Is Racism and the Race Card Still a Relevant Issue in America?

[Char. Limit]

So, I'm looking around at our Tea Party thread, and I notice that there's a lot of talk about racism. Now, this thread has only a passing connection to that one (inspiration, if you must know). I have a few questions I wanted to ask:

1. Do you believe that pro-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

2. Do you believe that anti-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

3. Do you believe that politicians and journalists play the Race Card too much in modern times, say, 2008-present?

Just for the record, I would have said yes to all three if asked.

 

[Pengwuino]

Define "relevant".

 

[drankin]

So, I'm looking around at our Tea Party thread, and I notice that there's a lot of talk about racism. Now, this thread has only a passing connection to that one (inspiration, if you must know). I have a few questions I wanted to ask:

1. Do you believe that pro-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

2. Do you believe that anti-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

3. Do you believe that politicians and journalists play the Race Card too much in modern times, say, 2008-present?

Just for the record, I would have said yes to all three if asked.

All of the above.

 

[Char. Limit]

Define "relevant".

Yeah, I guess that is a fair question. I mean to ask if such racism is already mostly gone, and we can ignore it, or if it has to be actively fixed.

Also, I don't define racism as "prejudice plus power", as some do. I define it as "belief that a certain race is inherently superior or inherently inferior, or less or more deserving of respect."

 

[rootX]

#1 and #2 will always be problem for some people. As far #1 and #2 are a problem for some population, #3 will always be there.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes to all 3, with the caveat that certain forms of anti-white racism is now incorporated into the law as acceptable practice or even required and along with that it is socially acceptable/required in many cases. So while #2 exists, it is not typically viewed objectively and properly defined in our society. In other words: to many, the word "racism" cannot be applied in the way you have used it in #2. It only is typically applied to white against black.

 

[Jack21222]

While 1 and 2 are still both relevant, they're not nearly as much of a problem as they used to be, and they're on the decline. I'd say "yes" to number 3.

 

[jackmell]

So, I'm looking around at our Tea Party thread, and I notice that there's a lot of talk about racism. Now, this thread has only a passing connection to that one (inspiration, if you must know). I have a few questions I wanted to ask:

1. Do you believe that pro-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

2. Do you believe that anti-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

3. Do you believe that politicians and journalists play the Race Card too much in modern times, say, 2008-present?

Just for the record, I would have said yes to all three if asked.

Racism is a significant issue in America although it is often under-emphasized to maintain order, a perfect example of which is the very act of even asking the question which to me has a ridiculously-obvious answer. Anti-white racism still relevant? Are you kidding me? Do you know anything at all about black people? And all the media about their past "struggles" is just fueling the fire. We haven't seen nothing yet. In my opinion, racism will become a dominant, life-changing phenomenon one day in America and it's under-emphasis is only making it easier for one to loose and the other to win. It's a well-known phenomenon of Biology: when two competing populations engage, they conflict until one is exterminated.

 

[russ_watters]

That view assumes that there are two populations and not one...or 12 for that matter.

 

[HallsofIvy]

The other night on the "Colbert Report" on television, Stephen Colbert was "interviewing" a black man who regularly acts as a reporter and "consultant".

Suddenly, the reporter took a card out of his wallet and "swiped" in a card reader that just "happened" to be sitting on the desk before him.

Yes, it was the "race card"! But nothing happened! The reporter then looked more closely at the card and said "Ah, 'not valid during a black presidency'!"

 

[cronxeh]

Racism

I came to this country 10 years ago, not knowing much English, not having any money, not having any prospects. Over the years I have finished high school, went to college. Where others whined that it was too hard - I have worked harder. I have built myself up from nothing, and if that makes me white then so be it.

1. Do you believe that pro-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

Never experienced any special favors, considering that all my supervisors and managers were black.

2. Do you believe that anti-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

Yes I think sense of entitlement and jealousy towards the white man is rampant.

3. Do you believe that politicians and journalists play the Race Card too much in modern times, say, 2008-present?

All the time. If it wasn't for race issues we would've eliminated welfare, housing subsidies, and well Ron Paul would've won by now.

 

[Evo]

I will only allow this thread as long as there are no disparaging remarks made against any race, no statements of how a race is perceived to behave, is better or worse than, etc...

Answers that do not strictly respond to the opening post will be deleted.

 

[Jack21222]

That view assumes that there are two populatios and not one...or 12 for that matter.

I'm also not so sure you can say the groups are in competition. Furthermore, the members of these groups may more strongly identify with other groups than race.

I would consider myself in competition with a snake oil salesman even if he was white, while I'd consider a black physics student as on "my team."

 

[Char. Limit]

The other night on the "Colbert Report" on television, Stephen Colbert was "interviewing" a black man who regularly acts as a reporter and "consultant".

Suddenly, the reporter took a card out of his wallet and "swiped" in a card reader that just "happened" to be sitting on the desk before him.

Yes, it was the "race card"! But nothing happened! The reporter then looked more closely at the card and said "Ah, 'not valid during a black presidency'!"

This was actually Jon Stewart. But, yes, the segment was hilarious.

"They always get you with the fine print!"

 

[russ_watters]

Furthermore, the members of these groups may more strongly identify with other groups than race.

That was my point. The question was framed in terms of black/white racial identity, but what about hispanic? Mixed-race? Or, if the Constitution is to be accepted, the lack of racial identification? Part of what creates the issue today is that people still try to identify themselves racially instead of moving past it. The race card is part and parcel of that. Two cases in point:

Tiger Woods is not a politician, but nevertheless, racial politics has followed him around in his golf career. The press has labeled him "black", but he rejects the label, partly because he doesn't want to dabble in racial politics, but also partly because the label is inaccurate. Though he looks somewhat African, he's only about 1/4 African, but half Asian. He calls himself "Cablinasian". So while the media inaccurately plays the race card on his behalf (really, for their own benefit), he does not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Woods#Background_and_family

Brack Obama is called the first black president and he identifies himself with that label, but the reality is that he's half black and half white - so really he's the first substantially mixed-race President. Labeling him "black" is only half correct and so it is equally correct to label him "white". A post-racial politician might have used his mixed-race heritage as a bridge toward discarding of race labels, but Obama has chosen to make "black" his primary identity, reject his white background and capitalize on the race card as a central part of his political identity, while still somehow managing to convince people that he's post-racial. I have no idea how he's been able to pull that off, but so far it has worked out pretty well for him. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/04/nation/la-na-obama-census4-2010apr04

 

[Pengwuino]

Barrack Obama hates black people.

But on a more slightly serious note, I think eventually the term "racist" will lose all of its meaning. When you start calling someone a racist because you deny someone a pay day loan or something similarly trivial, no one is going to care anymore.

I personally think the whole ideas of race and culture and being so anal about both represent a lower level of thinking. Why do people care about what their lineage was? People say that "I am who I am because of my heritage". No. False idiot. You're who you are and where you are in life because of you and, depending on how young they are, their parents. Then maybe their grandparents took some roll in it as well but beyond that, very little someone did 150 years ago has any effect on you, ESPECIALLY in a country like the US with such relative mobility and ways to advance yourself (and conversely, ways to destroy yourself).

 

[lisab]

That was my point. The question was framed in terms of black/white racial identity, but what about hispanic? Mixed-race? Or, if the Constitution is to be accepted, the lack of racial identification? Part of what creates the issue today is that people still try to identify themselves racially instead of moving past it. The race card is part and parcel of that. Two cases in point:

Tiger Woods is not a politician, but nevertheless, racial politics has followed him around in his golf career. The press has labeled him "black", but he rejects the label, partly because he doesn't want to dabble in racial politics, but also partly because the label is inaccurate. Though he looks somewhat African, he's only about 1/4 African, but half Asian. He calls himself "Cablinasian". So while the media inaccurately plays the race card on his behalf (really, for their own benefit), he does not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Woods#Background_and_family

Brack Obama is called the first black president and he identifies himself with that label, but the reality is that he's half black and half white - so really he's the first substantially mixed-race President. Labeling him "black" is only half correct and so it is equally correct to label him "white". A post-racial politician might have used his mixed-race heritage as a bridge toward discarding of race labels, but Obama has chosen to make "black" his primary identity, reject his white background and capitalize on the race card as a central part of his political identity, while still somehow managing to convince people that he's post-racial. I have no idea how he's been able to pull that off, but so far it has worked out pretty well for him. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/04/nation/la-na-obama-census4-2010apr04

My rule of thumb: let the person identify themselves as they wish - it's not a question of what a person is "able to pull off."

When the question of "is he black enough?" came up during the campaign, Obama replied that when he's trying to hail a cab and no one stops for him, he sure feels "black enough."

And that's why we should let the person decide; none of us has lived in their skin, we have no idea what experiences they've had which influence their self-identity.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I will only allow this thread as long as there are no disparaging remarks made against any race, no statements of how a race is perceived to behave, is better or worse than, etc...

Answers that do not strictly respond to the opening post will be deleted.

Why is this thread different than any other? If people make racist comments, they get punished for it. Those are the rules. I'm sure you don't post that warning in every thread. Also, why do we have to strictly respond in a certain way, just because this is a topic about racism?
This is an example of how exaggerated racism has become. It's the worst thing in the world right now, so we can't even freely talk about it.

 

[russ_watters]

My rule of thumb: let the person identify themselves as they wish...

Why? Why allow someone to make false claims for personal benefit? The Constitution requires that everyone be treated equally under the law. On the other hand, some laws requires special treatment based on race. So should a person be allowed to identify with a certain race for personal gain, regardless of actual racial makeup?

...it's not a question of what a person is "able to pull off."

When the question of "is he black enough?" came up during the campaign, Obama replied that when he's trying to hail a cab and no one stops for him, he sure feels "black enough."

And that's why we should let the person decide; none of us has lived in their skin, we have no idea what experiences they've had which influence their self-identity.

How can a law be written in a way that appropriately deals with racism if people are allowed to self-label? Heck, Obama can even switch back and forth as is beneficial to him!

 

[Evo]

Why is this thread different than any other? If people make racist comments, they get punished for it. Those are the rules. I'm sure you don't post that warning in every thread. Also, why do we have to strictly respond in a certain way, just because this is a topic about racism?

For the obvious reasons of

1) Not pulling the thread off topic

2) To keep the thread within the guidelines for attitude, making everyone feel comfortable (yes, that is in the guidelines), avoiding flamewars, etc...

 

[lisab]

Why? Why allow someone to make false claims for personal benefit? The Constitution requires that everyone be treated equally under the law. On the other hand, some laws requires special treatment based on race. So should a person be allowed to identify with a certain race for personal gain, regardless of actual racial makeup? How can a law be written in a way that appropriately deals with racism if people are allowed to self-label? Heck, Obama can even switch back and forth as is beneficial to him!

My personal feeling: law shouldn't define race. I think it started doing so back when slavery was legal. It had to, to determine who was a slave and who wasn't. Also, I don't think law should give racial considerations, but hate crimes are off topic.

As far as what someone (Obama, e.g.) can do with respect to their racial identity: if they make false claims or want to switch depending on the pase of the moon, I really couldn't care less. I can't think of any decision I would make that would change, depending on someone's racial self-identity.

So if you are against people determining their own racial identity, whom do you want to make that determination?

 

[drizzle]

My rule of thumb: let the person identify themselves as they wish...

You mean he can call himself chinese?

Kidding. He only has two options his mom's or his father's side... Obama only has his father's name in his name, right?... I mean that's what's been 'documented' about him.

Other than that, I don't think people ask one who's his/her father/mother, they treat him/her based on his/her "appearance", that is IF there's any racism left, and from what he said, there is.

He 'didn't make that up' he looks black, he treated like one and he chooses to be one.

Speaking of politics... The guy is lucky.

Edit: I didn't mean to be rude at all by any of what I said.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I would say yes to all three. However, I expect that racism against blacks confronts them with larger problems and more often than racism against whites does me.

 

[vela]

Yes to all three questions.

 

[waht]

Yes to all questions.

People are just primitive input-output response machines that are governed by grotesque categorization mechanisms. Racism is basically one form of categorization which is facilitated by the ease of distinguishing skin color from far away.

It suffices you have weight problems, not so good looks, poor financial status, or don't fit someone's religion or political views, and you WILL be discriminated against by many people of same skin color, same countrymen, and even by family members...

 

[rootX]

I would say yes to all three. However, I expect that racism against blacks confronts them with larger problems and more often than racism against whites does me.

Wouldn't that be a different problem than racisim? It seems to be one of the problems that exist in poor population groups arising due to poverty/bad enviornment than color differences. That is blacks from upper economical class will have less or no difficulties (Obama). It could be argued that racism and poverty (economic hardships) go together for all kind of people.

 

[Char. Limit]

Just as a quick response to Russ's post on the first page, which I am unable to quote due to structural limitations...

I actually deliberately avoided a black/white view in the questions, opting instead for pro-white/anti-white. This was because current perception seems to label the race battle as "white people vs. everyone else". So, yes, Hispanics are included, and I actually tried to include everyone.

However, I've noticed that judging on skin color tends to be false. As an anecdotal example, both of my parents are white. Much of my Dad's family is from Scotland and Germany, and my mother's family is Bavarian (Bayerisch) to the core. I look very German myself. My sister, who shares both parents, looks positively Native American (Blackfoot, to be exact). Goes to show that color doesn't always indicate race.

Note: She still puts down "White/Caucasian" on applications.

 

[Danger]

Note: She still puts down "White/Caucasian" on applications.

Weird; we don't have spaces for such a thing on any application that I've ever seen, with the possible exception of the long-form census.

It never ceases to astound me, when watching Yankee television shows, that race still appears as an area of conflict. (Mind you, I watch fiction such as the Law & Orders, CSI's, etc.; US news is of no relevance to me.) Nobody up here thinks twice, for instance, upon seeing a mixed-race couple—or a same-sex couple, for that matter. It's widely known that my ex- is Cree (or, more correctly, Cree-Scottish Metis). A previous girl-friend was French-black from British Guiana. With no exceptions, in both instances we were treated the same as any other couple.
We do have a somewhat peculiar phenomenon that superficially resembles racism but is actually more "groupism". I'm going to single out a couple of examples, but merely for the sake of illustration. It is not intended to demean any of them. The basis for it doesn't have anything to do with any particular race at all, but rather some noticeable group behaviour in which race is an identifying factor. (That didn't come out quite right, but it's the best that I can manage right now.)
When I'm in Calgary, for instance, I get a little tense in the presence of young Vietnamese men. That is based solely upon the fact that the 2 very violent gangs in Calgary are Fresh Off the Boat and Fresh Killers, both of which are composed of Vietnamese kids who immigrated for the specific purpose of criminal activities. Even though I wouldn't expect to be accosted directly by them, there has been a lot of collateral damage due to public gunfights between them. I don't want to get caught up in one.
In my own town, I occasionally cross the street or duck into a store to avoid Natives who appear aimless. (Obviously, given my marital history, I have nothing against Natives.) My problem is that I'm a little too well known to some who consider me an ATM. They can be quite persistent in their begging, and I sometimes just don't feel like dealing with it. Ironically, their incomes are about 8 times what mine is. Conversely, I will cross the street the opposite way in order to visit with some of them.
Both situations have a racial component, but it's coincidental. Neither race is inherently "bad" anymore than Italians are inherently bad because the Mafia exists or Irishmen are bad because of the IRA. Race is merely an identifying factor based upon the actions of a few highly visible members of said race.
In contrast, one of the first girls that I was really nuts about (although she was far too young for me) moved to my area from Detroit because people were trying to kill her father. He was a music professor at Wayne State University; his crime was that he was a black man who had possessed the unmitigated audacity to marry an Irish woman. On our side of the border, they were just another typical (albeit hugely intelligent) family.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes to all 3, with the caveat that certain forms of anti-white racism is now incorporated into the law as acceptable practice or even required and along with that it is socially acceptable/required in many cases.

Such as?

So while #2 exists, it is not typically viewed objectively and properly defined in our society. In other words: to many, the word "racism" cannot be applied in the way you have used it in #2. It only is typically applied to white against black.

Really? Please provide some examples. I think what you said is complete nonsense.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Racism

I came to this country 10 years ago, not knowing much English, not having any money, not having any prospects. Over the years I have finished high school, went to college. Where others whined that it was too hard - I have worked harder. I have built myself up from nothing, and if that makes me white then so be it.

No, this doesn't make you white. It makes you American. Why would you associate success with color? Haven't you seen any successful black people? Should I provide some examples?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That was my point. The question was framed in terms of black/white racial identity, but what about hispanic? Mixed-race? Or, if the Constitution is to be accepted, the lack of racial identification? Part of what creates the issue today is that people still try to identify themselves racially instead of moving past it. The race card is part and parcel of that. Two cases in point:

Tiger Woods is not a politician, but nevertheless, racial politics has followed him around in his golf career. The press has labeled him "black", but he rejects the label, partly because he doesn't want to dabble in racial politics, but also partly because the label is inaccurate. Though he looks somewhat African, he's only about 1/4 African, but half Asian. He calls himself "Cablinasian". So while the media inaccurately plays the race card on his behalf (really, for their own benefit), he does not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Woods#Background_and_family

You said that people try to identify themselves racially, and then provide an example of just the opposite. How does this have anything to do with your point?

Brack Obama is called the first black president and he identifies himself with that label, but the reality is that he's half black and half white - so really he's the first substantially mixed-race President. Labeling him "black" is only half correct and so it is equally correct to label him "white". A post-racial politician might have used his mixed-race heritage as a bridge toward discarding of race labels, but Obama has chosen to make "black" his primary identity, reject his white background and capitalize on the race card as a central part of his political identity, while still somehow managing to convince people that he's post-racial. I have no idea how he's been able to pull that off, but so far it has worked out pretty well for him. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/04/nation/la-na-obama-census4-2010apr04

He identifies himself with being black because he was perceived as being black. And I would like to know how he stands to profit politically by filling out a census card. Beyond that, he has discussed his mixed race many times. Are you suggesting that most people don't know that he's half white?

More specifically, are you suggesting that Democrats don't know that he's half white? Please show some statistics. I see nothing accurate in anything that you've posted.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So, I'm looking around at our Tea Party thread, and I notice that there's a lot of talk about racism. Now, this thread has only a passing connection to that one (inspiration, if you must know). I have a few questions I wanted to ask:

1. Do you believe that pro-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

2. Do you believe that anti-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

3. Do you believe that politicians and journalists play the Race Card too much in modern times, say, 2008-present?

Yes, yes, and yes, but things are far better today than ever before. Consider that only two generations ago, it was common to call any black man, "boy". My own grandfather did this but by no means was he a racist [not at heart]. He didn't mean it as an insult. That was just how things were in his day.

We also have the "bitter blacks". Black people who lived in a much harsher America grew bitter and biased. "Never trust whitey" was a common phrase from days gone by. Cleary this isn't generally true anymore, but for the people who lived through those times, the bitterness is hard to escape. As for blacks who are simply hateful racist for no good reason, well, they are just racists. There will always be some of those around in all ethnic groups.

Over the course of my life, we have come lightyears in regards to race. Consider that when I was a kid, mixed marriages were still considered exotic and, by many, disturbing, wrong, sinful, or even an abomination. Today, most people think nothing of it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Wouldn't that be a different problem than racisim? It seems to be one of the problems that exist in poor population groups arising due to poverty/bad enviornment than color differences. That is blacks from upper economical class will have less or no difficulties (Obama). It could be argued that racism and poverty (economic hardships) go together for all kind of people.

In addition to any problems related to poverty are problems directly related to racism. It was those I was addressing in my post. A recent example that sticks in my memory is the DWB profiling on the NJ Turnpike which was pervasive and had no counterpart in racism against whites. The other was the systemic racial discrimination at Texaco.

 

[ThomasT]

So, I'm looking around at our Tea Party thread, and I notice that there's a lot of talk about racism. Now, this thread has only a passing connection to that one (inspiration, if you must know). I have a few questions I wanted to ask:

1. Do you believe that pro-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

2. Do you believe that anti-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

3. Do you believe that politicians and journalists play the Race Card too much in modern times, say, 2008-present?

Yes of course to all three. It's particularly relevant when one has close friends who are of another race.

I'm certainly biased toward my race (I'm white). However, I've come to know and have long-term friendships with some African-Americans, Arabs, Indians, etc. This is a very difficult subject, emotionally.

Of course, politicians and journalists play the 'Race Card' too much. But, it's predictable. This sort of 'perspective' creates conflict and tension. Good stuff for journalists. Not sure about politicians' motives.

Personally, I gravitate toward people who I feel I can trust, no matter where they come from or what they look like.

 

[russ_watters]

My personal feeling: law shouldn't define race. I think it started doing so back when slavery was legal. It had to, to determine who was a slave and who wasn't. Also, I don't think law should give racial considerations, but hate crimes are off topic.

So would you say that Affirmative Action should be abolished?

As far as what someone (Obama, e.g.) can do with respect to their racial identity: if they make false claims or want to switch depending on the pase of the moon, I really couldn't care less. I can't think of any decision I would make that would change, depending on someone's racial self-identity.

Consider the following scenario: a person who is 1/16th black but looks white and a person who is 1/2 black but looks black and declines to give themself a label apply to a college that uses Affirmative Action mandated racial criteria to select students. The 1/2 black person has better test scores, but since the 1/16th black person has identified himself as "black", he is accepted to the college due to that racial identification.

Enter the lawyers.

So if you are against people determining their own racial identity, whom do you want to make that determination?

Government records.