GreekChat.com Forums
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   Alpha Phi Alpha (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
-   -   The Seinfeld Dude.... (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=82620)

Drolefille 11-27-2006 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1362883)
So you all are discussing individual racism and only see racism as systemic when someone places "institutional" in front of it. Some textbooks still include sections on individual racism but it ends up confusing students as to what prejudice vs discrimination vs racism is.

Power is not about population size. Whites still comprise the largest percentage of this country, but places like South Afrika had the minority control the majority for years through Apartheid. So if the white person went to Arab and was in a position of power and influence and used this against the Arab people, it could be racism. However, I argue that many Arabs look racially "white" (according to N. America standards) enough to be able to assimilate into "whiteness" if they chose to--as many do when they come to America even to the point of marking "white" on the Census. So it wouldn't be racism that they face as much as it would be culturalism or ethnocentrism.



No, they aren't undocumented and I assumed AKAMonet was being facetious.
No, but the dicussion was about whether a non-white person could be racist, thus I was discussing it at the individual level.

And saying that Arabs can "pass" dodges the question. Could a white person living in Pakistan be racist against SE Asians? This is not Donald Trump or Tom Cruise this is Joe Street, white, male, and a minority in Pakistan.

I say yes, but by the definition proposed above, this is not possible.

DSTCHAOS 11-27-2006 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1362884)
See my example above about power struggles existing in the everyday interpersonal relationships. A black man who refuses to serve a white man is in a position of power over the white man, even if that white man is a CEO and the black man is running a food kiosk. EVEN if racism only exists where power is involved, power struggles are involved in every relationship.
How many black men who run food kiosks would think to not serve a white man who makes money and can pay for a service? Not many and not any who want to actually have a successful business where successful white men don't refuse to patron them. Discussing outliers never makes for good dialogue because it is a social fact that black owned businesses who want more mainstream success, in general, do not thrive when they attempt to exclude white consumers. However, white owned businesses who want mainstream success, in general, can thrive even if they manage to exclude black consumers either intentionally or "unintentionally."

But I'm in a power struggle with the post office over getting my package delivered today. Doesn't sound too exciting or noteworthy, does it? Nope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1362888)
No, but the dicussion was about whether a non-white person could be racist, thus I was discussing it at the individual level.

And saying that Arabs can "pass" dodges the question. Could a white person living in Pakistan be racist against SE Asians? This is not Donald Trump or Tom Cruise this is Joe Street, white, male, and a minority in Pakistan.
If you're still asking about the black person as singular rather than general then read my first post on this page.

It isn't dodging the question. It forced you to pose the question differently because "race" is a narrow focus if you are speaking internationally.

If "whites" are power minorities in a society (which has nothing to do with being a Donald Trump, since racism was perpetuated by the white working class through the split labor market for the past 50 or so years) then they can not be racist against SE Asians--and any racism would be small scale and not that long lasting because it doesn't follow the SE Asians throughout many aspects of the society (and therefore isn't worth discussing, in my opinion). But the whites can be prejudice or discriminatory at whatever level they are able to.

I expect for people to be able to see the general and apply it to the specific. If a general point has been made, you should be able to see the point about power differentials. There's no need for anecdotes or probing questions regarding these specific instances that may be more outliers than anything else.

If you think of racism as "individual racism" only (as many people do) then we'll obviously disagree so no need to discuss further.

Drolefille 11-27-2006 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1362906)
How many black men who run food kiosks would think to not serve a white man who makes money and can pay for a service? Not many and not any who want to actually have a successful business where successful white men don't refuse to patron them. Discussing outliers never makes for good dialogue because it is a social fact that black owned businesses who want more mainstream success, in general, do not thrive when they attempt to exclude white consumers. However, white owned businesses who want mainstream success, in general, can thrive even if they manage to exclude black consumers either intentionally or "unintentionally."

But I'm in a power struggle with the post office over getting my package delivered today. Doesn't sound too exciting or noteworthy, does it? Nope.



If you're still asking about the black person as singular rather than general then read my first post on this page.

It isn't dodging the question. It forced you to pose the question differently because "race" is a narrow focus if you are speaking internationally.

If "whites" are power minorities in a society (which has nothing to do with being a Donald Trump, since racism was perpetuated by the white working class through the split labor market for the past 50 or so years) then they can not be racist against SE Asians--and any racism would be small scale and not that long lasting because it doesn't follow the SE Asians throughout many aspects of the society (and therefore isn't worth discussing, in my opinion). But the whites can be prejudice or discriminatory at whatever level they are able to.

I expect for people to be able to see the general and apply it to the specific. If a general point has been made, you should be able to see the point about power differentials. There's no need for anecdotes or probing questions regarding these specific instances that may be more outliers than anything else.

If you think of racism as "individual racism" only (as many people do) then we'll obviously disagree so no need to discuss further.
I bring up the outlier not because of its likeliness but because it is a contradiction. You're taking my points and trying to deny their applicability based on business for example. Said black man's business may fail, but if he acted in such because of the color of the white man's skin, then he is racist. It doesn't matter whether that is a financially wise decision.

I argue that racism is not ONLY institutional/societal but also individual and thus cannot be denied simply because the racist is in the minority. I am not denying the racism present in society/government/etc. though I probably disagree with you on some aspects of it.

You seem to only address racism on the societal level - such as w/in my example. If said man is racist, he is racist no matter who he is. Yes, it is small scale but these tiny relationships are what form society.

Perhaps this is simply a psychology vs. sociology point of view.

southernelle25 11-27-2006 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1362872)
I don't consider white people hating black people to automatically be racism. It is prejudice. The difference, that can make hatred turn into discrimination and/or racism, is that white people hating black people tends to translate into action whereas blacks who hate whites tends to not to translate into action. How many blacks can have stable, good jobs and accumulate wealth through separatism and without the input of a white person who is not a subordinate? However, many whites have always had stable, good jobs and accumulated wealth through separatism (opportunity hoarding) and without the input of blacks who were not subordinates. This is the opportunity and power differential.
But isn't it true that the reason black hatred tends to not translate into action is because of the actions (or inaction) of blacks themselves. Blacks have as much opportunity - if not more, as other minority groups in America to thrive on their own internal community investments. They choose not to. Are these blacks not racist, then, just because they elect not to utilize the power they in fact have?

DSTCHAOS 11-27-2006 08:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1362925)
I bring up the outlier not because of its likeliness but because it is a contradiction.

Not a contradiction if you read my first post on this page.

And if it is relatively uncommon, what's the point? Are we going to debate whether unicorns are racist against leprechauns next? Those bastards.

The difference is not really individual vs. societal. It's not really psychological vs. sociological because psychologists tend to be stuck in the attitude stage and figuring out the why or intent versus examining the outcome regardless of why and intent. So that's not the crux of this debate.

The difference is really power. Since people want to discuss individual-level, if you fail to acknowledge power differentials in "individual racism" then you are really talking about prejudice (attitude) and perhaps even discrimination (behavior) if there is opportunity to discriminate. Even discriminate requires contextual power because you have to have the ability to withhold something from someone. You can have prejudice without discrimination and vice versa. But you can not have racism at any level without an ability to reinforce power differentials, opportunity to be discriminatory, and the incentive/gain from being discriminatory.

DSTCHAOS 11-27-2006 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernelle25 (Post 1362983)
But isn't it true that the reason black hatred tends to not translate into action is because of the actions (or inaction) of blacks themselves.
No one is discussing why the power differentials are the way they are. And you don't just get power at a societal level and tear down the status quo through positive self-thought and a go-get-em attitude.

But if you must know, NO, the disproportionate condition of blacks in this country is not solely attributable to the actions (or inaction) of blacks themselves. And, NO, blacks do not have the same, if not more, opportunities as other racial and ethnic minorities in this country. No other racial and ethnic minority group in this country has the history that blacks have. You can not look at the present and future without examining the remnants of the past. A past that isn't as distant as people have been told to believe.

But I would like for you to use this retort whenever someone discusses gender inequality and the gender status quo that keeps job ceilings, sex segregation, and inequality in earnings. If women would learn to do better and realize their power, they would have nothing to complain about. Who cares if women's labor is devalued and this is a male dominated society? Cry babies.

DSTKellie 11-27-2006 08:42 PM
Thank you DSTChaos and AKA_Monet we are >>>here<<<.

DSTCHAOS you said exactly what I was trying to say and I couldn't agree more!!

DSTKellie 11-27-2006 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1363032)
Not a contradiction if you read my first post on this page.

And if it is relatively uncommon, what's the point? Are we going to debate whether unicorns are racist against leprechauns next? Those bastards.
Soror, I love you for this quote alone!

AKA_Monet 11-27-2006 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1362925)
Perhaps this is simply a psychology vs. sociology point of view.

Lesson 1) Racism 101: It is really never that simply. Willie Lynch papers suggest that... I think Plessy vs. Fergeson with the US Supreme Court also discuss that... Possibly the Fugitive Slave Act.

Lesson 2) If you neglect KNOWING your past, you will be doomed to repeat it in the future. We have all just experienced another act that is now being "contrived" as racist in NYC (The shot and killed groom). I just had a young AfAm man tell me how shocked he is. And now, I am barely beginning to understand why, because I am not shocked--more like surprised by folks response to the incident as "what did you expect"? That is the nature of white supremacy and that is what hate does. Once we understand it, dissect it, study it, examine it, research it, and possibly find a treatment option for it, then we can begin to more beyond the humanity of people of color to the spiritual realm...

All I know is that it takes an enlightened person...

southernelle25 11-27-2006 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1363035)
No one is discussing why the power differentials are the way they are.
My question doesn't go to why the power differentials are the way they are (or wasn't meant to), but to whether untapped power has a part in this discussion. The significance of power must be great and untapped power insignificant, if people can be considered capable of racism while in power and not capable of racism when they lose it or fail to realize it...

Earlier, you wrote that: "You can not have racism at any level without an ability to reinforce power differentials, opportunity to be discriminatory, and the incentive/gain from being discriminatory." However, I believe blacks do have that ability to shift power differentials, as well as the opportunity to be discriminatory, and an incentive/gain from being discriminatory (e.g. investing into their own communities the millions upon millions of dollars each year they invest outside those communities, by shopping at Bruh's down the street instead of at Tarjay). What effect does this potential have, if any, on whether a people can be considered capable of racism? None, apparently. That is what I wanted to know.

DSTCHAOS 11-27-2006 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernelle25 (Post 1363072)
My question doesn't go to why the power differentials are the way they are (or wasn't meant to)
You didn't mean to but you did and you're doing something I spoke against a few posts ago, failing to see the general and apply it to the specific. Your question has essentially been answered a few times in this thread already. But here goes the last time:

Until the race, class, and gender status quo is completly eliminated on a societal level, which is a huge feat, any shifts in the status quo are temporary and small scale. That goes for untapped power or untapped beer cans.

southernelle25 11-27-2006 09:49 PM
Now, about those unicorns ...

DSTCHAOS 11-27-2006 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernelle25 (Post 1363078)
Now, about those unicorns ...

I knew a unicorn that hated a leprechaun. It tried to keep a leprechaun from being served at a local eatery. The leprechaun nonchalantly said "I'm rich, bitch" and went on to the next eatery.

southernelle25 11-27-2006 10:12 PM
lol, That is my kind of leprechaun. Even more so if that next eatery was leprechaun-owned.

pinkies up 11-27-2006 11:39 PM
He is a racist, the end.

DSTCHAOS 11-28-2006 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernelle25 (Post 1363085)
lol, That is my kind of leprechaun. Even more so if that next eatery was leprechaun-owned.
Most eateries are leprechaun-owned.

33girl 11-28-2006 01:14 PM
But considering unicorns only show up when there are virgins around, how much power can a unicorn ever have, really, unless he's hanging out at Oral Roberts U or something. :)

tunatartare 11-28-2006 01:18 PM
I'm sorry I won't be able to make it to your imaginary wedding, but I'm really busy that day. I already have a unicorn baptism and a leprechaun bar mitzvah.

southernelle25 11-28-2006 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 1363395)
But considering unicorns only show up when there are virgins around, how much power can a unicorn ever have, really, unless he's hanging out at Oral Roberts U or something. :)
Leprechauns have their weaknesses as well, such as their addiction to gold and rainbows.

shinerbock 11-28-2006 02:24 PM
Wait, like the Mobile Leprechaun? Who could've been a crackhead, who got ahold of the wrong stuff?

DSTCHAOS 11-28-2006 03:54 PM
Have you all not learned from the Geico Caveman commercials?

I apologize for all of the unicorns and leprechauns who may be reading this board. We did not mean to offend you.

ladygreek 11-28-2006 04:54 PM
A Different View
 
I do not believe that Michael Richards is racist. I believe he is someone with an anger problem and used words he knew would cut the deepest against someone he at which he wanted to get back. I have seen and experienced racism at its finest. This too me wasn't racism, but rather ignorance.

I also don't see where not buying the 7th season of Seinfeld DVD has anything to do with this. Jesse is overreaching, imo.

I believe it has gotten too much press and hype and I do believe that Richards is truly sorry.

I didn't sense that the laughter on Letterman had anything to do with him using Afro American. imo it was because he looked like he was in character and about to do a Kramerism. The audience wasn't sure if this was serious or a joke--and I didn't either until Jerry said it isn't funny.

DSTCHAOS 11-28-2006 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladygreek (Post 1363514)
I do not believe that Michael Richards is racist. I believe he is someone with an anger problem and used words he knew would cut the deepest against someone he at which he wanted to get back. I have seen and experienced racism at its finest. This too me wasn't racism, but rather ignorance.

I also don't see where not buying the 7th season of Seinfeld DVD has anything to do with this. Jesse is overreaching, imo.

I believe it has gotten too much press and hype and I do believe that Richards is truly sorry.

I agree.

I also think it's dumb for there to be litigation over this. There are lessons to learn from this, whether it be about anger management or race. What doesn't need to be learned/reminded is that people are opportunists who will claim injury as a result of words just for the hell of it. The man is seeking resolution for whatever reasons and suing him does nothing but reinforce a litigous society.

shinerbock 11-28-2006 06:06 PM
I think people throw around the word "ignorant" too much. It wasn't an ignorant thing to say, it was a hateful and heat of the moment thing to say. Obviously the content was racial, but I'm not sold on him being a racist either. I'm sure there are people who in a heated argument with their gay best friend may go "you faggot!" but I don't think that makes them a homophobe, it just means they were going for the lowest possible blow at the time.

PhrozenGod01 11-28-2006 06:22 PM
I think there is only one way to resolve this: CAGE MATCH!!!!!!!!!!!
Works every time...

ladygreek 11-28-2006 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shinerbock (Post 1363558)
I think people throw around the word "ignorant" too much. It wasn't an ignorant thing to say, it was a hateful and heat of the moment thing to say.
You just can't agree with something, can you? For some reason you always need to put a point of disagreement in there. LOL

neosoul 11-28-2006 07:04 PM
is it gonna be on Pay-per-view?

PhrozenGod01 11-28-2006 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neosoul (Post 1363586)
is it gonna be on Pay-per-view?
For sure. My money would be on Richards. He's really squirrely.

shinerbock 11-28-2006 09:15 PM
Well its true, I don't think he's ignorant. I feel everyone is entitled to my opinion.

DSTCHAOS 11-28-2006 09:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shinerbock (Post 1363637)
I feel everyone is entitled to my opinion.
"I'll tell you what to think."

KAPPAtivating 11-29-2006 12:53 AM
It was very ignorant for him to say those things. I'm sure he feels the same way. It was not in his best interest to say those things to hurt the heckler's feelings. Now it is going to cost him probably. I almost think there should be litigation over it because it teaches a lesson to him as well as others about choosing words carefully. Especially when you are rich!

laylo 11-29-2006 03:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shinerbock (Post 1363558)
I'm sure there are people who in a heated argument with their gay best friend may go "you faggot!" but I don't think that makes them a homophobe, it just means they were going for the lowest possible blow at the time.
Even if someone would do this, would (s)he also say "Back in the day we'd have had you strung to a post and lit fire to your ass!"?

He made the lynching comment, followed by "you can talk, you're brave now motherf***er" and "That's what happens when you interrupt the White man". He was clearly implying that Blacks have stepped out of their place now that violence is no longer an accepted means of keeping them in it. I don't understand how people can seperate this from racism. Furthermore, it isn't as if the comment toward him was vile enough to evoke the lowest possible blow, the man just said he wasn't funny. And regardless, I personally don't think "I was angry" negates everything someone says in anger. Men who beat their wives do so in anger, that doesn't seperate the problem of violence against women from sexism.

AKA_Monet 11-29-2006 03:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by laylo (Post 1363760)
Men who beat their wives do so in anger, that doesn't seperate the problem of violence against women from sexism.
Men who beat their wives do so as a power trip... It has nothing to do with anger, which in psychological terms means being upset about an unfavorable condition. It has to do with resentment, that which is beyond anger, and rage, uncontrollable anger--like being Anakin coverted to the Dark Side of the Force...

And that is how MANY African Americans think of what racism is. It is mostly about domination and power, it is energy is perpetuated by resentment and rage.

I bet the Kramer dude was shaking after he wailed on his tirade and rant...

shinerbock 11-29-2006 08:54 AM
And I agree, if he is racist (who really cares anymore, I don't think it changes much), the lynching comments are the indicator. However, I don't know, maybe its just because I've been around racists, his rant just doesn't come off as what a racist would say. I still think its a combination of rage, over the top comedy, and an effort strike the core of the people who were insulting him. Of course, he could just be racist, i just have doubts.

DSTKellie 11-29-2006 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by laylo (Post 1363760)
Even if someone would do this, would (s)he also say "Back in the day we'd have had you strung to a post and lit fire to your ass!"?

He made the lynching comment, followed by "you can talk, you're brave now motherf***er" and "That's what happens when you interrupt the White man". He was clearly implying that Blacks have stepped out of their place now that violence is no longer an accepted means of keeping them in it. I don't understand how people can seperate this from racism. Furthermore, it isn't as if the comment toward him was vile enough to evoke the lowest possible blow, the man just said he wasn't funny. And regardless, I personally don't think "I was angry" negates everything someone says in anger. Men who beat their wives do so in anger, that doesn't seperate the problem of violence against women from sexism.
Good point, I agree.

mccoyred 11-29-2006 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KAPPAtivating (Post 1363733)
It was very ignorant for him to say those things. I'm sure he feels the same way. It was not in his best interest to say those things to hurt the heckler's feelings. Now it is going to cost him probably. I almost think there should be litigation over it because it teaches a lesson to him as well as others about choosing words carefully. Especially when you are rich!

Once again, we are >here<

If people don't FEEL and THINK something, then they don't SAY it. Things said in the heat of anger reflect subconcious feelings and thoughts because the higher brain functions are overridden by the fight/flight response which is based in the lower brain functions that control survival instincts.

FeeFee 11-30-2006 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mccoyred (Post 1363796)
Once again, we are >here<

If people don't FEEL and THINK something, then they don't SAY it. Things said in the heat of anger reflect subconcious feelings and thoughts because the higher brain functions are overridden by the fight/flight response which is based in the lower brain functions that control survival instincts.

EXACTLY!!!!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:46 AM.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.