REVIEW: ‘A Conversation About Race’ Offers Mature Look at Race
by Darin MillerPeople around the world celebrate Martin Luther King Day in honor of a man who became a voice for persecuted African Americans. Less than 100 years after the Civil War, on August 28, 1963, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stood on the Lincoln Memorial steps in Washington, D.C. and delivered one of the most stirring speeches of all time. We all recognize the words:
“And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ … I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
This dream was significantly realized two years later, with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but not fully, as King’s assassination in 1968 painfully emphasized.
The debate continues over how fully Dr. King’s dream has been realized. This debate spurred first-time filmmaker Craig Bodeker to make “A Conversation About Race,” a documentary that strikes at the core of American racism.
I highly recommend this film. It will open the eyes of anyone with questions. I say this because it opened mine.
Just over 40 years after Dr. King’s assassination, the first black president resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Minorities have been elected to every branch of government and work in every sector of American life.
So what prompts a man like President Barack Obama’s former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to declare that “racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run“? Further, how can he allege that Americans “believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God“?
Obama, trying to distance himself from such comments, condemned Wright’s words in a Philadelphia speech. He said that “… race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America—to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.”
Bodeker acknowledges Wright’s and Obama’s comments and embraces the call to face this issue. His documentary is a compilation of interviews with a wide variety of Denver, Colorado residents in different age groups, from different backgrounds, of different sexes and races. Bodeker asks a series of questions in a straightforward manner, occasionally asking a leading question. But such questions are presented openly, and the film as a whole allows the viewer to make up their own mind, since the interview subjects are individuals that believe racism is alive and well in America.
One of the most important things that Bodeker points out is the transformation of what racism was to what people believe it is today. In the past, racism was tangible. Whites ate in restaurants, blacks bought carry-out from the kitchen; whites had one bathroom, blacks had another. True American racism has been dramatically documented in the one-of-a-kind book “Black Like Me” by under-cover journalist John Howard Griffin, who disguised himself as a black man in order to live life in the shoes of another race.
This documentary also opens eyes. It gives viewers insight into the minds of those who believe in racism, to see the foundation of their arguments.
Bodeker takes a no-nonsense approach to his filmmaking style. He bluntly lays out what he is going to do: interview believers in racism and look for inconsistencies—he calls them “disconnects.”
From the start, Bodeker states his purpose: “I … can’t think of another issue that is more artificial, manufactured … than this whole construct called racism.” Bodeker said he is suspicious of those who use the term racism because it no longer means what it once did. It is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” But Bodeker says believers in racism now “feel that racism is all around them, its everywhere all the time yet they have a hard time coming up with any real life examples of it, or even a definition of what it is.”
His subjects unwittingly support this statement. They list about 10 “racist” incidents, including staring, being cautious, thinking that “black people are loud,” noticing race and self-diagnosed bigotry. None are “more racist” than these.
Can such “racist” actions be compared to the racism that blacks experienced in the past? If you think so, then the Oscar-winning film “Crash” takes your thinking to its logical conclusion: If such actions are racist, then we are all racist. In following the intertwined lives of racially diverse Los Angeles residents, “Crash” shows ways that all people think or act differently toward people of other races. But none of the events in the film are remotely akin to what Bodeker’s subjects mentioned. “Crash” focuses on heavy racial tensions that none of his subjects have faced.
Cristóbal Kruzen’s award-winning film “Final Solution” reveals what racism was only a few years ago in apartheid era South Africa (as does “Invictus,” which Carl Kozlowski reviewed for BH not long ago). It is based on the true story of Gerrit Wolfaardt, a white supremacist with a plan to purge South Africa of its black population. But his relationships with a pretty co-ed and a black pastor open his eyes, and his struggle between inner racial and religious inclinations climaxes as he stares down the barrel of a rifle. (It is a well-written and realistic film, with the country’s racial hatred efficiently displayed. While some of the supporting actors are average, the leads for the most part deliver.)
These two films, and countless newsreels from the 1960s, clearly reveal that racism in the United States isn’t what it used to be, if it exists at all. Yet many Americans cling to racism as a go-to issue still plaguing us.
I’ve struggled with this popular form of racism, afraid that noticing someone’s skin color or being overly sensitive to someone else’s culture makes me racist. This film helped me see the light. By that definition, everyone is racist. No one can say they haven’t noticed someone else’s skin color, even supposed civil rights champions—see this week’s controversy over senate majority leader Harry Reid’s comments about President Obama.
The question then is, would Dr. King, if he were alive today, see our country and think that his dream has been realized? Or would he believe we are far from the mark? If so, have we overcompensated, or fallen short? I’m in the overcompensation camp, but hey, I’m a white male.
American slavery and racism are two of the ugliest blotches in our nation’s history. But crying “racism” in petty instances demeans the work of Dr. King and the countless men and women who fought with him for racial equality. Further, obsessively demanding retribution for crimes committed against others by others makes it easy to neglect one’s responsibility for their own actions and achievements. Still not convinced? See this film and join the conversation.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
74 Comments
Don't usually trust documentaries on issues like this. Hell, I don't usually trust anyone with a camera. But I may give this one a try.
I've seen it. It's very effective. It was shot on a shoestring budget, but I've never gotten more impact from a one-hour documentary. Ever.
This is the real story about "racism" in America today. Yes, it is subversive, and that's why the MSM have ignored it for a year…! It contradicts their standard template of bad whites and good non-whites with logic and humor. Five stars!
I found it ironic last year that the day before the Inauguration was Marin Luther King Day and I kept thinking about what he said: "judge not a person by the color of their skin but by the content of his character" [sic] and how MADDENING it was to see us bring into the White House a man that most people chose as president BECAUSE of his "historical" skin color. That was the only reason a lot of people voted for him…because of his skin color.
I took a look at that man's content of character on voting day in 2008 and found the ***** LACKING. THAT was why I voted against him.
OH and another thing – why the hell did Americans allow a group of freaks to rewrite the Constitution, when all they had to do was ENFORCE what was there?! The Civil Rights stuff in the 60s was nothing but an attempt to create a country within a country. Divide us further…and we can look at "Reverend" Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpston and Malcom X and see fruition in that. They have divided and conquered.
Racism will be with us as long as there is money in its production. People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make too much money in the race business to ever leave it voluntarily. Ultimately, it will take everyone, but especially blacks, to ignore them and their methods. Only then we will be able to fully live Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech.
Yes. The only "rewriting" of the Constitution that needed to take place was after the Civil War with the 14th amendment, which provide the necessary punch to the Bill of Rights. Before then, states had enough power and sovereignty to simply ignore these rights as they so choose. Only the federal government needed to uphold them.
The sad thing is that because we couldn't let go of slavery at the time the Constitution was being formed we, as a country, had to weaken states' rights, which right now, with an out-of-control federal government and Congress, is something we desperately need.
Because of slavery, our society allowed the federal government to become too strong, and this shift has been slowly turning us all into slaves over the past 10 years and will continue to do so. Truly bitter irony.
I found it ironic last year that the day before the Inauguration was Marin Luther King Day and I kept thinking about what he said: "judge not a person by the color of their skin but by the content of his character" [sic] and how MADDENING it was to see us bring into the White House a man that most people chose as president BECAUSE of his "historical" skin color. That was the only reason a lot of people voted for him…because of his skin color.
I looked at that mans character on the day of Election and found Barack Hussein Obama LACKING. His skin color had nothing to do with that fact. He is a soulless empty vessel, a tool. I voted against THAT.
It is indeed.
Thanks for bringing this documentary to our attention. Should be an interesting addition to the "ongoing discussion of race in America."
The notion of 'Racism' is a Marxist construct meant to do two things:
1) Divide the nation. Communist theory was always about 'divide and conquer'.
2) Wealth redistribution. Evil 'racists' must give money to the oppressed. Not directly, of course- but through their
(inevitably white and left wing) 'benefactors.
This is not to say that as a nation we conducted ourselves nobly. Bringing African slaves here to do menial tasks was not only a mistake but a blow to our nobility as Free Men.
The only question was what to do. The Fourteenth Amendment addressed many of these concerns but at a tremendous loss of state's sovereignty. Still, we have survived and prospered and the black community is a part of our thriving mainstream. Now, if they- we- all could embrace individual responsibility and true equal access-
then this most noble of experiments can be called a success…
I hate to tell everyone this, but, racism is a not a disease or a curse. Rather, it is a part of the human nature that is part of the human experience. Every person, regardless of their race, creed, or color, recognizes a similarity in some sort represents a group, and mankind being a social creature, will try to comport to the group dictates that they identify with. Each person is an individual, and therefore have different experiences, encounters, and feelings about another individual, again based on the natural logic of utilitarian benifit, that will shape their views about certain other groups. To dismiss the similar "group think" among certain ethnic groups, both positive and negative, would be to admit that there is no cultural differences, which is racist in and of its self. But, the individual perspective, which is the basis of American and Western civilization, will develop its own perspective based on individualistic actions with other individuals that they encounter, thereby the charges of racism is a socially constructed political argument of individuals looking to blame their own shortcomings on a "scarecrow".
Noticing someone's race is like noticing if someone is Italian or Spanish, etc.; it's like noticing whether they live in a big house or wear designer clothing or like to cook or read a lot of books, etc. In other words, it simply notices them, period. Like I notice the weather. ('Raining outside. I need an umbrella.') It's nothing more.
Racism today is merely another manifestation of hate. It's not about the race, it's all about the hate. Haters need to hate. They need a reason to hate the way a forest fire needs trees to burn – without it, they collapse and die. Racism in the hands of a hater isn't a reason, it's an excuse. They've got to get rid of that boiling hate inside them. It's like a tea kettle that will explode unless it screams through the spout. Our luck, the damned tea kettles never get it through their heads that it's their own fault for sitting their butts on the stove of resentment, self-pity, insecurity and stupidity (and we can also throw in greed, a lot of greed). Whatever. When the kettle blows, we all have to take the heat. But it's not about the racism, it never has been – it's all about the rage, the hate. If a hater couldn't scream about racism, he'd scream about something else – sexism or homophobia, etc. But whatever he yells, it's not about what he yells but why. The answer is hate. It's all about the hate.
Relatedly (yes it is a wordish), I was watching the tribute to King at the services given at King's old church in Atlanta (it was televised this morning). The woman in red (unknown name) got up to speak. She started speaking with words of thanks. Strangely, God or Jesus did not make the list.
MLK would be so so proud.
Reverand Manning (also a black preacher) has always said that Obama will use his dark skin for evil purposes.
Now he is being harrased by the secret service. Read his letter below to cockraoch Janet Napolitano:
Letter From Dr. James David Manning To Janet Napolitano 12 January 2010 http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=4628 Secretary Janet Napolitano…
America is a racist country in that it is one of the only countries in the world that thinks and talks and teaches about race to the extent we do. Other countries don't look at people by race like we do in America. Calling someone dark skinned in another country is just a reference to the darkness of the skin NOT the race. Skin comes in all shades from dark to light.
America is obsessed with race. Race is treated higher than almost everything else in this country. Let's put it this way, my children know more about social justice and civil rights than they do about the history of the country and the Revolutionary War.
Race is big business here in America and you ignore race at your own peril. Frankly, I think it's pathetic but that's just my opinion.
I would suggest the current definition of the word racism is any one who disagrees with a modern liberal.
Jimmy Carter showed us a wonderful example – anyone who disagrees with transforming America to a socialist state is a racist.
The main reason slavery was allowed in the constitution was because it was the only way to get the southern colonies on board for the revolution.
As it was originally thought, slavery would stay limited to a few southern states, and hopefully soon die out (the slave based economy was already waning in the south). Then along came the Louisiana Purchase. Thomas Jefferson made a huge power grab from congress by asserting the Purchase would be run by governed by Presidential fiat.
Being a slave owner, Jefferson allowed it through out the Purchase.
I think we can all agree that people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are nothing but race hustlers. The world would be a much better place if they were ignored as much as possible so that they'd fade away. Then why do conservatives such as Hannity (whom I admire) and others still give them air time any time views on race from the black community are needed? It drives me crazy.
I disagree, Americans have a long and illustrious history of throwing an entire party out of office. Remember, they sacked the House in 1994 (I think), gave it all to Bush for 6 years, then thew the GOP out.
GO house for some 12 years, GOP in the white house for 8, then along comes some one with seemingly no political baggage (thank you MSM), and in he comes.
I have no doubt race played a part in some voting decisions, but I don't think it was the major factor. Americans by nature tend to be trusting people. They took a chance on an unknown, and now they know better.
Now, if [African Americans] they- we- all could embrace individual responsibility and true equal access-
then this most noble of experiments can be called a success…
I disagree, I don't believe its a race based thing, but rather an ideological thing. The majority of Americans on welfare are poor rural whites.
In my opinion, it comes down to those who fear the unknown, and so are drawn towards false promises of the nanny state vs. those of us who would rather face an uncertain future as opposed to known slavery.
Well said!
They've pretty much reached the end of that redefining rope. Once they hit racism = any one who disagrees with a modern liberal, there ain't a lot of other places to take it.
Just like everything else Marxists get their hands on they destroy, I predict they'll eventually destroy this attack.
well we were talking about 'racism', not welfare- but…
As long as you bring that up we are in agreement about entitlements in general. It reminds us of one of 'W's better lines:
'The soft bigotry of low expectations'…
What we have in America is not primarily a "race" problem, it is a "culture" problem.
Hard left ideologues have redefined "culture" (i.e beliefs and behaviors) as a subset of "race" (skin color) with a set goal in mind — to legitimize and insulate beliefs and behaviors which commonly lead to failure, and therefore government dependence, from criticism. The reason for this is obvious… the defection of the "urban ethnics" to Reagan back in the eighties. Before that time, the urban ethnics (Eastern/Southern European catholic and orthodox) were loyal Democrat voters, but as they assimilated into mainstream America, their party loyalty waned.
Today's left learned their lesson well — keep the poor and needy poor and needy… lest they vote for the other guys.
So any discussion of race must begin with this point — discrimination based on inborn traits (skin color) is wrong, criticism of learned traits (beliefs and behaviors) is A.O.K… and in fact is necessary for any society to climb from poverty and serfdom into prosperity and freedom.
In short — there are lifestyles that lead to success and others that lead to failure. Spread the former, discourage the latter. And remember… government dependence is not a stepping stone on the path to success.
Interesting catch….
"In 1968 Martin Luther King was gunned down by a brutal assassin, his life cut short at the age of 39. But those 39 short years had changed America forever. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had guaranteed all Americans equal use of public accommodations, equal access to programs financed by federal funds, and the right to compete for employment on the sole basis of individual merit. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 had made certain that from then on black Americans would get to vote. But most important, there was not just a change of law; there was a change of heart. The conscience of America had been touched. Across the land, people had begun to treat each other not as blacks and whites, but as fellow Americans. … Now our nation has decided to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by setting aside a day each year to remember him and the just cause he stood for. We've made historic strides since Rosa Parks refused to go to the back of the bus. As a democratic people, we can take pride in the knowledge that we Americans recognized a grave injustice and took action to correct it. And we should remember that in far too many countries, people like Dr. King never have the opportunity to speak out at all." –Ronald Reagan
The way I was taught by my parents was that racism was about hating someone because they were different in whatever way, including race. My parents always taught me to take everyone as an individual and to never hate. I just have no ability think the way traditional racists do, but neither can I understand what the Left today describes as racism.
Because today, it's not about racism, it's about power. It's how the Progressives/Statists gained power. They use it to push things the way they want it. They use it to stifle speech and opinion.
That pretty much covers 95% of what racism is today – a tool. Yes, there are still real racists out there, but they have been relegated to caricatures because they have no credibility whatsoever and all respectable people know that.
I think MLK is spinning in his grave.
It's sad that people strong enough to overcome slavery and discrimination could, within a couple of generations, returned quietly and without protest to the liberal plantation, forbidden even to have their own opinions and political ideology (ask Clarence Thomas).
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO FREDERICK DOUGLASS WAS? AMERICA'S FIRST BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER!
Is it possible that we don't honor Frederick Douglass with a holiday because he was not assassinated? Is America saying that if you're black and a political activist, the only way you will be honored in this country with a holiday is if someone assassinates you?
character. That is the most important part of MLK's speech for me. When all men of all colors decide to act with character. That means ignoring handouts, working hard and pulling yourself along. The laws in this country made it so we are all equal and character is what makes us what we end up being.
Thanks for reviewing this film. I have seen this documentary and highly recommend it. It is well worth the price. Despite being shot mostly in black and white and on a low budget, this documentary is gripping from beginning to end and very insightful. Never before have I seen a film that was so hilarious yet infuriating at the same time. Basically, Boedekker put an ad on Craiglist for people who wanted to participate in a documentary about race based on Obama's call to action. The amazing disconnect between these people's views on "racism" and reality is shocking and a testament to the power of leftist brainwashing that has infiltrated every aspect of our culture.
oh what about the recent italian vs african violence ?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/11/italy….
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100110/wl_afp/italy...
Or the muslim violence against the world ?
Just to let you know…I attended a MLK remembrance today. A year ago there was much joyful mention made of the fact that an African American man was about to be sworn in as President. Today that President was not mentioned or even alluded to. (Sorry for ending that in a preposition.) That tells me that a good many black Americans are not so happy with this president.
To folks that think racism only exists in the USA:
Not to minimize racism in the USA BUT, regardless of how much or what "style" of racism we have or do not have here, America does not have a monopoly on racism . Every culture has racism. For one glaring example look at India — or does that caste system not count because is only based on skin color not racial origin …
I agree. Racism is real, and part of human nature. As individuals, and even as a society, we are able to overcome the tendency. But the continual playing of the "race card" in order to demean political and intellectual opponents serves only to divide the very people who should be searching for common ground on which to stand.
Skin color has nothing to do with the caste system, also the caste system has been completely outlawed. Racism is more prominent in this country because there is such a wide variety of races calling this country home. Its hard not to judge another race that is not your own. __But those who believe it doesnt exist because slavery doesnt exist is delusional.
The caste system is about class. Now the rest of the world has "Classism" in abundance…
The Italian thing is probably more about immigration than race. Muslim is a religion.
I think it is an important issue and would have no problem viewing this documentary. I see one can order a DVD. Does this mean nobody has picked it at network or cable. To me, racism relates to our tendency to automatically assign generalities about a particular race and automatically assign those general traits to an individual before seeing if they actually apply on an individual basis. In modern times, in politics, race baiting is used as a political tool designed to stir up animosity. Anger fuels voter turnout.
That was a great line.
.
Perceptions of race relations have been heavily skewed by the Democrat – MSM unholy alliance.
Here's some reality, mostly from Tuskegee Institute data:
FACTS
–Anti-slavery movement was a Republican and Christian movement
–Frederick Douglass and all blacks in the US and Congress during Reconstruction were Republicans
– MLK and his father were both Republicans
–Republicans ended slavery by fighting the civil war and enacting the14th, 15th and 16th amendments to the
constitution which abolished slavery, gave rights to citizenship, and right to vote.
–The racist segregationists were democrats from Jefferson Davis to Al Gore's father
–Republicans passed the first Civil Rights act in 1875, it was comprehensive and enforced until 1885
–democrats were the party of the KKK trying to reverse the 1875 civil rights act (Jim Crow was a democrat)
–of the 4780 people lynched between 1885-1935, a full third were white Republicans fighting for civil rights
–democrats overwhelmingly again voted against civil rights in 1965, including Al Gore's father
–the 1965 civil rights act was a virtual copy of the 1875 version, and was passed again by the Republicans
–Bill Clinton turned MLK day into Robert E. Lee day as Gov of Arkansas
–Bill Clinton's mentor, Wm Fulbright, a racist segregationist, sponsored of the '50s Southern Manifesto by
congressional democrats bitterly vowing to oppose integration of schools
–George Wallace, Bull Conner and the other racist in the black and white news clips were democrats
–Thousands of Free Blacks in the South were respected property owners, but also owned slaves
– A higher percentage of blacks in New Orleans owned black slaves than did whites
– 400, 000 whites from the North died to end slavery and most were Republicans
– Traditional Black colleges in the South such as Morehouse College were founded by white republicans
–Brown v Board of Education was a Republican event under Eisenhower
–integration of Federal service and military was under Eisenhower
–Woodrow Wilson and FDR were racist segregationists who would not sign ant-lynching legislation
–Woodrow Wilson segregated Princeton University before he segregated the Federal Government service
–Woodrow Wilson advocated the KKK – it grew from 400K to 5 million under Wilson
–Woodrow Wilson kicks the blacks out of federal government jobs and the military
–FDR put Asians in internment camps during WWII, but not Germans or Italians
–FDR openly appointed well known leaders of the KKK on the Supreme court
–FDR depression era government jobs opportunities were not given to blacks
–black on white homicides and violent crimes skyrocketed 4-500% since civils rights passed
–white on black crime is the same low 3% as it was at the turn of the century
THE RACIST FLIP FLOP
–The Moynihan Report 1964 – Democrat Patrick Moynihan, then deputy HEW Sec. (big liberal), wrote an honest 214 page report as to why blacks had not progressed 10 years of integration after Brown v Board of Ed.
Conclusion: Lack of Black progress is not the result of racism. It was due to the same things that keep poor white people from upward mobility: cycle of dropping out of school, drugs, crime, and out of wedlock children.
Democrats decided since they finally had to let blacks vote and participate in democracy, they would blame Republicans as the "real" racists. They buried the report and buy black votes with Johnson's Great Society programs to stay in power.
The job of Sharpton, Jackson and the other grievance mongers is to keep the fiction going so the money flows and real problems will never be addressed.
The media totally sells this sickening revisionist history.
.
But in the US we'd call it RACE.
Real attitudes about real people are less about race in the US than they probably are anywhere else in the entire world. Try any place in Asia for an example of racism that would have Americans cringing. But they don't see it that way while we're so sensitized to it that we can hardly function. Watch the movie _District 9_. Talk to an East European and mention Gypsies.
To say, "Oh, that's immigration, not race" is just silly. It's judging a group. It's prejudice, absolutely.
Making excuses for *them* while saying that in the US it really is race after all is giving in to a willful irrationality. We aren't racist because we obsess. We're probably far less racist because we're culturally compelled to awareness while those racists in other countries are more than willing to accept our own judgment of ourselves while believing that their own attitudes about minority groups in their own countries are something quite different and quite justified.
It's exactly the same.
Getting assassinated works pretty well. Got nothing at all to do with being black. Look at JFK for pete's sake.
Skin color has a great deal to do with any caste system. Part of that is because people who work in low-caste jobs are in the sun and very very dark.
Interesting that you make the point that the caste system in India is completely outlawed and thus doesn't exist and the people there do not judge according to caste or skin color.
And then immediately assert that although slavery in the US is completely outlawed that people still judge according to race.
Can you read? The topic of discussion here is "black civil rights leader" not white presidents for pete's sake!
claiming racism today, and for a while now, is akin to saying shut-upduring an argument or debate. the only difference is that if you don't shut-up you risk being labeled a racist.
You were making an incredibly stupid statement implying that black persons of vision and Historical significance and accomplishment were ignored unless they were assassinated.
But the truth of it is, the actual *truth* of it, is that public figures that are assassinated of *any* race, tend to get more attention. The color of their skin is utterly irrelevant. JFK is a counter point to your moronic assertion that there is something horrible going on with the neglect of Frederick Douglass.
You want to get snarky and personal and ask "Can you read?" You really want to take it there?
I'd like to return the favor and ask… Can you *think*?
Racism is the policy of the federal government. There is either pressure on companies receiving federal funds or more direct orders for federal organizations to apply racial quotas for jobs. Historically, quotas were used to limit the number of jews in the academic or medical professions to the population percentage. It's used in a similar way now against jews, asians and whites and remains just as racist as when applied in Russia or Germany.
The argument for the modern version is effectively: "We had to be racist in order to stop racism". This is the argument of people who profit from the perception that this country is racist and will do anything to maintain it.
"Racism" is a frustrating word for which the definition keeps changing depending on what the people who are (or who consider themselves) victims of it want it to mean from one day to the next. If someone suffers from arthritis, say, the word always means the same thing: a stiffness in the joints. It doesn't mean stiffness one day, a headache the next, and PMS the day after that. But the people who profit from keeping racism alive and well, (hi, there, Revs. Jackson and Sharpton!) have redefined, re-redefined, and re-re-redefined the word racism for years, ("Ok, it means mistreating people of other races badly because of their color. No, wait, it means not giving people of other races preferential treatment. No, wait, it's giving preferential treatment but resenting it. No, wait, it's not being color-blind and noticing someone is a different race. No, wait, it's BEING color-blind and NOT noticing someone is a different race. No, wait…"). They even came up with something called "institutionalized racism," which I understand to mean, "The racism is so ingrained in you that you aren't even aware of its existence, and it'll never ever ever go away no matter what you do, even though you don't make racist remarks, have racist thoughts, or even pay attention to race as a whole, you're still a racist." As long as there is money to be made and guilt to be extracted, I fear that "racism," which no longer has a clear meaning, will always be in the forefront.
<DIV>The caste system is not race based nor is it skin color based. It was a system similar to the feudal system in Europe and it does not exist anymore. If you dont know what it is please dont embarass yourself further by trying to talk about it. I did not say that racism does not exist in India. It does, very much so.</DIV> <DIV>People do judge according to race in the U.S. Its a fact. To deny that is ridiculous.</DIV> <DIV></DIV>
— On Mon, 1/18/10, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:
You already brought it here with your first reply which indicated you failed to comprehend my post which was about two people and where you interjected a third party that was not related to the subject! And now you demonstrate once again your failure to comprehend when all I was trying to do was raise a question for the purpose of discussion and you label it a "statement" OK! Let me ask you this then…why is there no holiday acknowledging America's first black civil rights leader Frederick Douglass? I always thought it was the "first" to accomplish something that got the recognition and not the second. But here it is the second who gets all the recognition with a holiday thrown in as well.
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with wonder all. I said its more prominent in this country. Europe is not a country and the U.S. is very diverse in relation to most countries.
Also I'm not talking about slavery, I'm simply stating that racism still exists, perhaps not in its more blatant form but still here in a more abstract form.
It's a HUGE problem in the United States too.
(Part 1)
"The root of all knowledge lies in the calling of things by their right name."—Plato.
Herein lies the problem. The concept: "Racism" holds different meanings for different individuals; affected by myriad factors and attitudes. If we can not agree upon the basic truths of that which we discuss, then a conversation is difficult. Relativism relating to this concept is an enemy and absolutism regarding definition of terms is prohibited.
Let us instead speak of factual events with the only value judgements being based on the desireablity or undesireability of these events and their consequences.
I work for a company that does business in Maryland. In order to provide my services to the State, my business must subcontract 5% to 15% (depending on the contract) of the total value of our contract to an "approved" Minority Business Enterprise. What is the value of such policy? I think those arguments are well known, so instead, let me address the consequences and then we will decide if this factual occurence is "desireable" or "undesireable." (Cont.)
http://www.breitbart.tv/pelosi-on-ma-gop-victory-...
You just proved my point. We are obsessed with race in this country. An African person happens to be someone who comes from Africa. Got it? They also happen to have dark skin. It just happens that way. Such is how this world and biology works. If that same person from Africa goes to Italy, let's say, illegally then the Italian who is having a hard time making ends meet, paying taxes, etc might not like it.
Why can't it be about humans being upset with other humans? Why is that about race? Okay if it's about race then why are Western Europeans angry at Eastern Europeans for exactly the same reason? It's not about race.
There are cultures that clash. Prejudices that are formed over centuries–as is the case of gypsies.
By you assuming that we in the US are so above all that because we talk about race and discuss it is so wrong. Let me ask you a question, I lived in Europe for 10 years and not one time did someone "hate" me because I was white. No one ever said a mean word to me or my family in 10 years. My children played with people of all colors.
On the day we came back to America, my husband was called a "cracker" by a black lady. On the day we came home! All I hear are people talking about someone doesn't like me because I'm black or whatever. Obsession does not make us "less" racist. It makes everything we do about race.
Sometimes it's really just about "people."
You said we have such a wide variety of races living in this country (meaning the US). How many races do you think there are? I am confused.
Europe is a Union. In many ways like the US. Most countries within that Union, I can assure you, are filled with a plethora of diverse people. I take it you haven't been there.
<DIV>I have been there and I agree that its very diverse but that doesnt really undermine my point. Are you saying Europe has no racism?</DIV> <DIV></DIV>
— On Tue, 1/19/10, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:
No I am saying Europe and indeed the rest of the world isn't as obsessed with "Race" as we are in America. I am sure various forms racism exists outside America…but come on is race really that important? Really?
<DIV>Ha no its not that important but for some people its easy to judge those who do not look like themselves. Its sad but true.</DIV> <DIV></DIV>
— On Tue, 1/19/10, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:
the man had his moments…
In comparison the average IQ of Sub-Saharan Africans is in the 70s. The average IQ of Arabs in in the mid 80s. The average IQ of Hispanics is in the upper 80s. And the Australian Aborigines score dead last in the mid 60s. It's also been widely known for decades that the average IQ of African Americans is about 85 (higher than that of native Africans due to "intermarriage" with their European slave masters).
People who try to dismiss IQ statistics as being irrelevent "since they were obviously created by racist whites" or are "culturally biased" or are "more a result of nurture rather than nature" are clearly trying to desparetly deny the legitimacy of these statistcs simply because they're offended by them. All of those criticisms are however easily disproven.
I mean, think about it. If IQ tests were created by "racist whites" for the purpose of proving that they're the smartest people in the world then why do East Asians and Ashkenazim Jews score higher than whites? And in what way are IQ tests culturally biased? They're simple puzzles often written in the universal language of mathematics. And again, if they're culturally biased towards whites than why do East Asians score higher despite speaking totally different languages? And while the enviornment can clearly play a roll in your IQ score, numerous studies have shown that diet and general standard of living only affects IQ scores by a few points – not 20-30.
For example: Sub-Saharan African children that were adopted by wealthy Westerners and grew up attending high class private schools still scored in the 80s. While the average IQ of rural European Americans is still about 105. And in rural China the Chinese peasant class still scores around 100 despite being desperately poor. So clearly your IQ is mostly inherited and has more to do with hardwired genetics than your surroundings.
People need to start realizing that the average IQ of any ethnic group is also the key to understanding the gaps in income, education and crime in our society. How on Earth will we ever be able to help improve those social woes without being honest about causes them in the first place? It cannot simply be a coincidence that the ethnic groups with the highest IQs also make the most income, get the best grades and commit the least amount of crime (especially violent crime). While predictably the ethnic groups with the lowest IQs make the least amount of income, get the lowest grades and commit the vast majority of crime.
Tying the cause and effect together is pretty simple. If you have lower innate intelligence then you're more likely to flunk out of school. If you flunk out of school then you're less likely to earn a decent career. And if you're unable to achieve a decent career then you turn to crime in order to provide for yourself and your family. On a societal basis that explains why countries like Haiti and cities like Detroit are such slums and countries like Japan and Israel are so successful despite facing countless obstacles.
The innate IQ differences are the real explanations for "social and economic inequality" yet nobody is allowed to admit it out of fear of being called a racist or Neo-Nazi. Instead we're forced to sit through far fetched and patently bogus theories explaining income and social inequality which innevitably boils down to "blame white people" or some kind of environmental impact.
You see this nonsense spouted practically everywhere. Why is Afghanistan so backwards for example? "Well, uh. Afghanistan's national development was stunted by European colonialsm! And oh, yeah. They're landlocked too! Thus no navy and no access to outside influences." Hmmm, then why are Japan and Germany light years ahead of Afghanistan despite being nearly leveled to the ground by allied bombing? And why is Austria so prosperous and developed even though they're landlocked as well? Obviously the gaps in achievment have more to do with the vast differences in IQ than their history or the environment.
But oops. You can't admit that or else you're a racist…
Systematic white racism no longer exists. In fact whites are probably the least racist ethnic goup currently due to a high level of introspection and self-criticism that you simply don't see among the other races. Proof that white racism doesn't explain current income inequalities is the success of Asian Americans. They don't qualify for affirmative action programs because they don't need them. They're smart and hard working enough to compete with whites and whites simply don't discriminate against people based on ethnicity on a societal scale. The other ethnic minorities (and whites) should copy the asian example if they want to succeed.
Blah blah blah. As a left leaning person I'm shocked by how many people on the right also pretend that there's no difference in intelligence or level of civility between the different human ethnic groups. That's obviously false from any objective analysis of IQ statistics, academic scores, crime statistics, history, nationalality and GDP, etc, or a simple glimpse at a list of the greatest inventors and minds of the last few millenia.
The ugly politically incorrect truth is that Western Europeans, East Asians and Ashkenazim Jews are by far the smartest people in the world (on average). Ashenazism Jews score the highest at around 118. The average IQ for East Asians (Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, etc) is about 110. And the average IQ for Western Europeans is about 108.
"Is America saying that if you're black and a political activist, the only way you will be honored in this country with a holiday is if someone assassinates you?"
Synova simply pointed out, quite correctly, the silliness of your question, which very clearly implies that becoming famous after being assassinated is something unique to black political activists. The use of JFK as an example to refute that is quite on topic.
Yes, I can read and yes, I can think.
This film shows us what we all know is true. Send a link to your brainwashed anti-white friends and enjoy the meltdown as their brain tries processing the truth.
Websites we think you should visit…
[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……
Improve your vision naturally!…
Thanks. Left you a trackback to help your readers improve eye vision naturally….
abradel beauty supply store…
I really loved the post so I used my Digg account to digg it.. Just thought Id drop you a line to tell you your site really rocks! I have been looking for this sort of information for a long time. pleasing fantastic….
Potato And Leek Soup It’s a good shame you don’t include a render money ! I’d definitely create money for this webpage! That i for the measure beingness i’ll be satisfied bookmarking unitedly with including an individual’s Consume that instrument my …
It’s a well ignominy you don’t hold a cogitate money secure! I’d definitely spring money for this wonderful webpage! That i suppose for the example state i’ll be satisfied bookmarking together with including an individual’s Give that give my mortal Msn…
Memory Foam Mattress Reviews City station. I instruct something statesman challenging on separate blogs workaday. It testament e’er be thrilling to scan thing off their writers and recitation a lowercase something from their store. I’d prefer to use…
City station. I instruct something statesman challenging on separate blogs workaday. It testament e’er be thrilling to scan thing off their writers and recitation a lowercase something from their store. I’d prefer to use few with all the knowledge in …
You must be logged in to post a comment.