I think it's very important, in discussions like this, to distinguish between individuals of various ethnicities and ethnic groups.

On one count I admit that liberal multiculturalists have it exactly right: ethno-cultural identity of an ethnic group is intrinsically valuable and worthy of respect.

We may all be the same at the most basic level, but it's terribly reductive, even disrespectful, to try to lump everyone together as one big happy family based on just our most basic human needs and desires. We should be able to be different, admit it, recognize it, and still remain as respectful with each other as we are with somone who is the same as us. It is not racist to say that there is such a thing as, for example, a Chinese people and that a Pole is not a Chinese and vice-versa. What would be racist would be to say that some Chinese idividual is better than any Pole by mere virtue of being Chinese.

The problem in the west is that for some decades now we have been taught, by the same liberals I agreed with above, that only half the equation is valid. Westerners must recognize and respect the ethno-cultural identies of all other people. All other people have ethno-culural identities worthy of being preserved. When too many McDonald's restaurants are popping up in some little country and transforming their culture, it's western cultural imperialism and these peoples' national culture deserves to be protected. BUT, at the same time, according to these liberals, westerners must not feel the same about their own national ethno-cultural identities. They, on the other hand, must be elated to see the ethno-cultural landscape of their nation being transformed by waves of immigrants - or suffer the same fate as many at Salem, branded "Witch!", er, I mean "Racist!" and publicly burned at the stake.

Unfortunately most people have trouble sorting these concepts out in their own thoughts.

If, when you look at an immigrnat from wherever, you find the root of your thoughts to be "Brown skin = garbage", then, yes, that is evil and racist.

But it's perfectly valid to have the reaction "Foreigner, bringing ethno-cultural change to my nation that I do not want and don't wish for my children and grandchildren to have to deal with".

 

this has been a very enriching thread, i appreciate all of your input very dearly. now since it has been brought up twice, i want to thank all the moderators and admin folks for leaving it in the general, to be further enriched by non club members. i also thank all of you for observing common decency, and keeping it safe enough to leave in the general forums. thanks all! there have been some truly deep points of view expressed here, that have made the thread worthy of some equally deep reflection. now for a quick shameless plug, those of you who do not have supporter next to your name, there is plenty of threads deserving of deep reflection in the club. if you liked this thread that we were lucky enough to have left alone. there is much more of this in club fte. what can i say they let it ride, may as well plug them.
back on topic, it is refreshing to watch my child's prejudice free interactions right now. along with my vow to understand myself and improve, i will also do all that i can to preserve her uncolored vision as long as i can. Dan

 

my continued thoughts.(are we all excited?!)

excluding the real racists (you know "those" types) i think it could be assumed there is always going to be some kind of prejudiced among people of some sorts, and not applied to just different ethinic groups, but to people within their own ethnic group as well.

i would venture to say most people (venturing i say) are prejudice about things to a certain extent. remembering that racism is an attitude just towards skin color or ethnicity; prejudice would be more along the line of showing biased by presuming the nature of the person or people you are coming into contact with.

if you know a certain type of people or group displays certain behavior and that behavior goes against what your own values, than you can assume when you see someone matching the physical description of that group, whether in dress, the car they drive, the attitude they display...etc...then you would assume that they would also fit into the catagory you have selected for them. this does not always mean something bad also, it could be recognizable good features and similarities within your own values that makes you feel comfortable around that person.

for a brief example, when i started work, only a couple of people knew i was a full time college student and my professional past. well, i got little to no respect up front from other people, like the engineers, plant sups, etc.....well, as time went on, people found out through word of mouth or whatever, also by casual conversation with me, now i get treated with lots of respect and even get included on things from the engineers with detailed explanations when i ask something instead of the "what do you want?" look.

the point of it was that upon first impressions, me dressed for "work" and it being a part time job, most assumed that i was one of those part time uneducated job hoppers that seem maybe to get into trouble all the time (lots around here like that by the way) so their automatic impression of me was that, until proven otherwise. when they found out i was a serious person not only through word of mouth about what i am currently doing and did, but also through my professionlism and work ethic and communcating i did....those things broke that prejudice barrier down about me from them.

just an example of a prejudice but we can take that example further and lets say i was black, and they did the same thing to me.....could i not assume since they were all white that they did not like me because i was black?

my wife and i go to this mexican food store down the street, they got the best veggies in town, when we first went in, we were stared at like we had dang antennae's on our heads and four eyes. of course we were probably the only white people ever to walk in there also. but now, after a few times no one pays any mention and even gives us a friendly hi when we walk in. prejudices at first until further notice is what i say.

of course i do not have an overall point, just some random thoughts getting out there.

 

I'd get that look when I go to the Asian supermarket. I'm half Filipino, but I'm probably a head taller and a hundred pounds heavier than everybody else in the store when I go. They're friendly enough, just curious.

 

One of these guys apparently didn't get the memo.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...YL-3AD8S3DV200

 

[QUOTE=OKMIC1]One of these guys apparently didn't get the memo.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4mSIZEhllOLK4FOyjsrpR-YL-3AD8S3DV200[/QUOTE]

Being gay is not a "race".

 

This is a great thread.....sure is revealing~

 

[QUOTE=jetdoc]No kidding. I never said it was. Magee said "only straight, white men commit hate crimes". I pointed out that it isn't always true. Personally, I think crime should be punished equally, not based on who the victim might be.

 

My statement about who commits "hate crimes" was about the overwhelming number cases against the types that I described. It was moderately sarcastic because, obviously, it's not 100% correct. To me, the label of "hate crime" is silly. Is there such a thing as a "love crime"? All crimes reflect some sort of hate, prejudice or plain old lack of respect.

And to be technical, the story in the link didn't state the race of the attackers (although one could make assumptions based on the names but you know the saying about making assumptions...) it stated that the victim was gay. Was he targeted solely because he was gay or because of the stereotype of gay men being wimpy and easy to intimidate. Sounds more like picking an easy target to me but I don't know what the suspects were intending. Just because a victim is black, white, blue, gay, straight or whatever doesn't make a crime a "hate crime". But it sure is easy to get a conviction if it's labeled as such. Looks good on the D.A.'s resume, doesn't it? What is the D.A. but a politician? Coincidence? Probably not. But that's a whole 'nother rant.

 

I'd have to disagree with that, magee. Crimes like bank robbery are usually done for finanacial reasons, not because the criminal hates banks or bank employees. Crimes like drug abuse, or speeding are usually not done to injure another person. "Hate crimes" refer to crimes, usually violent, directed at other indivudual(s) based on who they are with not much in mind other than doing injury to another person.

 

So, do you believe the punishment for a white man raping a white woman should be less than for a white man raping a black woman, because that's the gist of hate crime. It means the punishment is worse based solely on the victim's status. Is that what "all men are created equal" means? Equal protection under the law should be the rule.

 

Your question has nothing to do with my statement. In response to magee's statement that all crimes are hate crimes, I was defining the term "hate crime", differentiating the motivation of that type of crime from other types of crimes. Do you disagree that there is a difference?

However, I'll take a crack at your question anyway.

If the man rapes that woman because she's black, then there is an element of hate crime to the act, and it might warrant harsher punishment. Exactly the same difference between a robber who grabs a purse, and one who holds up their victim at gunpoint - the latter might be charged with assault with a weapon in addition to robbery. The more compound the crime, the more violations, the harsher the punishment. I don't see a problem with that.

 

NEH: I apparently misunderstood your earlier statement, but disagree with the idea that some crimes are worse than others based on motivation. I'm not comfortable with charging a criminal with what they were thinking at the time of the crime.

 

NEH, not trying to be difficult, but.... If you look at the last part of what you qouted me on, I stated that a lack of respect was also a root of some crimes. Bank robbery is a lack of respect for other people's money. Financially motivated or not the money belongs to somebody else who has earned the money that is being stolen. Speeding and drug abuse could also be put in the "lack of respect" file for not respecting the laws, other people on the road, or ones self. Rape is a violent crime usually based on hatred and a sick desire to show dominance over women or the woman who is the victim.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to give you a hard time. We may have different opinions on the subject but if everybody had the same opinion, the world would be really boring.

Gene

 

No problem Gene - I appreciate your comments and understand what you're saying about respect. I guess I was just pointing out that in some crimes people are specifically the target, while others are "victimless" or have material things as the target. Agreed that all require a level of disrespect, but I think the latter generally won't qualify as hate crimes.

No "hard time" received or returned - it's a wonderful thing to be able to disagree without being disagreeable, ya know?

- jim