To me it seems rather simplistic to believe that if Obama wins the presidency racial strife will end lol. Only time will heal those wounds.
Why would you believe folks would blame racism if a bill by Obama gets defeated? That is a rather narrow view on how minorities think.
Seems like a major part of the racial problems this country has is the inability for both sides to look at a situation from the other sides position, if ever that happened then maybe the racial strife would begin to end.
But there has to be effort on both sides and really noone is making any effort at this time.
Right now it seems blacks and others call racism without any real investigation and whites and others, disregard it without any real investigation.
The situation would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.
I see where you are coming from Blank, but you are wrong.
One of the great lies of the modern age is that conflict comes about when people do not "understand" one another. This can not be further from the truth. The Palestinians and the Jews understand each other very well. The Nazis and the Soviets did as well.
I reject the idea that conflict would be avoided if white's looked at things from a black perspective and vice versa. I do not beleive that someones perspective is based on their race. There is no experiance common to all whites or a coherant black experiance.
Not all blacks have experianced life in a similar way. The true error is in assuming that humans can be classified based on concepts like race and class. People are individuals and must be evaluated as such.
Race should be a part of who you are but many people treat it as the defining characteristic of a person.
I will admit that I often write off black accusations of racism. I do this because the evidence is often thin. The ones who cry wolf have ruined it for those who have been harmed by actual racism.
No you are wrong.
People would not be able to ever work together to get anything done if they were unable to understand and see a situation from anothers perspective.
How do you think nations were formed or languages, anything that required a concerted act?
A bunch of individuals just all the sudden started doing the same thing and voila a nation was formed without ever having anyone ever understand why the other was doing what they did.
The idea is ludicrous.
There would never be any compromises made ever. No unity in anything, no patriotism, religion, culture, etc.
I do agree that race is a made up concept but that does not reduce the power it has over human beings.
I also believe that people should be judged individually and not by their race. But this is not to say that a persons race, in this day and age, does not define some aspects of their lives, perspective being one of them.
As far as crying wolf is concerned, yeah maybe this is an issue in regards to the individualized racism that a person may experience from time to time from other individuals.
False accusations don't seem to be a real problem when dealing with institutionalized racism, all one has to do is look at federal sentencing guidelines or the death penalty (lol you'll find some sexism there as well) to see some examples.
Smoking cocaine or snorting cocaine, whats the difference?
Compromise does not come from seeing something from someone elses point of view. Compromise is based on not being able to see someone elses point of view but being willing to reach an agreement with them.
I can not understand the impulses of a homosexual, but I am willing to get a long with them. That is where you are wrong. Getting along does not require that you understand the other person, just that you let them be.
Man is a social animal, we did not need understanding to establish a soceity. We might need an "Understanding" (i.e. Constitution)in which we all agree, but that does not mean that I have to understand why you do what you do.
We could never free the world from conflict regradless of whether or not we were all willing to see each others point of view. First of all, what if one person can understand that point of view, but disagrees with it? I can understand what motives someone with out approving it. There is a difference between understanding and approval.
Federal sentencing guidelines were a reaction to claims of racism. Blacks complained that people who sold drugs that threatened them, like crack, were not taken as seriously as those who targeted whites. They claimed that the crack dealers were getting off lightly because they were only killing blacks with their wares.
That is the first time I've heard that one lol blacks wanted tougher sentences for crack dealers and no other type of drug dealer huh, ok.
I always thought the excuse for the tougher sentences for crack dealers had to do with the, alleged, higher levels of violent activity that is associated, apparently, only with crack.
Hmm I guess Miami in the early '80s wasnt that violent of a place even though the "Cocaine Cowboys" were bringing in tons of cocaine, everyone played nicely and stuff. (LOL).
Hmm how about just making possession of cocaine regardless of what form it's in determinative of what sentence one should get?
Anyway I didn't comment on your blog to discus institutional racism so I'm just gonna leave it alone and agree to disagree with you on this issue.
Blacks have always complained that the system did not take crimes against them seriously. That was the point of sentencing guidelines. Black complained that the justice system did not care about drugs as long as they were killing blacks and the evidence they pointed to was the light sentences crack dealers received.
Anyway, differences in outcome do not prove racism anyway.
I think the only thing that would prove racism to you or any other person it doesn't affect would be an actual lynching accompanied with a cross burning ceremony attended by white sheeted psychopaths dancing to some WWII nazi propaganda song.
And even then you'd probably think any reaction to this would be an overreaction.
Commenting by HaloScan
