USA - racism

Status
Not open for further replies.
I must be blind or stupid. Where in that video did someone combat racism with racism? Surely you're not suggesting a black guy hitting a white guy is racism?


Why not, or ir is racism one way?

Didn't Ghandi hate Africans, said they were below the standard of British Indians?
 
Why not, or ir is racism one way?

Didn't Ghandi hate Africans, said they were below the standard of British Indians?
Wow. Racism against white people does not exist. White people are not an oppressed minority.
 
I guess we have different views here, but myself I'd call it racism on a one by one situation.

A party of all white people and a black guy comes to join, and he's told to go away as none of us want any black people in our party = racism towards the black guy.

A party of all black people and a white guy comes to join, and he's told to go away as none of us want any white people in our party = racism towards the white guy.

How many white and black people there are around and who did what to who in the past has nothing to with this scenario of this one person being discriminated against by others of a difference race.

Sorry, but I'm not in the one rule for one side and a different rule for the other side thinking.
You have an individual who is discriminated against due to his/her race by others of a different race and for me, that's racism.

Sorry if others disagree with me on this.
 
I guess we have different views here, but myself I'd call it racism on a one by one situation.

A party of all white people and a black guy comes to join, and he's told to go away as none of us want any black people in our party = racism towards the black guy.

A party of all black people and a white guy comes to join, and he's told to go away as none of us want any white people in our party = racism towards the white guy.

How many white and black people there are around and who did what to who in the past has nothing to with this scenario of this one person being discriminated against by others of a difference race.

Sorry, but I'm not in the one rule for one side and a different rule for the other side thinking.
You have an individual who is discriminated against due to his/her race by others of a different race and for me, that's racism.

Sorry if others disagree with me on this.

It’s a technicality if a white man beats up a black man it’s racist and assault, if a black man beats up a white man it’s assault but not racist, but all of this is really off topic if we’re discussing racism in USA.

ps forgot to add I remember reading a sign insulting the English, that was in a shop in Scotland had to be removed because it was racist.
 
I guess we have different views here, but myself I'd call it racism on a one by one situation.

A party of all white people and a black guy comes to join, and he's told to go away as none of us want any black people in our party = racism towards the black guy.

A party of all black people and a white guy comes to join, and he's told to go away as none of us want any white people in our party = racism towards the white guy.

How many white and black people there are around and who did what to who in the past has nothing to with this scenario of this one person being discriminated against by others of a difference race.

Sorry, but I'm not in the one rule for one side and a different rule for the other side thinking.
You have an individual who is discriminated against due to his/her race by others of a different race and for me, that's racism.

Sorry if others disagree with me on this.
It can be called many things but it's not racism. Probably safe to assume those calling it racism are white.
 
^^^ I've never in my time linked the word savages to colour, creed or religion.

Maybe it's you?

Edit. It got me thinking where I've heard the term savages and it's from Cowboys and Indians to say that Native Indians were savages.

I can assure you it's not me.

So, based on the edit you made, you accept (as per my link above in post #90) that it has negative racial connotations?
 
Why not, or ir is racism one way?

Didn't Ghandi hate Africans, said they were below the standard of British Indians?

Gandhi did indeed look down on South African blacks. In the same way that Churchill looked down on Indians. But Gandhi never killed any South African blacks through his political actions.
 
Last edited:
Ghandi did indeed look down on South African blacks. In the same way that Churchill looked down on Indians. But Ghandi never killed any South African blacks through his political actions.
Are there many South African blacks in India
 
Nope, he (Gandhi) spent a lot of time in South Africa.

I apologise for the quote, it reads as being me being a smart ass, I’ll probably explain this badly, racism exists and what happened to George floyd was horrendous and somehow needs to be stopped, but it seems to do that it needs me as a white person to apologise for the actions of Churchill and for being born white , and please don’t think this is a go at you, Churchill could be replaced with anyone.
 
It can be called many things but it's not racism. Probably safe to assume those calling it racism are white.

Ok, so if I may please clarify so I understand what you are saying here.

Discriminating against someone based upon their race is only called racism if the person being discriminated against is in a minority within this country?

Does the law see it in this way, so if you were white, in this country, and were discriminated against, it would be a charge of racial discrimination but those people would not be classed as racists because they are, lets say black?

Are black people the only ones who can use the term racist?
If we say, Chinese for example, would the same apply? A white person could be racist towards a Chinese person if they discriminated against them simply due to their race, but again a Chinese person could not be classed as racist if the discriminated against the white person?

Are we saying it's simply down to numbers of either race in a particular location that sets these rules, or are we using events that happened generations ago to blame/brand/allow certain actions against people today?

It does feel wrong to impose double standard rules on say a white and black pair of 17 years olds, simply based upon historic events that took place decades/generations before either person was born.

Feels very confusing to have multiple sets of rules for the same offensive behavior of one person/party against another.
 
It’s the way the law is , my information is about 5 years old at least, but it is/was impossible to be racist against a white person in England, but as my post said you can be done for racism if your white English in Scotland.
 
I might have explained that badly again lol , let’s say you’re a white English man and a non white person hits you , not racist , assault yes, if you’re a white English man in Scotland and a Scottish person shouted anti English slogans and hits you that’s racist and assault.
 
Ok, so if I may please clarify so I understand what you are saying here.

Discriminating against someone based upon their race is only called racism if the person being discriminated against is in a minority within this country?

Does the law see it in this way, so if you were white, in this country, and were discriminated against, it would be a charge of racial discrimination but those people would not be classed as racists because they are, lets say black?

Are black people the only ones who can use the term racist?
If we say, Chinese for example, would the same apply? A white person could be racist towards a Chinese person if they discriminated against them simply due to their race, but again a Chinese person could not be classed as racist if the discriminated against the white person?

Are we saying it's simply down to numbers of either race in a particular location that sets these rules, or are we using events that happened generations ago to blame/brand/allow certain actions against people today?

It does feel wrong to impose double standard rules on say a white and black pair of 17 years olds, simply based upon historic events that took place decades/generations before either person was born.

Feels very confusing to have multiple sets of rules for the same offensive behavior of one person/party against another.
Something like this really shouldn't need explaining in 2020. Plenty of material out there if you want to learn.

I'd better stay out of this before someone comes along and throws "all lives matter" into the mix. Rather not get banned.
 
It's easy to get bogged down in definitions of what constitutes racism, but all discrimination against fellow human beings is a bit rubbish, isn't it?

Somebody online came up with a good historical definition of the differences between the US and the UK regarding race relations: that the UK's is rooted in colonialism and we regard Black people as inferior, the US's is rooted in slavery and they regard Black people as barely human.

I don't know if that is strictly accurate, but I do think there is a historical context at play here.
 
Something like this really shouldn't need explaining in 2020. Plenty of material out there if you want to learn.

I'd better stay out of this before someone comes along and throws "all lives matter" into the mix. Rather not get banned.

Sorry, it's just a personal viewpoint I know.
I just don't really agree that 2 people born so long after past terrible events should have different rules/standard applied to them now due to those historic events.

It would be like having a 8 years old English and German boys having differences thrust upon them today, due to world wars that ended 60 ish years ago.
I hate all this past crap dragging it's way into the current world.

If people do things wrong today the they should be punished, but that punishment should not be altered based upon events that are long in the historical past.

Just a personal view I suppose, and I've been lucky as everyone I've ever met personally from any race has always been a joy to be around.

Anyway, sadly this will never end as humans just adore dragging the past up to use as ammunition and I can't see this changing sadly.

Time for bed :)
 
But the data doesn't say why the shootings occurred just that they occurred.

And this is the very reason why I said this is a one sided set of stats - number of shootings and proportion of population - you need more information than that to draw any tangible conclusions.

As you say, some would be 'why were they shot', 'were they carrying weapons', 'what were they doing', 'did they follow Police instructions'.

I've no doubt that some of those are unjustified, some might be down to racism, some might be simply too gung ho, and some might just be scared. The problem in the US is that every police office is issued with a firearm but I doubt there is much psychological testing to determine if each officer can use it responsibly.

We have to remember that in the US practically anyone can carry a firearm, so every interaction with criminal activity has a potential for that police officer to end up wounded or dead, not a nice workplace, I can imagine that many are scared and nervous.

Your attempts to excuse the murder of unarmed people cannot explain why the police choose to kill black men and boys at such high rates. Dark skinned people in America are not more armed than pink skinned ones.




Also we have seen enough evidence of totally wild and unjustifiable escalations and use of force. When the police do this, they cannot then go and claim they were in fear.

Most of these interactions, in any civilised country, the police politely take ask for your ID and you get a fine in the mail if you need to be fined. Here they handcuff you, strip you naked, four of them sit on your neck - and we then get to hear cockamamie stories about the police being in fear.

No it's just murder as a professional sport.
 
Can you provide the link to your stats.

Everything I see online is the opposite. Black deaths are disproportionate to their population size
Eg
View attachment 1309337
View attachment 1309338
Can post more charts, but they all show the same.

Say (theoretically speaking) if every single white person in China was shot dead by the police this very second.
I’m still pretty confident I could make the declaration that ‘More Chinese people are killed by police than White people in China’, despite the fact that they’ve killed every White person in the country.

Your stats are correct but do not paint the whole picture. Black men in the US are 7 times more likely than white men to commit murder, and 95% of their victims are other black people. So to explain your stats black criminality is much higher and the black on black violence is a real issue and way worse than the rate of fatal shootings by white police officers, the majority of which are justified and never reach the news.

To go back to the first post that says “this month has not been a good one for racial harmony in the US.” Well, three incidents in a country of a 350 million population cannot be indicative of the progress of racial harmony in that country. My heart went for Floyd needlessly suffocating to death but besides that cop being a complete idiot with a lack of basic knowledge and training, and a possibly a bully with violent tendencies there is simply no evidence that race was a factor here. If anything, one of the shopkeepers that confronted Floyd before calling the police is black as is one of the arresting officers. Yet, for some reason (you may speculate why) media mentioned the word WHITE thus inciting rioting. What does his whiteness have to do with anything is beyond me, in fact mentioning his race without a valid reason is racism.
I don’t trust any media outlets regardless of ideological or other affiliations. Knowledge is power and no mass media on earth is in the business of handing it over to the people free of charge.
 
^^^ I've never in my time linked the word savages to colour, creed or religion.

Maybe it's you?

Edit. It got me thinking where I've heard the term savages and it's from Cowboys and Indians to say that Native Indians were savages.

Its used in Raiders of the Lost Ark too and I never viewed that as a racist movie.
 
Good to see the rooftop Koreans back protecting their business.

1992
101539804_10157360728868316_3144951998193860608_n.jpg




Now

101625012_980035902450472_4218607952912711680_n.jpg
 
Scary, but sadly unsurprising how some are shifting the narrative away from the matter at hand.
 
Your attempts to excuse the murder of unarmed people cannot explain why the police choose to kill black men and boys at such high rates. Dark skinned people in America are not more armed than pink skinned ones.




Also we have seen enough evidence of totally wild and unjustifiable escalations and use of force. When the police do this, they cannot then go and claim they were in fear.

Most of these interactions, in any civilised country, the police politely take ask for your ID and you get a fine in the mail if you need to be fined. Here they handcuff you, strip you naked, four of them sit on your neck - and we then get to hear cockamamie stories about the police being in fear.

No it's just murder as a professional sport.

Suggest you reread my posts.

In my posts in this thread I have agreed that the US has a racism problem.

And never did I excuse what has happened.

I simply said that to properly understand a situation you need to look at all data - just using one part of the available data can lead to invalid links between cause and effect.

What I don’t agree with is identifying the behaviour of the few and attributing it to the many - that is bigotry.

And for the record I deplore discrimination of any kind. In fact when I watched the reports and the video of the death of George Floyd with my wife I expressed anger that the initial response by the police was to suspend the policeman pending an enquiry rather than arresting him - I am happy to see that, in this case, sense has prevailed and the police officer has been arrested, charged and being detained awaiting trial.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
Last edited:
I can assure you it's not me.

So, based on the edit you made, you accept (as per my link above in post #90) that it has negative racial connotations?

Actually no. No racial connotations at all, zero, zilch, nadda.

Cowboys were the good guys, Indians were the bad guys, that's what westerns portrayed. Same as War films, Germans v Allies, etc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom