings throughout the majority of a second-third world continent.

Mostly I'm just stirring up trouble though. I hardly think Hernan Cortes is a hero, nor do I think he's Central America's greatest villian. The Other Amerindian Tribes were not particularly pleased with Aztec conquest either, and many tribes actually helped Cortes defeat the Aztecs. They too are often amalgamated into a unified non-white "Other." I just like to see the effect of turning the politically correct understanding of history upon its head.

Same with Amerindians in what became the United States. It was not "Cowboy vs. Indian," it was "Cowboy vs. Indian vs. Indian vs. Indian."

 

[Wishy]

I'm not sure what they are teaching these days in school, but it can't be too radically different from what I learned. And I can tell you we learned about several important figures in Mexican culture, including Pancho Villa, Santa Anna, and Montezuma (going back to the Aztecs). Not to be rude, but I think the problem is that you're not paying attention, not that the teachers aren't discussing it.

I can tell you, being an actual History teacher, that embedded in our curriculum is a wealth of relevant knowledge that involves minorities and their culture. Teaching about all sides of our history, in fact, is one of our main focal points and is DEMANDED by the administration. Don't go generalizing about the entire western school system when the only knowledge you have of it is the schools you've attended, which accounts for about three or four out of the hundreds of thousands of schools in the country.

Don't try to belittle my intelligence lol I did pay attention, and the only time we ever went over culture in Southern America was in grade 6 when we did a short unit about Aztecs and Mayans which was just to give us some background info for when we spent the remained of the year talking about the Europeans landing and all that jazz. I guess you might focus on it more in the US though. I still support what I said.

 

[LazarusLong]

Nina Burleigh speaks for me:

As just one of countless examples where both my figurative and literal point stands.

Because certainly, making broad generalizations based on the words or actions of a few isn't sexist at all!

 

[Deck Knight]

Because certainly, making broad generalizations based on the words or actions of a few isn't sexist at all!

How long a list would I have to produce before you accepted the argument as legitimate?

I assert there is no list sufficiently long for such a purpose, because your retort requires zero critical assessment on your part. If you refuse to research patterns in behavior, and remain willfully oblivious to known occurrences, it is impossible for me to sway you. You have actively decided that critical thought is not your forte, and instead you build a psychological defense so that you never have to escape your bubble of ignorance.

Prove me wrong with a counter-example. Find me a feminist, a single one of any importance to "the movement," that did not do the kabuki dance to defend or minimize Bill Clinton's lecherous activities.

i.e., do not post the functional equivalent of "NUH UH!"

Furthermore, making broad generalizations about feminists, adherents to an ideology, cannot be construed as sexist through any objective criteria. Sexism requires stereotyping based on gender, not political bent.

 

[LazarusLong]

I'm sorry, your OP did not specify "feminists," it specified "women." Re-read your own post.

I don't really know where Bill Clinton came into this. But as far as major feminists who didn't defend his activities? Erm... how about Patricia Ireland, the former (and longest-serving) president of NOW, who publicly and frequently held ground that despite her organization's seeming ambivalence toward the issue, she felt that any such misuse of power was harassment?

Or, I'm sorry, would you prefer some more out of context quotes? I'm sure Nina Burleigh was actually offering the President head in exchange for abortion rights. I'm sure that she was making a sincere offer and not a witty remark incorporating current events that highlighted an issue she felt strongly about! Because, you know, women are sluts who will always trade sex for power. I can provide countless examples!

Anyways, you seem right-wing to me, which makes me upset, because most right-wingers are rapists and child-molesters. Just look at Ted Klaudt! Served on the House of Reps before getting arrested for raping his foster-children!

Oh, I'm sorry, too small of a sample size? Well, how many examples of adherents to an ideology being convicted of rape do you need to convince you that it's true? Give me a number...

 

[cyberzero]

Sorry to change the topic, but yesterday, Obama, Gates and Crowley had beer over the situation. Apparently they forgot about the past and moved onto the future. In my opinion, Obama should not have scheduled such a stupid gathering to save face. Not only did the situation go far beyond where it was supposed to go, it's been distracting Obama from helping our damn economy. Gates was still apparently extremely indignant and Crowley kept blaming himself, saying sorry and called himself a "stupid policeman". Where is the use in any of that?