Yes, because every single member of other ethnicities are all law-abiding citizens who never destroy property, break laws, or act up in school.

Alas, I do not and (based on the last 2 pages) am not sure how well they did.

Hmmmmm.....Xanthus gets banned again within like the hour he comes back to GC, but Max has not been banned yet.

Nice GC mods, nice.....and I know that "mods are busy, yada yada yada" but it's always so miraculous how a mod can be around when Xanthus shows back up, but mods are gone for DAYS when MM shows up. :rolleyes:

And once again I say that moderators should not have indefinite terms of duty. The inconsistency and power trips are out of control.

I was thinking THE. SAME. THING.

They did. This topic is about more than whether "Negro" should be used in the historical context.

I say let both madmax and Xanthus stay. Both are harmless and humorous.

Yep...the mods are slipping.

Facebook Quote of the Day: "I wish you Blacks would choose one name and stick to it. Every generation wants to be called something new and then the old ones are offended. Why don't y'all have a town hall meeting and pick one for crying out loud!"

Yes, she was black and yes, she was quasi-joking.

Dr. Phil...I dont agree with you that minorities cant be racist because they're not the dominant group. Or maybe I do and its all a matter of semantics (i.e. prejudice vs. racism).

I totally agree with you about the issues people have with understanding the difference between race and ethinicity. "White Pride" and "Black Pride" are not the same thing.

That's not semantics.

I think here we are definitely dealing with definititions that do have a difference on an academic/technical level. As I understand Dr. Phil, the following two technical definitions are different.

A) John Smith is Prejudiced in regard to Race.

B) John Smith is Racist.

By the definitions that Dr. Phil is working from, statement A can be true of someone regardless of whether their race is in power or not. statement B can only be made by someone who is of the race which has power.

Now to the majority of the population who aren't familiar with those academic/technical definitions, those statements are much closer to each other than they are for those who specialize in the issue. Dr. Phil, have I correctly summarized your situation?

(Note I am *not* using majority/minority here, because as best as I can tell, the situation in pre-1985 South Africa was the same in regards to this definition as they were in the United States at the same time since Whites had power. Whether things have changed since 1985 in South Africa is, to me, a different issue)

Just to clarify even further, because I always thought that situation B could mean which race holds power on a micro-scale (ie in a specific situation), but apparently from the academic standpoint it only matters who has the majority power in the society at large.

Maybe to help the argument could one say one is using the term in relation to institutional. Because even amongst academics there isn't a clear cut agreement. The only agreement is the belief that one is better and the other is deficient.

:)

In race discourse, majority/minority is used primarily in reference to power dynamics (as well as often used in reference to population representation). South Africa (both Apartheid and post-Apartheid) is a place where the minority in terms of population was the majority in terms of power. The opposite is the case in America.

Dr. Phil, is the remainder of the post (the A vs. B) correct?