Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wolfgang Mozart

The Politics of Racism

Recommended Posts

What is Racism? by Thomas Jackson

 

The following article was Originally Published in American Renaissance, Vol 2, No. 8, see http://www.amren.com/

 

What is Racism?

 

Everyone talks about "racism" but no one ever defines it.

AR's assistant editor has given it a try.

 

by Thomas Jackson

 

There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off.

 

For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reports that black students are less well qualified than white students, it sets off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.

 

Complete text at http://www.commonsenseclub.com/racism.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought "Rascism" had a more than clear deffinition?

 

plain and simply: BIAS, based purely upon Race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, the artical describes rascism as

opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites
. Well, I say interesting, what I actually mean is worrying.

 

Like you said, it's got bugger all to do which which race you happen to be a part of.

 

What a waste of 10 min reading that flimflam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should have read the whole thing atinymonkey. Essentially he is writing about the problem of reverse-racism in America. At the tale end there, he is describing how non-whites hypocritically view racism.

 

To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of whites.

 

All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession.

 

Only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, been spending too much time in the arcade. Really have to focus before posting.

 

While the legacy of Martin Luther King is still in living memory, and the KKK and it's ilk, you will find that ethnic minorities my feel safer to keep within there own communities. The basis for people to group together with other people of similar backgrounds is not bigotry or racism, as the article suggests. Nether is quoting an example of an over the top PC response grounds for saying we should ignore racism.

 

While I agree the article does make a valid point about the odd fashion in America for African Americans to behave in a way that anywhere else would be judged as racist, that is a fair situation for them to use given the history of mistreatment in the US.

 

People like Malcolm X were quite clear about the plans for equality, they were not happy with the white society to simply say "sorry" and let it go at that. It doesn't quite redress the balance. This peculiar situation is just going to have to run it's course. It's much like a shared house, where one person forgets to buy the milk and has to apologise more than once and perhaps buy three rounds of milk to make up for it. Only instead of forgetting to buy milk, the pilgrims slaughtered the native Americans and enslaved hundreds of thousands of African Americans.

 

As I see it, and I am fairly remote from this, is what the African Americans are doing is not racism but exorcising a legacy of hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I define racism (or sexism for that matter) as a combination of Prejudice: Forming conclusions and/or beliefs concerning a person or people based upon irrelevant factors, and Discrimination: Basing one's subsequent decisions and behaviours towards that person or people upon those invalid conclusions.

 

Prejudice accounts for the belief component, and discrimination the behavioural component. The 'irrelevant factors' simply determine which 'ism' is at work (racism/ sexism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, as I said in post #2

 

BIAS, based purely upon Race.

 

anything else beyond this is just an expansion towards specifics :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devil is in the details.

 

I think such definitions should be specific. I think that as racism has both a cognitive and a behavioural component, any clear definition needs to account for each, specifically. Specificity in the definition aids understanding of the phenomenon defined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard of an expansion toward specifics before.

 

I am intrigued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never heard of an expansion toward specifics before.

 

I am intrigued.

when something is taken to it`s lowest common denominator already, there is little point in making 1/4 into 25/100 or 2/8 etc...

a quarter is a quarter regardless of it`s many forms, and whan asked for a deffinition, one need not give every possible permutation of what a quarter would represent in the way of specifics, one may expand a quarter to infinate permutations, "expansion towards specifics" :)

 

I dunno, maybe I worded it badly or something? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you define an 'irrelevant' factor as opposed to a 'relevant' factor? That sounds a bit vague and non specific as a definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because they are situation dependant.

 

'Relevant' simply means having some bearing on the situation at hand. Therefore, it is the situation at hand that determines relevance.

 

For example, if you are evaluating someone's suitability to perform the general functions of a customs officer at an airport, then both sex and race are irrelevant; neither have any influence on an individual's ability to perform that function. So, to employ an individual on the basis of their sex or race would be discriminatory. However, if that post involves having to perform intimate searches of female suspects then sex becomes relevant. In that situation, it would not be discriminatory to exclude males from the selection process, but to exclude candidates on the basis of their race would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when something is taken to it`s lowest common denominator already' date=' there is little point in making 1/4 into 25/100 or 2/8 etc...

a quarter is a quarter regardless of it`s many forms, and whan asked for a deffinition, one need not give every possible permutation of what a quarter would represent in the way of specifics, one may expand a quarter to infinate permutations, "expansion towards specifics" :)[/quote']

 

When that quarter consists of 12.5% each of two separate things, then the lowest common denominator has not yet been reached and another level of precision is needed. I'm sure you, as a scientist, appreciate the need for precision. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.