Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

la force supreme des mclaren

Lewis Suffers In Spain.

Recommended Posts

Whoooahhh Maure.

Me Fool? Ooohhhhhhh.

You can really walk the walk, but can you talk the talk?

You are amusing, I'll give you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're watching too many movies. What you describe about New Zealand mirrors most of America's experiences with racism today. I know it's hard to grasp that, but just like this incident in Spain there are a few loud instances of racism....and those are not reflective of the country as a whole.

Murray, I am perhaps the only one here who understands what you're saying. It's truth, but it wont be accepted from you because you're caucasian. Martin Luther King Jr. made, essentially, the same arguments and is applauded for them. You are branded a bigot. Interesting in this world where MLK wanted us to be judged by the content of our character we see persons of color deliberately pointing out their color and segregating themselves with a different sub-culture yet praising MLK all the while. Ah well, life is amusing, is it not?

It is not truth! It is based on observation at best and ultimately subjective interpretation of the same observations. For it to be truth Murray would have to live in the world that these people live. MLK was talking the truth because he was invariably sharing his experiences and that of his friends/relatives etc. He lived through these experiences.

It is too simplistic to judge an individual by the content of their character without making the effort to understand contributary factors that have molded the individual's character. To judge an individual by our own ethics and standards is arrogance IMHO.

I've travelled extensively around the world and found the Thai's and the Maoris the most racist of all those that I came across. In their defence, I decided that it was their way of trying to establish some sort of self respect for themselves - i.e at least we are superior to the blacks if not whites. Some folk in Eastern European countries have similar mindsets -

We can all have an opinion on an issue, but to talk the truth we have to experience it before we can have an accurate opinion. Experiences are re-inforced and recalled by their effect on us emotionally. Observations cannot be re-inforced emotionally as there is no emotion attachced to an observation.

The irony of this debate could be that the Americans could vote Obama as first black President of the sole Superpower in the world - USA

Just my take

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're watching too many movies. What you describe about New Zealand mirrors most of America's experiences with racism today. I know it's hard to grasp that, but just like this incident in Spain there are a few loud instances of racism....and those are not reflective of the country as a whole.

Murray, I am perhaps the only one here who understands what you're saying. It's truth, but it wont be accepted from you because you're caucasian. Martin Luther King Jr. made, essentially, the same arguments and is applauded for them. You are branded a bigot. Interesting in this world where MLK wanted us to be judged by the content of our character we see persons of color deliberately pointing out their color and segregating themselves with a different sub-culture yet praising MLK all the while. Ah well, life is amusing, is it not?

Yup, it certainly can be amusing! It would be fun to talk to you about these issues given your background at uni.

So are you saying if an individual can change then it must be their problem or more of their problem? I disagree. If someone can't accept the way another individual is, even if they can change, as long as they are not hurting themselves or being offensive to others then it is still the others problem.

Yes, excellent point. You are right of course. They will probably just ask you how many people have been murdered for having AS though.

It is not truth! It is based on observation at best and ultimately subjective interpretation of the same observations. For it to be truth Murray would have to live in the world that these people live. MLK was talking the truth because he was invariably sharing his experiences and that of his friends/relatives etc. He lived through these experiences.

What I don't like is how you react one way about racism and another way about everything else. It's hypocrisy and almost everyone else is guilty of it too.

You say that one has to live through an experience to talk sensibly about it. Well, what right did everyone have to say that jokes about fatties, fuglies, disabled people, anorexics, people with other medical conditions, women, gays etc were OK on here? Why don't you object to those too? If you do object to those, why didn't you take other people in this thread to task as well? You wax lyrical about racism and gloss over everyone else's problems, and you're far from the only one.

It is too simplistic to judge an individual by the content of their character without making the effort to understand contributary factors that have molded the individual's character. To judge an individual by our own ethics and standards is arrogance IMHO.

I haven't "judged" anyone. If you read my blog you'll see that I don't believe it's ever possible to pass moral judgment on anyone for anything. (Of course, the PC-brigade don't like that idea either. :lol: ) Nevertheless, that doesn't mean we can never point out anyone else's mistakes as we see them, and discuss the issues. Sorry but I think it's ludicrous to say white people can't ever discuss racism or any other issue and how to deal with it. Especially when all I'm saying is that other problems and forms of discrimination, which you have no experience of either, should be given the same degree of attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not a single physical attribute that would cause me to dislike somebody, however, a bad personality or attitude will do it every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, excellent point. You are right of course. They will probably just ask you how many people have been murdered for having AS though.

I'd imagine a fair few have committed suicide over the years.

Seems society has a habit of thinking differences must mean one is a bad thing or better than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, I'm moving this to the cafe, continue on and keep it civil. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fed Up, I respect your views but here's a few observations about racism. You've mentioned you're of African descent. You support Lewis Hamilton. Is that racism? Obama got by far the most overwhelming support from the African-American voters. Is that racism? I say it is. I say it's judging a person's worth (be it on the race track or for public office) by the color of their skin. Judging them by their race. It's that very mindset of identifying a person by their race and favoring that person because of it that MLK would have choked to see. Conversely, I don't support Obama because of the content of his character. I do support Lewis Hamilton because of his driving skills. I do believe most ardently in the words of MLK; not because they are spoken from a black man, but because they are true and right. I would ask, who is more racist, the countless 'blacks' who support members of their own race for that race's sake or someone like me, who sees a person rather than a race?

Perhaps that doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand, but perhaps it does....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the arguments in this thread disprove maure's theory that friends on this forum always agree on any issue (at least I think that's what he said a while ago, I can't be arsed to check - do correct me if I'm mistaken).

Boy I am tired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I agree (boring I know) it would be, and if something is boring people lose interest (because its not interesting) - like with F1. Sorry I was just stating the obvious there.

I wasn't saying we should always agree, variety is the spice of life, as they say :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fed Up, I respect your views but here's a few observations about racism. You've mentioned you're of African descent. You support Lewis Hamilton. Is that racism? Obama got by far the most overwhelming support from the African-American voters. Is that racism? I say it is. I say it's judging a person's worth (be it on the race track or for public office) by the color of their skin. Judging them by their race. It's that very mindset of identifying a person by their race and favoring that person because of it that MLK would have choked to see. Conversely, I don't support Obama because of the content of his character. I do support Lewis Hamilton because of his driving skills. I do believe most ardently in the words of MLK; not because they are spoken from a black man, but because they are true and right. I would ask, who is more racist, the countless 'blacks' who support members of their own race for that race's sake or someone like me, who sees a person rather than a race?

Perhaps that doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand, but perhaps it does....

Mike, I guess I will argue with you and hope to be luckier at it than with Muzza :lol:

Yes, you could call it racism. Self-segregation would be perhaps a better way to describe those behaviours. Most minorities practice it to some extent. I think every big city has its own "black zones", "jewish zones", "italian zones", "korean zones", etc.

Why? It's a complex issue. Many factors come into play: need to be with their own (you could say all humankind is "their own", but as much as you like us, you live with your family...this is the same case), mistrust for other communities, need for support, elitism...its a mix.

Racism, tohugh, the racism we are talking about, is the violent attack towards a person based on his/her color/religion/sexual preference.

In that respect, Chinatown is not the same as the Warsaw ghetto. 50 years ago the black community in USA was still being seggregated. Don't blame them for not being too hasty in embracing the white people as brothers.

When those Spaniards decided to attack Lewis, they didn't chose to attack him calling him "arrogant", "S.O.B." or "idiot", they attacked him for his skin colour. Maybe they are not really violent racist people. Maybe they even have black friends , and tought "how can we hurt him the most? let's call him a ****ing nigga!". That certainly does not help black people to feel truly integrated.

There are many levels of racism. The most violent ones are not as common as they were before, thankfuly. Yet, just now, a building in Gerrmany with turkish inmigrants was purposedly set on fire, and 5 kids and 4 adults died. It is not common, but planes crashing against buildings in USA are not common either, yet your country's policies are very much dictated by what happened on 9-11.

Then there is a milder, widely spread form of racism. The one that can be compared with Muzza's talk about fat/ugly people.

Let's suppose a rich jewish banker dies at the same time Bill Gates dies. Newspaper will say "Bill Gates dies!" and "Abraham Goldstein, the jewish banker, dies!". See? Nobody would say "Bill Gates, the evangelist/lutheran/catholic/atheist dies". Praising phrases like "Black people really know how to make music, unlike white men" is the same case. It is a way of subtly mark the difference.

I already wrote too much, my arguments need refinement, but I will go on after reading your thoughts :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, we don't always agree on social issues. It would be boring if we did.

I disagree. I think we do agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike, I guess I will argue with you and hope to be luckier at it than with Muzza :lol:

Yes, you could call it racism. Self-segregation would be perhaps a better way to describe those behaviours. Most minorities practice it to some extent. I think every big city has its own "black zones", "jewish zones", "italian zones", "korean zones", etc.

Why? It's a complex issue. Many factors come into play: need to be with their own (you could say all humankind is "their own", but as much as you like us, you live with your family...this is the same case), mistrust for other communities, need for support, elitism...its a mix.

Racism, tohugh, the racism we are talking about, is the violent attack towards a person based on his/her color/religion/sexual preference.

In that respect, Chinatown is not the same as the Warsaw ghetto. 50 years ago the black community in USA was still being seggregated. Don't blame them for not being too hasty in embracing the white people as brothers.

When those Spaniards decided to attack Lewis, they didn't chose to attack him calling him "arrogant", "S.O.B." or "idiot", they attacked him for his skin colour. Maybe they are not really violent racist people. Maybe they even have black friends , and tought "how can we hurt him the most? let's call him a ****ing nigga!". That certainly does not help black people to feel truly integrated.

There are many levels of racism. The most violent ones are not as common as they were before, thankfuly. Yet, just now, a building in Gerrmany with turkish inmigrants was purposedly set on fire, and 5 kids and 4 adults died. It is not common, but planes crashing against buildings in USA are not common either, yet your country's policies are very much dictated by what happened on 9-11.

Then there is a milder, widely spread form of racism. The one that can be compared with Muzza's talk about fat/ugly people.

Let's suppose a rich jewish banker dies at the same time Bill Gates dies. Newspaper will say "Bill Gates dies!" and "Abraham Goldstein, the jewish banker, dies!". See? Nobody would say "Bill Gates, the evangelist/lutheran/catholic/atheist dies". Praising phrases like "Black people really know how to make music, unlike white men" is the same case. It is a way of subtly mark the difference.

I already wrote too much, my arguments need refinement, but I will go on after reading your thoughts :D

Couldn't have put it better myself.

It seems to me that the confusion here is perhaps down to ignorance as to the meaning of racism;

Racism has many definitions, the most common and widely accepted being the belief that members of one race are intrinsically superior or inferior to members of other races.

Wikipedia

Mike, one can't be racist for voting for a black candidate over a white candidate nor for cheering the acquittal of O.J. Simpson. In human nature we tend to gravitate to individuals that mirror ourselves - For some in the US, Obama represents (false) hope. They somehow think that a 'brother' will understand their plight and magic a solution - It won't of course.

Subconsciously I probably pinned some of my hopes on Lewis hamilton - It is a positive to have upstanding black role models and I guess Lewis is potentially one such role model - It's all about self esteem. Here in the UK one can watch a week's worth of TV without there being a positive story involving a black person. The newspapers carry stories about war torn kenya, famine, youth killings, footballer's roasting women blah blah blah - If black people look to the likes of Lewis, Tiger Woods & Obama for positive images in their lives - why is that a bad thing? It is hope

Here's a few questions to ponder;

- what does it feel like to give birth

- what does it feel like to lose a loved one

- what does it feel like to be bullied

- what would it be like to live in palestine/iraq

I wouldn't even be able to contemplate the answers to any of the above questions. I would not be able to speak the truth about how it would feel to experience one or all of them. Racism is the same, if you haven't experienced it how do you know how people feel.

-_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you could call it racism.

I don't need to go on, we agree then. ;) Certainly it isn't a type of racism that is harmful to an individual but it is harmful in the long run to the culture that practices it. Call it whatever you want to, the root is in looking at a person and basing your actions on his or her race. That is wrong no matter what label you put to it.

Racism, tohugh, the racism we are talking about, is the violent attack towards a person based on his/her color/religion/sexual preference.
When those Spaniards decided to attack Lewis, they didn't chose to attack him calling him "arrogant", "S.O.B." or "idiot", they attacked him for his skin colour. Maybe they are not really violent racist people. Maybe they even have black friends , and tought "how can we hurt him the most? let's call him a ****ing nigga!". That certainly does not help black people to feel truly integrated.

There are many levels of racism. The most violent ones are not as common as they were before, thankfuly. Yet, just now, a building in Gerrmany with turkish inmigrants was purposedly set on fire, and 5 kids and 4 adults died. It is not common, but planes crashing against buildings in USA are not common either, yet your country's policies are very much dictated by what happened on 9-11.

The Spaniards were demonstrating the concept of 'free speech' and physically hurt no-one. I agree with you on all your points, though.

In that respect, Chinatown is not the same as the Warsaw ghetto. 50 years ago the black community in USA was still being seggregated. Don't blame them for not being too hasty in embracing the white people as brothers.

The concept is the same and until the races can follow the words of MLK more than they currently do by not segregating themselves (physically and culturally) there will be racial divides. No group segregated (whether self or forced) can ever hope to be judged by anything other than the reasons that they are segregated. We have ended most instances of forced segregation. We have done our part. Now the other part must be done by not 'self-segregating'. I understand your point, I just disagree that it's a harmless thing.

Then there is a milder, widely spread form of racism. The one that can be compared with Muzza's talk about fat/ugly people.

Let's suppose a rich jewish banker dies at the same time Bill Gates dies. Newspaper will say "Bill Gates dies!" and "Abraham Goldstein, the jewish banker, dies!". See? Nobody would say "Bill Gates, the evangelist/lutheran/catholic/atheist dies". Praising phrases like "Black people really know how to make music, unlike white men" is the same case. It is a way of subtly mark the difference.

I already wrote too much, my arguments need refinement, but I will go on after reading your thoughts :D

I also agree with you here. To bring this back to my main point, all of these things can be avoided if the groups being targeted make an effort to blend in culturally to the majority. The more people get to know the jewish culture and people, the more will not believe the stereotypes. We all base our opinions on anecdotal evidence and having many jewish friends and knowing the banker crap is, indeed, crap, goes a long way towards eliminating racism.

Mike, one can't be racist for voting for a black candidate over a white candidate nor for cheering the acquittal of O.J. Simpson. In human nature we tend to gravitate to individuals that mirror ourselves - For some in the US, Obama represents (false) hope. They somehow think that a 'brother' will understand their plight and magic a solution - It won't of course.

Yes you can be a racist for it. Your definition of racism is...limited...to back up your take on this argument, but that's understandable. A closer definition of racism that includes all it's many permutations would be: Racism is the preference of one race over another based solely on racial characteristics.. Assigning 'a belief of superiority' does describe one form of racism, but not all forms. I understand the desire to have a black person as president just as I understand the trepidation of some whites at that concept. There is a feeling that the black president would 'give away the country' to the black population. It's understandable, but unenlightened.

Subconsciously I probably pinned some of my hopes on Lewis hamilton - It is a positive to have upstanding black role models and I guess Lewis is potentially one such role model - It's all about self esteem. Here in the UK one can watch a week's worth of TV without there being a positive story involving a black person. The newspapers carry stories about war torn kenya, famine, youth killings, footballer's roasting women blah blah blah - If black people look to the likes of Lewis, Tiger Woods & Obama for positive images in their lives - why is that a bad thing? It is hope

It isn't a bad thing as violence is a bad thing, but it re-inforces cultural segregation. In order to be totally free from that, and to be in line with what MLK stated, we need to act towards people as if we are blind to their appearance.

- what does it feel like to give birth

- what does it feel like to lose a loved one

- what does it feel like to be bullied

- what would it be like to live in palestine/iraq

I wouldn't even be able to contemplate the answers to any of the above questions. I would not be able to speak the truth about how it would feel to experience one or all of them. Racism is the same, if you haven't experienced it how do you know how people feel.

-_-

Everyone has experienced discrimination, to varying degrees. Andres has for being jewish. I have for being American and semi-conservative. You have for being black-skinned. Girls have for being fat/ugly. Guys have for being skinny. Murray has for being hung like a horse. I see your arguments as being valid, but you fail to see that discrimination is the same whether it's being done under the banner of racism, homophobia, nationalism, etc. Discrimination isn't owned by the black-skinned my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't need to go on, we agree then. ;) Certainly it isn't a type of racism that is harmful to an individual but it is harmful in the long run to the culture that practices it. Call it whatever you want to, the root is in looking at a person and basing your actions on his or her race. That is wrong no matter what label you put to it.

Agreed, just like I agree with Muzza that no person should be discriminated just for being different. But, like with Muzza, my point is not whether these aggresions are right or wrong. We all agreed they are wrong. We just disagree on how comparable they are. If somebody told you that Carter was an awful US President you would probably agree (I guess, you being conservative and all. If not, replace Carter for another President you are not fond of). If somebody calls Carter "a new Hitler" you would probably disagree, no matter how much you hated Carter.

I think that the "level of wrongness" between racism and other forms of segregation (fats/uglies) are closer than Carter vs Hitler. But they are still not comparable. Both are wrong, but WW2 was not against a guy that didn't gave jobs to ugly people. It was against a guy/people that decided that entire groups and communities should be destroyed and thus in the most horrible ways.

The Spaniards were demonstrating the concept of 'free speech' and physically hurt no-one. I agree with you on all your points, though.

That calls for another, very complex discussion: rights should be limited? How much? Im not touching that! :lol:

The concept is the same and until the races can follow the words of MLK more than they currently do by not segregating themselves (physically and culturally) there will be racial divides. No group segregated (whether self or forced) can ever hope to be judged by anything other than the reasons that they are segregated. We have ended most instances of forced segregation. We have done our part. Now the other part must be done by not 'self-segregating'. I understand your point, I just disagree that it's a harmless thing.

Again, I don't think it is harmless. I see it among the Jews: in extreme cases it is called the "Massadah Syndrome". Massadah was the last refuge were the Jews made their last stand when the Romans invaded Palestine and decided to end the Jewish rebellion. When they knew that the Romans would defeat them, they all commited suicide, before falling in Roman's hands and be sold like slaves. Including women and kids.

Sometimes, mostly regarding Israel's foreign policies, that syndrome is noticeable. The concept is "we are surrounded by enemies. Everybody is out there to kill us." That made Israel make some stupid decisions that, in the end, ruined any chances of succesful achieving peace in middle east. That is a case of "reverse racism", so to speak. Some other moves by Israel were a logical retaliation when attacked, and others were downright racist, segregating the arab population.

But you also need to understand that communities that were prosecuted and killed for centuries need their time to lose their fear. There are still many jews alive that carry the infamous marks of Dachau, Treblinka and Auschwitz. Racist attacks still appear here and there. There is so much hatred that has to be cured. That will take time. The best we all can do is get to know each other. Recognize the differences, and accept people like equals without meaning that they are all the same.

I also agree with you here. To bring this back to my main point, all of these things can be avoided if the groups being targeted make an effort to blend in culturally to the majority. The more people get to know the jewish culture and people, the more will not believe the stereotypes. We all base our opinions on anecdotal evidence and having many jewish friends and knowing the banker crap is, indeed, crap, goes a long way towards eliminating racism.

Agreed. The segregated groups need to lose their fear. But, like I said, the job is far from being complete from both sides. In this respect, black people will provide you with more meaningful anecdotes about how much racism is still around. Maybe not as strong or organized, but still enough to keep eberybody alert.

It isn't a bad thing as violence is a bad thing, but it re-inforces cultural segregation. In order to be totally free from that, and to be in line with what MLK stated, we need to act towards people as if we are blind to their appearance.

We do not need to act as if we are blind to everybody's appearance. Black people is black. Jewish are Jews. WASPs are WASPs. They all should have the same rights. But they are not all the same. Unity in diversity, would be more like it.

Everyone has experienced discrimination, to varying degrees. Andres has for being jewish. I have for being American and semi-conservative. You have for being black-skinned. Girls have for being fat/ugly. Guys have for being skinny. Murray has for being hung like a horse. I see your arguments as being valid, but you fail to see that discrimination is the same whether it's being done under the banner of racism, homophobia, nationalism, etc. Discrimination isn't owned by the black-skinned my friend.

Actually, religion wise, I consider myself an atheist. And most Jewish people would not consider me a Jewish at all. I am not circumsized, I didn't took a Bar Mitzvah, and, most of all, I don't believe in god. I know more about Catholicism (due to living in a Catholic country) than about Judaism. :lol: But I am culturally a Jewish, and I don't have a problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best we all can do is get to know each other. Recognize the differences, and accept people like equals without meaning that they are all the same.

This is, to me, the ultimate truth of it all. You got me thinking of my parents Quiet One. I have a British mother and a West Indian(Caribbean) father. Sometimes the differences in opinions they each had (they're split now) made me wonder how on earth they became partners in the first place. Both of them view the world and judge things in their own very different ways. Where one sees light the other sees shade and vice versa. They're both kind of stuck in their ways and attitudes, and this is partly reflected by their cultural backgrounds. The thing is, they respected each other enough to give one anothers perspective the time of day, and they're both the better for it. I wouldn't say they're each more worldly because of their exposure to such a different culture compared to their own respective ones, but they've each become a more tolerant person as a result of they're union. Therefore I could never imagine either of my parents making a derogatory statement towards someones racial background. It would just be too backward a mentality for either of them to have.

A neat little example of how the world could get along better if individuals had a vested interest in spending a little more time at least attempting to understand a different point of view.

I just thought I'd add my two cents to the race/cultural aspect of this interesting discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The concept is the same and until the races can follow the words of MLK more than they currently do by not segregating themselves (physically and culturally) there will be racial divides. No group segregated (whether self or forced) can ever hope to be judged by anything other than the reasons that they are segregated. We have ended most instances of forced segregation. We have done our part. Now the other part must be done by not 'self-segregating'. I understand your point, I just disagree that it's a harmless thing.

Yup. I think this is very well-put.

Agreed, just like I agree with Muzza that no person should be discriminated just for being different. But, like with Muzza, my point is not whether these aggresions are right or wrong. We all agreed they are wrong. We just disagree on how comparable they are. If somebody told you that Carter was an awful US President you would probably agree (I guess, you being conservative and all. If not, replace Carter for another President you are not fond of). If somebody calls Carter "a new Hitler" you would probably disagree, no matter how much you hated Carter.

I think that the "level of wrongness" between racism and other forms of segregation (fats/uglies) are closer than Carter vs Hitler. But they are still not comparable. Both are wrong, but WW2 was not against a guy that didn't gave jobs to ugly people. It was against a guy/people that decided that entire groups and communities should be destroyed and thus in the most horrible ways.

[...]

That calls for another, very complex discussion: rights should be limited? How much? Im not touching that! :lol:

I'm a bit confused. I was branded a bigot, vile, obscene, offensive, disappointing - yet Mike gets a far more measured response. Not that I mind. I like a heated debate as you know. I'll recap what I've said over and over again above to try to find out what was so offensive.

  1. Either all forms of hurtful prejudice should be condemned, or none should.
  2. That is not the case atm in society or on this forum. It's acceptable to call someone (especially a celebrity/driver) a bitch or faggot, but not a nigger.
  3. Ethnic minorities sometimes exacerbate their own problems.
  4. Ethnic minorities often find offense where none was intended.

I don't believe I ever said that ugly people or fat people or women or gays or disabled people etc suffered precisely as much as, or more than, black people or Jews. In fact I agreed with Meanioni that it was futile and petty to try to compare different kinds of suffering. However, I feel that you and Fed Up seem determined to prove that you suffered more than women, gays etc. All I ever said was that many people suffer for different reasons - and I don't understand why the response we get to racist suffering is so different to the response we get for homophobic or sexist suffering, for example.

A neat little example of how the world could get along better if individuals had a vested interest in spending a little more time at least attempting to understand a different point of view.

I just thought I'd add my two cents to the race/cultural aspect of this interesting discussion.

Yes it's a good example, and it's interesting to learn about your background. All I would say is that there are many different kinds of points of view, not just different points of view due to race. People who have suffered psychological abuse for being obese might find some jokes we all make totally unacceptable and very hurtful, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only only this to say............"we are all just bozo's on the bus".....................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murray, you're ahead of your time. Hopefully, at some point of time, racism will be something we can joke over. Like sex and prudery, sex today is funny, the easiest thing to make jokes about.

Your views are perhaps skewed by the environment you're in - academic environments are different, due to dare I say a combination of a greater than average intelligence and equally importantly, because people are more educated and informed. You can't be racist in a university in the western university, it would take a monumental level of stupidity to ignore the evidence all around, seeing highly intelligent people of every colour around you. And monumentally stupid people don't hang around in universities. I spend most of my time in a similar environment. If someone made a racist remark i nthe university, I'd laugh it off. It would just about always be a joke. I've had a lecturer make racist jokes about me in class, that was funny, everyone found it funny. I couldn't imagine finding it anything but funny, because I can't imagine someone like that acting in a racist manner.

The outside world's different. You can't laugh it off. Which is why, outside the comfort of your cosy surroundings, racism isn't that funny yet, because it's too real.

You're bringing up unrelated but possibly equally important issues with what you say about eating disorders etc. As an example, women are, especially by men always exclusively judged by their looks, and treated on that basis. You'll notice that on the forum, people's obsession with commenting on the looks of female members - at least one member has picked up on the fact and mentioned it - that if you're female and you don't get comments on your looks, you're not 'pretty', and your post get treated differently. And that's stupid text remarks by a person who you see as a silly little picture, imagine the magnitude of the problem in real life.

There's an unrelated fact about racism, but a possibly relevant one - it is time to look at racism beyond the myopic white vs rest view - it exists in every community, and it should be tackled the same way for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else to throw into the hat;

White people are at the top of the food chain so the speak. The world is a reflection of a white man's view on what is right, wrong etc - 99.99% of the way we live is according to laws/rules laid down by the white man.

Now if you accept that different races think differently and are at different stages of evolution how can we all be expected to react in a uniform manner in all circumstances.

I dont have the time to continue this, but I will return to expand on this view.

<_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are amusing, I'll give you that.

:lol:

Still Bro"s....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...