> I also note a lot of variation in this
> quote, another
> indication that people are not getting back to the original sources.
> However, I have found enough sources to demonstrate that this
> seems to be
> real.
Doesn't matter if this particular statement is real or not, I've heard more
then enough statements from blacks where they discriminate based on race to
convince me that what I am hearing them correctly. Ill not bother going into
further details because I see people get distracted from the initial
questions.
> > now can we get back an address the issue? Is Jesse Jackson a racist?
>
> This is almost a trick question. Jackson's original quote
> said that he was
> ashamed to have this distinction between blacks and whites in
> his mind.
Actually, the context of the statement didn't have anything to do with him
being upset at his discriminating thoughts. He was in fact upset with the
reality that blacks IN FACT commit more crime. This is what pained him.
Reference:
JESSE JACKSON CANDID CONFESSION-After his own home and neighborhood were
invaded by street punks Jesse Jackson dedicated himself to fighting
black-on-black crime. He confesses: "There is nothing more painful for me
than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about
robbery and then look around and see it's somebody white and feel relieved.
How humiliating." (1/17 USN&WR). Reminiscent of what he said in 1975, "A
black man selling dope hurts communities more than a white man dangling a
rope", Jackson now says: "We lose more lives to young blacks killing each
other annually than to the sum total of lynchings in the history of the
country" (12/19 Parade). Statistics show that blacks and Hispanics commit a
very disproportionate share of felonies
I think its crystal clear that he trying to convince the blacks that were
actually committing the crimes to stop. If you see anything in here about
him being upset for his own mental processes AND how they were in error,
please point them out.
> He admits some racist thoughts, but is fighting to end
> racism.
Cant conclude he had racist thoughts till we nail down the definition. Were
a bit premature here.
> There are different definitions for different words depending
> on who you
> ask.
That's kind of what were trying to fix here.
> I don't know that racism requires genetic root causes.
> Most people
> haven't decided if they believe behavior is more caused by genetics or
> culture. It probably is a mixture of both. If you insist
> that racism be
> limited to genetic causes, then I think hardly anything would ever be
> considered racist.
Those things considered racist are the things that fit the definition. To
not want to release your grip on the word because your left with some
linguistic void isn't an issue. Besides, like I said, frequent and
fraudulent use of the term just dilutes it to meaninglessness. Keep in mind,
as we have discussed, there's a ton of other words out there that are MUCH
more accurate for describing a majority of these racist accusations.
> Is he discriminating based on race? In this example, yes he
> is. Is it a
> fair or accurate discrimination? No, it is not.
> Statistically speaking,
> blacks may commit more crimes than whites. Does that mean he
> should assume
> the white guy is not going to assault him? Does that mean he
> should assume
> the black guy is going to assault him? Neither assumption is
> valid. Even
> if one is statistically more likely to occur, it is not a
> scientific basis
> for predicition. The methodology that observing a person's
> race will help
> predict their criminal behavior is wrong.
Ill refer you over to the racial profiling thread on this one... The
profiling dept. at the FBI catches a LOT of criminals with this method and
they don't stop with race... They use everything they can. Race, income,
profession, gender, etc... It does in fact work.
> More to the point, the race of the person is not indicative of future
> behavior. It is not statistically predictive. It may be
> true that blacks
> commit more crimes than whites. However, most black people
> are law-abiding
> citizens, as are most white people. Poverty would be a more
> scientific
> indicator. A white street bum would probably be more
> dangerous than a rich
> black businessman or a black preacher. When we adjust for
> these better
> factors, we would find that rich black business men are
> probably no more
> likely to commit crime than rich white business men.
I'm not going to question this as I feel it is true. I never said that
blacks were genetically predetermined to be disposed to commit more crime,
but I am interested in your sources where these studies corrected for income
level. Would love to see them.
> Therefore, I don't really care if we call these attitudes
> racist, prejudice
> or discrimination. To link unrelated traits to race is
> racist.
I'm afraid I don't understand this, how are prejudice, bigotry, and
discriminations NOT related to racism? And how is linking them together
racists. If I state that a true racist is prejudice, that makes me a racist
according to the above. I just linked one of these "unrelated" concepts
(prejudice) to racism.
> To make
> decisions based on race rather than people's individual
> merits is racist.
> I don't see much value in arguing whether something is racist, racially
> prejudiced or racially discriminatory. Let's just say that
> it is just plain
> scientifically invalid, and leave it at that.
I think statistics very much play a role, delimiting this role is the hard
part.
>
> Is there any good reason to split hairs with these terms,
> except to be able
> to practice prejudice and discrimination while claiming not
> to be racist?
>
> --
> Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
>
A little jab with an argument through intimidation there? I'm not biting. My
desire to split hairs on this is I think it is required to sort out this
problem where the term racism is used for everything from describing Mark
Furman to describing a cheeseburger.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:05 MDT