|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 16, 2009 12:58:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 17, 2009 3:44:26 GMT
Ha, so much for "the land of the free..." tsk, tsk... Reminds me of the lyrics of a song:
I stepped onto the crumbling sidewalk of a nation that claims to be A place of truth and freedom A land of opportunity
"We trust in God" this nation proclaims But trust died years ago And God is among the list of names Of people you don't know...
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 17, 2009 8:34:18 GMT
The most profoundly depressing part to me was that his excuse amounted to: "I'm not a racist, because I talked to all these other racists of many ethnicities and they all agree with me!" So it would seem in Louisiana as long as everyone else is as racist as you are, you're not a racist...
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 17, 2009 9:12:04 GMT
This argument that "the resulting child will not be accepted by either race community" is one you hear all the time in Louisiana and Mississippi, and probably all over. My grandfather used to say this.
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 17, 2009 14:33:27 GMT
This argument that "the resulting child will not be accepted by either race community" is one you hear all the time in Louisiana and Mississippi, and probably all over. My grandfather used to say this. Not only there, but others as well...that philosophy has proven to be untrue long ago and he should have been "over it".. The Governor of Louisiana has asked for the removal of that Justice of the Peace..and rightly so...
|
|
|
Post by rockergrl on Oct 17, 2009 22:34:42 GMT
Very very sad! Love is love end of story, that is how I feel!
|
|
|
Post by killerzzz on Oct 18, 2009 5:11:46 GMT
Tshh...
How pathetic some people are.
Killerzzz
|
|
|
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Oct 18, 2009 7:32:47 GMT
Crazy... pfftt...
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 18, 2009 8:34:27 GMT
Very very sad! Love is love end of story, that is how I feel! Right, K. Two consenting adults are two consenting adults (Unless they're close relatives, of course!). Beyond that, it's no-one else's business.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 18, 2009 12:07:13 GMT
Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Hand-E-Food on Oct 18, 2009 22:57:31 GMT
The most profoundly depressing part to me was that his excuse amounted to: "I'm not a racist, because I talked to all these other racists of many ethnicities and they all agree with me!" So it would seem in Louisiana as long as everyone else is as racist as you are, you're not a racist... What he's saying is that he has no issue with any particular race, but sees that cultural differences between races often cause marital problems. He's against the mingling of races under these circumstances. Is that a form of racism?
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 19, 2009 1:47:00 GMT
It's interesting you bring that up.
Most people would assume that he's just using that excuse as a cover for 'real' racism - that is, races just shouldn't mingle because it's immoral, unnatural, or just not right because the two races are different or unequal. Or else they might expand their definition of racism to include any thoughts or treatment of races as different.
Well, here's a big surprise: they are different! Liberals and forward-thinkers seem to pretend otherwise, a fiction which I suppose is a step towards equal treatment, but doesn't always reflect reality.
I don't mean biological or physiological differences - they amount to what are more like cultural or subcultural differences - differences in values, worldview, sense of their place in the nation.These are differences that aren't necessarily tied to race, they just happen to be.
Most of what he said he undoubtedly true. I don't necessarily think it amounts to racism for him to observe that and feel that way.
But he crossed the line when he took action, applied those ideas and actually prevented the marriage, something he had no right to do. Yeah, the marriage might not have strength, the child might be part of two worlds and neither. So what? Let it happen, it's their right to make that kind of union.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 19, 2009 8:03:36 GMT
What he's saying is that he has no issue with any particular race, but sees that cultural differences between races often cause marital problems. He's against the mingling of races under these circumstances. Is that a form of racism?
Inasmuch as race is tied to cultural difference, yes - as said above cultural differences may generally constitute a problem separate from race. Europe is full of it - all the same race, many (!) cultural differences...
Actually in Europe you could indeed find descendants of different races with same cultural background (not as a mass phenomen though) - from adopted children for example, or 'left-overs' from the occupation forces being raised here.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 19, 2009 8:06:56 GMT
The most profoundly depressing part to me was that his excuse amounted to: "I'm not a racist, because I talked to all these other racists of many ethnicities and they all agree with me!" So it would seem in Louisiana as long as everyone else is as racist as you are, you're not a racist... What he's saying is that he has no issue with any particular race, but sees that cultural differences between races often cause marital problems. He's against the mingling of races under these circumstances. Is that a form of racism? He's assuming there are cultural differences based entirely on skin colour, when that may not actually be the case, so yes, it IS racism. Two people who are born and grow up in the same area may have different skin tones, but they may be culturally more similar than two people with identical skin tones who hail from other nations. This guy is applying his personal prejudices based on a total lack of knowledge of the couple in question. He's assuming something has to be so because of the colour of their skin. That's racism. It is definitely the case that two people from differing cultural backgrounds have a harder job making a relationship work than two people from identical cultural backgrounds, but that doesn't make it impossible, nor is it the guy's job to reject any couple based on his own beliefs. A Canadian from Quebec has a different culture to a Canadian from Toronto. A person from a privileged background has a VERY different culture to someone from a poor background. A German has a very different culture to a Dane. You get the idea... The thing that most reveals this guy's motivation to be racial, though, is his comment about the kids. That really DOES amount to "Their lives will suck because everyone is racist" and shows that his main objection is indeed on racial grounds, not cultural grounds.
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Oct 19, 2009 12:23:09 GMT
God, I love people like this. What exactly do they think racism is? We were discussing this on the other forum I frequent - Racist people realize that racism is seen as bad so they don't want to be it. They don't seem to actually grasp the concept beyond it's a very unpopular thing.
It's okay though, guys. He lets black people use his bathroom with no problem.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 19, 2009 15:06:40 GMT
He's assuming there are cultural differences based entirely on skin colour, when that may not actually be the case, so yes, it IS racism. This guy is applying his personal prejudices based on a total lack of knowledge of the couple in question. He's assuming something has to be so because of the colour of their skin. That's racism. Wrong, that's prejudice. It will become racism when he says that he believes one of them is better than the other because of the colour of their skin. We shouldn't make this any bigger than it really is. Doing that is on the same level as Israel claiming any kind of criticism of their politics is an example of anti-semitism. Be careful with crying racism until it's perfectly clear that he thinks whites are better than blacks. Doing it before that risks doing more harm by making some pepole think racism is acually quite alright. Because blacks are different from whites, they think, and if you think that then you're a racist. Therefore racism is ok. So it's important to clarify that this isn't racism, it's just prejudice and it's equally stupid. By the way, a good argument that's come up on another forum (nerdfighters!) is that it's not exactly illegal to have kids when you're not married... Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 19, 2009 15:25:20 GMT
So you think Apartheid and other doctrines of racial separation are 'prejudice' rather than 'racism', Ube? I'd say that was a rather fine line to draw, wouldn't you?
I'm not sure how many people would agree with your definition.
I am certainly not someone who shouts "RACIST!!" at the drop of a hat, but this, to me, is pretty clearly racism.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 19, 2009 15:35:57 GMT
Isn't racism always based on some form of prejudice?
Isn't any form of unequal treatment (= discrimination) - especially so before the law - based on racial background racism?
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 19, 2009 15:48:11 GMT
It would certainly be the case in Britain...
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 19, 2009 16:44:20 GMT
Let's start by taking back my objection to your two points in my last post. I didn't read them carefully enough. If he had been saying those things he would have been racist. On the first quote: Saying that the local blacks and the local whites have a different culture isn't racist. Saying that the culture is inherent in their skin colour would be, but he's not really saying that. Assuming that he does is too strong a conclusion. On the second quote: No, he's not doing that either. The most dodgy thing in the article is the first sentence. That is a highly suspect thing to say. But compare that sentence to the sentence "in my experience most marriages between rich and poor don't last long". All in all you can't even assume that he thinks this is the general case. It could well be something he just said in passing that doesn't reflect his actual stance on that issue. As I said though, that statement was highly suspect. But his actual reason for denying this marriage was that the child wouldn't be accepted by neither the black nor the white community. Which is stupid in itself, but it's not racism. It's definently not assuming that pepole are a certain way just because they have a certain skin colour, which is what racism is. Isn't racism always based on some form of prejudice? Yes. Prejudice and generalizing based on that prejudice is essential to get to racism. And sexism. And homophobia. And what else there is apart from race, sex and sexual orientation. My brother suggested ageism. Isn't any form of unequal treatment (= discrimination) - especially so before the law - based on racial background racism? My brother says: sure, but that doesn't mean someone is a racist because he says someone else is going to be treated differently because of his race. Prescribing and describing are two different things. Personally I'm not so sure. But I'll do some thinking before explaining why. One altering of my position per week is more than enough. Übereil
|
|