Discussion in 'Rat on a Rat' started by WallaTn, Jun 2, 2014.
Shes an intelligent caring woman ,so after 3 pages of explanations ,an apology woudlnt have hurt ..
Perhaps the admins can delete said posts?
I'm saying that I think its a problem expressing herself in a foreign language
fair enough BB, but if you will scrutinise every one of my posts, I know that you will not find me insulting or offending anyone other than rats, quite the opposite in fact, I try my best never to offend anyone and rarely take a hard line on comments, but with this one, I feel compelled to for the reason stated above. It will be good if this is put to rest now I think, as my intention was not to hurt DT as I have much enjoyed her previous posts.
Wallah i agree this should now be laid to rest....
Lets return to 'Rat Busting'
So if I don't speak a language properly, I am excused for showing racist behaviour, right I get it.
Hi wallah, I have read most of your post and have never felt that you were offensive to anyone. I was not referring to any of your posts when I spoke about other discriminating comments and I apologise if that is what came across.
Yes, I do agree that DarkTown needs to know that the way she worded her comment was offensive, but I don't think that was what she intended. and in view of this and her attempts to explain what she meant, I am concerned that the harshness of some of the responses would be hurtful to her.
I agree that it would be best to put this to rest now, I have made my point as best I can and I don't want to continue in this discussion, so from now on I will be sitting on my hands.
No, it isn't - racism is DENOUNCING a group of people to be INFERIOR because of their race. If I say I do not like chinese people for personal reasons, it is _not_ a racist comment, no matter what the thought police is ruling what constitutes a thought crime. But saying "The chinese people are all stupid, and it will never change, because their race/genes determines it" - now, THAT would be a classic racist comment.
The "racist" definition was, since ca. the 90s, extended multiple times and has not much to do with "race" anymore, but embraces now all sorts of minorities (but mind: that have a representation, why do you think eg. atheists are not protected, even though in western countries, a huge percentage belongs to this group).
I am, and have been my whole life, probably more liberal than most others and extremely tolerant, but I do not let anyone take away my opinion and my thoughts. For tens of years I have noticed how the language is being controlled, I first experienced that in the US, then in Germany, now it is all over Europe (no wonder, if you understand the background of this movement which went from Germany to the US, where it picked up attention and then back).
You People, do not take anything for granted what is being infused into your minds. Even if everyone tells you, jumping off a skyscraper is safe, you wouldn't jump (at least I hope, you wouldn't) ... but if certain, interested circles, tells you what words you are allowed to use yesterday, today and tomorrow (they change, you know, because the citizen will avoid a certain word and use another, tainting the other by doing so, and so on), then you will follow?
You know what happens next? There are, currently, initiatives on their way to criminalize even critics eg. on religion (so happening in the UN and EU).
I am, by far, not advocating racism or discrimination, but I am advocating vigorously to put terms where they belong and not change our language to double speak! No, I am not into conspiracy theories, I actually even think most people that propagating them, are crackpots. However, the more I have experienced and researched in my life, I have grown the conviction that most conspiracy theories do have a serious core, some situation, even some information that they are basing on. They become twisted, clouded, unbelievable, but that doesn't make them totally out of place, but always worth researching to find the conspiracy and the practice in the conspiracy theory.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say racists comments are totally not allowed to happen anymore. Will this make people think differently? Will it bring jobs and equal treatment to all minority groups? Of course, it won't, until you control the convictions of people as well. If I was a hater of black people, it wouldn't make me the least less a hater if I could not say it anymore (but still think it and behave accordingly) - in the opposite, I probably would be angry about being prvented to speak my mind ... and discriminate against this group even more).
So, why shall we drive racists into hiding where we cannot detect them easily anymore by their speech? It is by far better to allow them their free speech in the public - and be able to assess, if it is conviction, provocation, ideology or specified anger. Then it would be possible to adress the problems, transparently and publicly. Playing the game "who sees a racist first", which is what large parts of our societies are doing today, won't help. Especially the US and Germany, both famous for such games in their histories, should know better...
It is not that easy. You see, I _am_ an Aryan - blonde, blue-eyed, and even with a confirmed aryan family line as it was required by the national socialists in Germany once (every state official had to prove their family line to be allowed to stay in the service and one of my ancestors was a state official, so...).
But there is, where we fall into the language trap. An "Aryan" in todays use in US languages only resembles partly the meaning of this word in another language, eg. in German (Arier).
In Germany, "Arier" is nothing more than an individual who can prove that no race who was considered to be harmful mixed into the family line. It does NOT mean that this individual hates any other race or even wants to preserve is own race ... or even that this individual cares at all about being an Aryan. This whole Aryan rubbish was, after WW2, removed from the German society and in todays "Neonazis" (neo national socialists), a tiny group in reality, but huge when being reported in and for the press, there are hardly any "Arians" to be found. I am still waiting to meet some of them one day (as I said, a very tiny group...) propagating their ideology and then confront them, black haired and brown eyed, with a (by their own ideology) "real Aryan".
I didn't meet the US Aryan Brotherhood yet, but when I have the chance, I will make sure to have a chat with them, I seriously doubt that many of them can prove their Aryan descendance...
But, so - every society, every country, has their own ideas on what constitutes what and on what means what, independent of the origin of a matter. And one can react on it in different ways as well, which can escalate or not a given situation. I once visited an english friend, in Liverpool, and he took me out into a pub where I met his friends. From the first second on, I was called the "Nazi". One has to know that this word was, until a few years ago, a very serious accusation in Germany and a grave humiliation to anyone born in Germany (especially after the war). However, since I do not know what they learnt in school there or what they heard in their family, I didn't go into details and did not start a discussion. In the end, people make up their mind about you, as a definite person, when they get to know you, no matter what prejudice they carry. I had similar experiences many years ago in France and Denmark, and recently in Tunisia as well (only there, "Nazi" is a positive word ... the group of people I hang around with greeted me usually with "Heil Hitler" to "show their respect - one of them, a high state official, even had a picture of Hitler hanging in his living room). All of these people might have a good reason to like or dislike me, and I tolerated that, knowing well, that I may or may not confirm their prejudice. I never felt really "discriminated" - what those people do, they don't because of me, but because their prejudice, which has, I mentioned it already, some reason. In all cases I will reply "You talk not about me or my generation, but call me as you wish, since I don't care".
BTW - In a group of maximum pigmented people, I won't be called eg. "pigmentally challenged", no, they will call me "The White", "The Ghost" or something along that line. And from their point of view, they are right, why would I be offended by it? In the end, it is up to me, to convince others, white, black, green or blue, about the value of my persona and my character - and I haven't met a group yet where I wasn't able to face this challenge.
I mentioned it before in this thread - forbidding words change nothing, only changing the conviction in a persons mind will, in this regard, I do not waste my time crying or feeling discriminated against when I was, but concentrate right away on convincing them by other means.
Sorry I disagree. Saying you don't like Chinese people is racist/discriminatory as far as I'm concerned. Not liking a whole race because of their race is racist/discriminatory. As for the thinking and saying, yes you could still hate a group even if you're not saying it but hopefully it will sink in one day that your hated is unjustified.
"I only found out that we consider people by color in high school when i studied about the white american people , a crue with white abaya sorry i forgot the name, that they would kill black people and then racist words against asian and describing them as fish or pig"
I was just referring to this that was written, Etoyoc. I am Aryan too by definition but was mainly speaking about the hate groups here, holding only the Aryan name. You are very right though, not many are true Aryan. Chat or no chat with them, they won't care. Most have crossed over to point where they are not even rational and confronting them only leads to trouble. But I guess irrational people is the norm for any group that kills based on skin color :/
I disagree totally ,,,,freedom of speach is one thing ,,,but prejudice and discrimination because of biological differences ,is something else completly ,,Racism was the driving force behind the slave trade ,the holocaust and the so called ethnic clensing we witnessed in europe not so long ago .Eradicating the word racist may not stop the thoughts ,,,but it does help the minorities ,to find work ,gain equal opportunities and have the right to seek education ...
And ideally reduce people from passing down or inheriting attitudes of their parents just because they don't like a race group. If my parents brought me up showing how they constantly did not like a race group i would know nothing else but to think it's normal and ok.
And if I say I don't like cows, then I am discriminating against cows? If I say I don't like teachers, I am discriminating against them? Well, then let me put this to its ultimate - I like only me ... that means I am a very bad racist to all of mankind.
You must differentiate in what context it is said - if a representant of a state says it, it has a diffrent meaning and dimension than when an individual says it. It is the duty of a state to ensure the equality of all citizens (or, to a certain extent, all people living in its state boundaries), but there it is not a duty nor a law stating that an individual has to like or dislike all kind of people the same way.
In this regard, a person can strongly support equality laws in his country, but, on a personal level, dislike certain groups of people. For example, one can support gay marriage, but in his private life, have no gay friends or stay away from those. Of course, in todays world, most people would find an OTHER reason to stay away or not like something.
"Racism" was not in all cases the driving force behind extinctions - in reality, it was a mixture of homophobia, superiority of all kinds (not race alone) and profit. The Jews, for example, were pursued from some, because they were said to be responsible for the death of Jesus. Others pursued them because they accumulated wealth - because the interest ban (loaning money) did not apply to them, and, as a result, the christians became or stayed poor while the Jews became rich. A third group pursued them because they were Semites (as, btw, all arabs are as well), while they themselves thought they are Aryans, and another group pursues them because members of their race or belief are said to have driven away others from their home land (Palestinians). This all RESULTED in a pursue due to racism, but the true REASONS for this racism had different origins. But all the origins pointed to the same group and one argument fueled the other. Forbidding to speak about racism does not address the real reasons, which means that the real reasons will stay alive in thoughts and minds and could, at every minute, erupt again.
We also did not address the dynamics of mass propaganda - which we can see very much in todays world (so called "terrorist thread"). If you see a person of arabic origin place a bag somewhere and then walk away - what would you think? And yes, that is, indeed, racism. If we grant help to a certain group of immigrants (but not to another) - it is racism. And when it comes to the attitude to "bring democracy" somehwre or "help people develop democracy", it is rasicm at its best, because it implies that those people are inferior in the regard that they are not able to develop democracy themselves (no matter whether they want or do not want it).
You can, of course say "this kind of racism is better than the other" - but is it? From whose point of view? And who is to judge what constitutes "good" and "bad" racism? Isn't it we ourselves, the ones who are the actors?
Yes and no. Me, for example, born a few years after WW2, I never shared any good or bad thoughts of the older people and made up my own mind. Very much the same way as, today, I do not follow everything I am told, but examine and research and ultimately make up my own mind on issues. I loved to play in my youth "Cowboys and Indians", still some children play it in Europe today, but never did it come to my mind for one second to take up a gun and hunt real life Indians (or Cowboys, for that matter). I never spend a single thought about the citizens of Hamburg when I eat an "Hamburger" and I never believed a "French kiss" is something that the French actually do. Our whole life and surrounding is plastered with racism and this will stay the Holy Grail for leftists (or "critical alternatives") forever. In the end, we will be left speechless, because, whatever we say and do, we will first have to iterate through hunderds and thousands of possible race/group infringements, and we are done and absolutley positive that we found the words that will offend no one, our communication partner has wandered off or died of old age. Is this really, what we want? And if not - are there not other ways to get what we want?
If I report to someone "there are 3 black people standing", it is a simple description that is easy to understand. I do, with such a description, not put any value on them. They could be thugs or rocket scientist- who cares, because in this moment, I only want to make short description. I also would say "there are 3 men standing" or "there are 3 women". NOw, the first would be racists, and the second and third are not? What if the 3 men are women dressed as men? What if they are really of androgyn gender and just look like men but have a primary female gender? Would they be offendend, if I call them men (or women)?. Well, some would be, but most would not be, because they understand that I report what I see. There is no doubt whatsoever that, if one only tries hard enough, almost every sentence that we utter can be misunderstood, someone can twist almost every sentence into something that the speaker never wanted to say. And this is "thought crime", accusing someone that he means a certain thing, even when he does not say it. And - thought crime is so simple, because it is the recipient who decides what the speaker thinks. We should not allow this to creep into the society.
There is a saying that you can lead a horse to the water, but not force it to drink. In the same way, we can, on the official, state/community level, fight racism, but not make an individual to embrace it. The wrong way to do this, is to start changing the language and do as what we cannot see anymore isn't there anymore - the right way would be to implant equality by definite measures and let the language follow the facts (and if it won't, then we need to think about the measures ... or even the whole issue itself in terms of questioning alleged universal rules and rights, because, even those, were not defined by the majority of mankind, but a subset of predominantely "western" minds).
Etoyoc - if you report to someone "there are 3 black men standing" - this is not racist. It is a statement of fact and the 3 men would not be offended.
If you report "there are 3 black men standing and I don't like black people" - that, in my opinion, is offensive and racist. Maybe not racist in a legal sense, in that it is an expression of opinion rather than an action which is discriminatory, but still racist.
How so? If I am determined to not employ someone who is yellow, then I won't do it, no matter if I can state this reason or look for another. And, if I absolutely must, I will find reasons to fire him soon. Such equality has to be established on the official state level, no matter what. However, and we did not mention this in the discussion, the will to equality, the interest in eye level must also come from the minority (on a level of their representants) and the same way that the state imposes the quality on its members, the minority representation has to impose it on their members, too - else it would be a matter of good thinking is not the same as good doing.
The obvious obstacle here is that we assume that the the society surrounding is exactly the same for all groups and, in addition, we assume that every member of every group will come, on the same base, to the very same conclusions and ultimatively embrace the very same values. But this is not the case - not even in a homologue group. Let's think about it ... is everyone whom we went to primary school with and who had the very same surrounding and preconditions, today a capitalist? Is everyone a consumerist? Fears everyone terrorists and supports democracy (as define in our society)? Is everyone following the base society requirements and has 2.0 children? Strives everyone for the best possible education and the highest paying jobs?
We could continue the value check, but most probably, you will, even in such a homologue group, find people that are falling off the roster. How much more diverse will it become, when we introduce different preconditions, different values, different religions into the picture? As long as we can assume that every parent and every child wants a high education, we can enforce an equal education for all - but what about those who firmly believe that (school) education is not the size that fits all? Who are determined to become an artist, or a farmer (in the meaning that farmers need a complete different set of experience and theoretical education than a physicist or lawyer, for example). There are people who believe that they do not need Darwin, because creationism explains all. Others believe that the sexualisation of children (by sexual education etc.) is not the way to raise a child? To have girls and boys together in a classroom? And so it goes on and on.
Yes, we can impose, enforce, a common eduction and knowledge on everyone, but it won't make them uniform, it actually can make the differences even bigger - and as long as we all are not uniform, there are differences. As long as there diffrences, there will be dicrimination (the word itself means: pointing out / make differences). Whether this discrimination turns into hate between groups or not, is another issue - and THIS issue must be adressed, not the one, that we are all different, but are supposed to be all the same, because this goal we will only reach by cloning one of us and eradicating all others (and I dare not to think about this one indiviudual, how many thousand discrimination and racist arguments it will take to pick it).
Bottom line - we are all different, and we need to talk about it. What we do not need, is to fight each other, though.
Call it political correctness gone crazy ,but Zero tellerence ,is the way forward ...In London this has been enforced for many years.And now there are more Asians ,blacks ,orientals ,in high paid ,exceutive positions ,then ever before ,,This was not the case 10 or so years back ,,when an application was refused because of the colour of your skin .
Yes, but here is a fine line that most people do not notice. The term racist in his historical devleopment means to denounce someone BECAUSE of something that this person cannot change (as his race, for example). In this example, one can not like them because of OTHER reasons that are independent of the race (or blackness), eg. because they are carrying baseball clubs or using drugs. You understand the difference? Now, this is nitpicking, because you will find many examples that look like racism on the first look, but have other reasons to come up. When, for example, the police in a certain district, checks people of a certain (know for its criminality by statistic facts) behaviour/nationality/etc. more often than other groups (who are not know for criminality), it is called "racism", but, in reality, it is not. When I was young, I was strip searched on occasions by the customs when crossing the german/netherland border, because, having long hair, I fit into the typical group of people (young, car, long hair) that usually drives to the netherlands to buy drugs. When I wore patches on my leather jacket and was driving a motorbike, I was stopped much more frequent than people without patches - because the bikers with patches were known to (statistically) more frequently carry weapons or drugs.
What I want to achieve here, is to sensibilize the readers that not everything that is - today - put into the drawer "racism" is racism by itself and not every discrimination is discrimination for the sake of it. There is a dangerous drift in some of your societies (countries) to put everything into the same box and use this as justification to impose restrictions on all of us (best examples: terrorism), but this drift is rarely (unfortunately, usually in nerd/conspiray circles, which puts many people off) discussed.
Me, I am married to a person of a different gender, different race, different nationality, different religion, different language, different society and we get along very well for many years now. I have friends all across the world and speak my (native) languge less often than others. I have lived in other countries and continents, so I know very well the topic of "discrimination". However, this awareness also let me see how often it is ab-used and institutionalized to put up restrictions on a high level and thus ultimately deprive me of my freedom. This deprivation, btw, has been, in my own experience, take place most extensive in the western, democratic, countries and less in so-called third world countries and "questionable" democracies. And this, in turn, makes me think, deeply, about some issues of policy and society - and sometimes, it is swimming against the flow.
Yes, but that is foremost a result of state level policy - but also a process of normal integration (there comes a time when the pure force of educated immigrants will make its way into the community) and globalism (native people sell/propagate better to their own nationality, speak another language, etc.).
I could put a lot comments in here, concerning the UK (eg. did the policy work well for everyone, every nationality in the same way, what about more -local- unrests, how is the policy working, in comparision, on post-colonial and "illegal" immigrants from within and without the EU and Commonwealth), but I do not want to not break up this thread even more. It is an interesting topic, though, and there are a couple of concepts in various countries that worked well. In Germany, for example, the pressure, and change of policies, comes mostly from left-alternative interest groups who have, today, acquired a lot of, even deciding, influence in the state policy and society (which brings then, of course, the danger of in-society pursue of thought crime, which is, indeed, happening).
But generally, I am a strong supporter of advocation of equality on the state level, as long as it comes from conviction and not from reasons of political (or industrial) gain.
Ack - I noticed that I did not write a much about tunisia, but most have been written already. The black people in Tunisia are indeed sort of seperated and intercolor marriages are rare. Baclk african students, eg. in Tunis, speak about racism and being physically pursued on occasions. In the regios of the middle and south, it is indeed the case that women have, weeks before their marriage, to stay out of the sun or wear sun-blocking garment to appear as light as possible on the wedding day. On the other hand, real whiteness (irish/scandinavian) is not much appreciated, at least not in its pure (winter) state.
When it comes to Jews, their number in Tunisia has declined to a real small number and it can be foreseen that in a handful of years, they will be gone from Tunisia. There are quite a few racial problems towards them (and the fact that it was discussed for the tunisian constitution to explicitely forbid the normalization with Israel didn't help). The lastest incident was that tunisian authorities did not want Isareli citizens on a cruise to enter tunisian territory during a stopover, as a result, most cruise ships with Israeli citizens on board do not stop in Tunis anymore. The tunisian tourism minister, Ms. Karboul (herself married to a german non-muslim) was questioned by the constitution assembly (who has currently the only and real power in Tunisia) about a travel to Israel and was accused of collaboration with Israel.
Then, there is also a latent racism against non-arabs, non-maghrebians and non-tunisians, which come into play usually when talking marriage. I do not see, however, that this type of racism is enrooted into certain groups of the society (which is often used to explain it ... or better: cloud it), because, from my experience, you can find Tunisians pro and con amongst the rich and poor, amonst the educated and non-educated and amongst the people in the tourist and rural areas. This is why I call it "latent".
Bottom line - yes, there is definite racism in Tunisia and yes, in some regards it is real racism basing deeply-rooted on the belief of superiority of race, but in some parts it is not a real one and could be easily addressed by laws and education and by clearly naming the issues.
Im not suggesting we cannot talk about racism. And in terms of Racisms origins, its only natural that the term and its meanings will evolve because we are becoming more and more multicultural, so its absolutely relevant that people should learn how to be act within a multicultural group and society. Call it control or whatever, but to me its tolerance and over time it becomes normal and saying you dont like a specific race group is almost gone because we have also evolved enough to learn that we should take each experience at face value. disliking a race group because they earn more money is racism, because not every single one of them do earn more money.
I think we just have to agree to disagree on this point. I think i get what you're saying that its likely gone a bit to far with what we can and cant say, but personally the less general we get with statements like 'I dont like or hate a specific race group' im holding out that it will help people realise the benefits.
My brain (what little there is!) hurts