Help Me Understand RACISM

FEAR

"F"alse "Evidence "A"ppearing "R"eal!

Is it because some people only have self worth when they believe they are better than people they put in another group?

OK, I'll go with that, at least for now, because I honestly don't know the answer.

The belief in being better is not what motivates most racism, the feeling of being superior is rarely the issue in the real world.

Typically at the root of racism is the , "They take our jobs", "They change the culture of our community" or "They have committed crimes against us", motivations.

Or, they might commit crimes against us. . . We can't take that chance!

I don't think there is one cause but there many factors. One big one is tribalism or protection of the clan. Wolves do the same thing. Obviously human institutions have also played a part, religion has a hand in this

I believe that racism starts in the way you've mentioned , being a part of a supposedly superior tribe , clan, race , clique or religion makes some people be filled with false pride and power over the other. Not everyone has propensity to be racist , only the weak and insecure and self-inferior individuals enjoy protection and by time they tend to dehumanize the other for silly differences

Racism is "fear and insecurity" towards differences. It's beliefs are centered around "hate, iintolerance, disdain and even genocide/annihilation" as necessary justifications.

Racism does not necessarily have anything at all to do with skin color (although, his occurs frequently).

I agree with Blayde. Even wolves and other animals have racism. A group of black to gray wolves don't accept a white wolf very easily.

The funny thing is that if you raise a group of children of all colors together, they will all be happy. But only for awhile. Sooner or later a difference in one child will cause racism or at least lack of acceptance.

Why? Who knows?

>> Of course their parents didn't teach them racism either.

"You've got to be carefully taught." -Rogers & Hammerstein, South Pacific, 1949

cmach & blayde:

Attitudes of women of differing or same cultures that wear a burka is systemic of ignorance, fear and perhaps a "programmed societal bias and institutionalized (educated) reference towards "unacceptability". This is not necessarily "racism".

Your example about wolves is interesting. I would place this description among "instincts"... Wolves do mate and breed with other wolf varieties. So do most other dogs. Most domesticated dog breeds created and enjoyed by man also fit in this category. Although, I think I understand your meaning, it is a poor statement and attempt to define racism.

Perhaps, man is nothing more than a VERY complex animal (among the absolute worse). He kills for no good reason and certainly destroys without natural threat of rationale, aside from his ego, narcissistic and greediness to validate self or similar beings. Even among "sameness", there is a caste system which typifies "racist" tendencies.

It is an insult to the animal world to include the human species.

Even among "sameness", there is a caste system which typifies "racist" tendencies

That is spot on!

Man is an animal, most of what man does is instinct, racism is moslly driven by instinct. It is a fallacy to think that humanity even in it's best moments is driven by anything other than a stone age brain. I don't suppport the concept of women wearing a burqa but I don't accept the concept of Christian women being subservient to their husbands. Human behavior has been compared to wolves over and over when one is talking about modern psychology. Man is not completely in control of instinct and I would suggest that man isn't even doing a very good job of controlling instinct.

Hello,

cmach, Wolf packs are family groups and that is why their coloration is similar, however, the alpha (male or female and pack leader) is often different from the pack. In two generations that pack will change. Animals look for physical dominance and gray, white, black, or brown is irrelevant.

What children are you around? I am old and have lifelong friends. My children have life long friends. My grandchildren play with other children.

Be Well,

That's why I prefer the term tribalism - it describes a common shared perspective we all may have. But in a previous discussion another NV contributor famously said that the term itself was racist. . .

Hello,

jwtiii, I agree with you tribalism is an anthropological term and we can see it at work, sporting events, and etcetera.

Be Well,

I come from some German tribe but I denounce Hitler and all forms of genocide. My family has owned the same farm in Nebraska for over 150 years, I support the President, he is a man with an astounding concept of racism. If you think Obama is a racist, you have not endured what I have, he is my brother.

Oh ok. So blame the victim? I guess racism is all in our minds...not happening these days...no sir...don't see it. :(

Where on earth are you finding that I am blaming the "victim"? I merely noted that this individual personally known to me calls the race card and it is always because of something HE did to get in trouble in the first place.

There most certainly are circumstances where there is true racism involved. However, the point is that so much of society throws the term around far too much lessening the true meaning of the word itself. Educating on what the meaning of the word is and applying it where appropriate. At no time would I ever "blame the victim" or advocate to do so.

In modern times, I see the term racism being used as commonly as we take a breath of air or drink of water. Much of our society uses the term to place blame on why something isn't right for them. I liken it to telling a child no, and the temper tantrum that results from it.

Nicole I gathered from your statement above that you see this as the source of racism...

continued...

Maybe blaming the victim wasn't the best choice of words but you are implying that you think there are very few cases of racism. In your words...anyone (most) claiming racism don't know what real racism is and are just using it to complain about being denied something.

Thats what I gather from your statements.

Only the most blatant and easily proven cases of racism even get addressed. Simply because there are some who will lie about the actual circumstances and claim racism as the root cause, doesn't mean that every other person who alleges racism is lying or exaggerating.

Racism, by way of example, is not simply calling a non-White person a racial slur. It's having a different standard (higher) to obtain or keep something one is entitled to (housing, job, credit, etc.) and/or more severe punishments for actual and perceived violations, based on race or perceived race.

Actually, it's a bit more involved than that, but that's the shorter explanation.

psmitty, I implied nothing of the sort that there are very few cases of racism. What I am saying is that the term itself is so overused that it over-shadows REAL cases of TRUE racism making it very difficult on those people who deserve justice if they are denied because of racism. I would never imply that it doesn't exist. Sadly, it does and someday, maybe our grandchildren will learn what racism was, rather than what we know it as "is" in our society.

BTW, racism can happen to anyone...of any race. I merely used an example because that is what I have seen and/or experienced in recent memory.

it's all a heart issue, simply a heart issue!

Story: bigotry=sin of omission and racism=sin of comission?

I see your point. Incitement to riot is not the same as actually rioting.

Technically racism is the belief in the superiority of a certain race. Most people in America are not racist, I would think that the percentage of Americans falling into that definition is pretty small. Bigotry is different, because everyone is a little bigoted.

bajee, 'everyone is a little bigoted' very well put, and i believe very true

I agree. I have seen few real world examples otherwise.

As long as you recognize your own bigoted attitudes and work to correct them than there is nothing wrong with you. It is in our nature to lump people together in groups, we do it instinctively without even thinking about it. I recognize I have my own, and when something like that pops into my head I try and identify it and counteract it.

It takes energy to hate, but less effort to just reject everyone who is Other than to consider people one at a time. My childhood was pretty much white only until I started working part-time at the local post office when I was 17. There I got an extensive experience in meeting and working with black people, and they accepted me because I had no race attitude due to my parents teaching me to be tolerant. My grade and high schools weren't integrated, but my jobs have been, many ethnicities and all genders, and college added even further to my experience, including courses in inter-gender and inter-ethnic communication. My favorite Comm'n prof was a bi woman from Colombia. These things are among those that identify her, but they do not define her in how I interacted with her. She is one of the most marvelous people I've known, and her example taught as much as her instruction. Her occasional bemusement (and sometimes disgust) at American behavior was for me much as your Vietnamese friend is for you.

Like you, I was brought up pretty much in a white world. My parents were very progressive, and taught tolerance as well. My interactions with people of all different ethnic backgrounds has been overall quite positive.

I now teach in a school that is primarily latino, then vietnameese. I have been there 11 years. Last week, a teacher who is new to the school and latino said to me something to the effect "I bet mariachi music is just noise to you." I smiled, laughed and said "Even white girls like mariachi music..." We still laugh about it. Was that racist of her? I don't think so. I think it was an honest question based on her past experiences. All that blabbering of mine just to say that I truly believe when it comes to people and racism, the more we take a deep breath and practice patience and tolerance, we will all be better off.:)

Quite so, ERich, quite so. [I'm avoiding saying 'amen' due to religious connotations :) ] It should be enlightening to be a minority once in awhile; this probably scares the bejabbers out of the TB crowd--learning humilty re one's culture is a bit daunting if you've always thought yourself as top of the heap.

I like almost all music, if well done. One of my favorite bands in the 69s & 70s was Santana well before I spoke more than ten words of Spanish; it reached me and I didn't have to have a congruent cultural pattern.

Eric-356044:

Nice post. However, the waters and the seas do have color... Especially when you consider what dwells below the surface. Man is a strange and fantastic creature (which perpetually struggles to know himself).

Let's not confuse "melanoma" in human skin-tone as we attempt to answer for the (so called) various races. There is only one race... The human race. Do we really know all what "lurks" beneath our ancestral skin? Absolutely not !

The "Color Of Water" metaphorically illustrates, it is diverse. E.G: the Black sea with "white" caps", the salt lake, the "blue" ocean, the "yellow" river in China, the "red" tides, the "turquoise" Mediterranean seas, and even the "Dead" sea. Everything has a color prism and color is defined differently through each viewers lens.

Thanks for sharing.

You are referring to The POINT, had the popular song Me and My Arrow by Harry Nillson- I loved that- hardly anyone seems to remember it. It was meaningful to me too.

My first real taste of racism was middle school- I was ostracized for dancing with a male friend from my math class, who happened to be black. It did not occur to either of us that there might be any issue with just a dance, it wasn't a romantic slow dance, just a happy rock dance. ( not that it should have mattered but hey we were like 13) He was also harassed by both black and white classmates. For us it was a simple dance to some song. He apologized to me at school on Monday, so sad, it makes me sad today that he should feel he must apologize for a simple dance. I remember telling him it was okay and I didn't care. He never really talked to me much after. It really sucked, he was a really nice guy. My family was transfered a few months later and the rumors flew. Such a sad deal.

Most of the people who gave me a hard time would never in a million years consider themselves racists but...if the shoes fits.

Oblio had a round head in a world where everyone else had a pointed one. Oblio and his dog, Arrow, ran away from home to find a real point instead of hiding under his pointed hat. Of course, along the way, Oblio discovers that even with a round head he still has a point.

CORRECTION TO POST #12:

the above statement

the homosapien sapien DNA (genetics) and the human alleles have proven that not only does the homosapien sapien not have enough genetic variations for a race, they dont have enough genetic differentiation for a "sub-race"

should correctly read

the homosapien sapien DNA (genetics) and the human alleles have proven that not only does the homosapien sapien not have enough genetic variations for a secondary race of mankind, they dont have enough genetic differentiation for a "sub-race" of the one and only race of mankind

They say that humans have a genetic bottleneck once they came out of Africa,

Well that ought to make all the TP'ers pull their shirts over their heads and run screaming into the darkness.

mcspocky i was watching a program that said there is only one race, and you can get a dna test done that can determine your heritage.

McSpocky, the statement that you made "I doubt that you could get any white supremacist to believe that though" has no relevence in reality. Everyone has their own paradigm of life riddled with fantasies they need to explain who they are, why they are and where they are going.

Not only are there white supremists, there are many "supremists". Take a look at the data concerning a new book resently released called "The King's Torah". Only 1000 books sold, yet it is being preached as religious dogma to too many more than willing to believe it. It is creating an ultra-radical fanatic jewish group that wishes to rival Al Qaeda and Christian fundamental, evangelical fanatics who believe they must wipe out all non-believers (Joel's Army believers) to prepare the world and make it ready for the second coming of Jesus.

There are color "supremists", religious "supremists" and ethnic "supremists", many which divide humanity superficially and call those arbitrary "divisions" races like what Hitler did with the misguided concept of an Aryian Race. It anyone wishes to get "technical", it could very well be those features which ruled the concept of an "Aryian Race" may very well be those genetic imprints of what is left of the Neanderthal heritage. Neanderthals, obvious from their extinction, were NOT superior to homosapien sapiens since they were NOT the ones who survived. That doesnt necessarily mean homosapien sapiens were superior to the Neanderthals either - just much more vicious. And there we go again on attempting to understand racism and bigotry. Is it in our genes due to a genetic need to "survive" over the competition and once having removed the true biological competition, finding no expression except through "erradicating" and ruling over others within the one and only homosapien sapiens race?

Again, a paradigm created within a person's consciousness is what allows one to believe anything necessary to maintain that paradigm, no matter how unreal, irrational or fantasy based it may be. No physical proof of reality or ideology can permeate a paradigm that has NOT already been weakened from within by some thoughts of reason or alternate paradigm already "breaking down the walls" of the original paradigm.

Thanks for posting this. I took a Race, Class & Gender college course in my late 40s, over 10yrs ago, and it was some revelation to discover the next layer of the onion under my old 60s position. I'd learned about oppression over my life, but to apply it in this context was a brand new deal.

McSpocky stated in the article he's looking for the payoff, and it'd be my guess to look at Angela's list, or others on this topic.

Additional resources on understanding racism, for me, were some of these:

Color of Fear movie (youtube has a trailer here) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rbfh5oM3EQ

Tim Wise on White Privilege http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UJlNRODZHA

Thank you for the additional sources. It is the last two steps that keep oppression from ever going away. It usually takes on a new form. Slavery was replaced by share cropping a form of slavery that takes the financial burden of caring for the slave off the slave owner and places it on the slave. The current replacement is minimum wage. Barefoot and pregnant was replaced with the obsession of being a size four. It is important to see the big picture, oppression and not the individual targets (ism's). I remember the sixties very well and the power of the people.

Radio----I wonder if I can explain the relevance of this point that surfaced for me during my RCG classroom. Age-wise, only 2 of us reached back to the 1960s (instructor was younger), and the other student lived in the Caribbean during those years. I found it hard for them all to understand this.

If you remember, Hollywood in the early 60s was still deeply under scrutiny for communism from the McCarthy era. Three actors who bravely stood with MLK and risked their careers, and being investigated by FBI, were Harry Belafonte, Charlton Heston and Paul Newman.

Fast forward to the politically-correct 90s, and Charlton Heston by now was more known to younger audiences as the speaker for the NRA. He gave a speech to students who challenged him as racist, and Heston was stunned. (I have the printout in my class notes, but google doesn't seem to show it.) However, he refers to the controversy in this speech to Harvard in 1999.

But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist

http://mizai.tripod.com/

In peeling thru the layers of racism, I found that I could see his context on the scale of racist to non-racist, as it was my 60s position. Yet to a new generation raised without the intensity of the hegemony and oppression -- and consequences -- of our generation, I could also see how they saw racism. And what stunned me was, I could see my own. In fact, in the 60s I was so busy *helping* to defend that I didn't dig too deep myself. That *helping* was no longer needed, and that was what Heston didn't seem to grasp. He missed that in helping "them", he was creating a "them." But by his example, I was able to rip thru my own.

During the Obama candidacy, I used that position in discussions with retired generations who didn't believe it could happen. It helped ME to understand them, and say more effectively what I would have said to Heston. Do you relate to this? Do you find it relevant to McSpocky's topic?

storyartist

Sorry for the delay. Sunday afternoons September to January are taken with one thing I love more than the vine. I had to see Manning vs. Manning and the Jets whip the lip readers. I will finish reading the speech and get back to you. I appreciate the opportunity of analysis.

You might want to catch up before responding .... we elaborated on this in Comment #19 thread. Your viewpoint is appreciated.

well said Sincerus

Sincerus

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

i was too tired from work to respond to this yesterday. as for jeff's rant which is so incorrect on so many different levels i really didn't want to discuss it.

Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.

limited government has a dismal historical record. it has not protected the individual, but has promoted the elites of the regions in which it was instituted. it protected big ranchers against the homesteader. it protected the mine owner against the mine worker. it allowed the mormons to massacre people. it allowed the town region and even the state to be run as personal fiefdoms by elites. and of course it allowed people to be used as chattel.

the elites may compete, but they do not act as individuals, but collectivise to controll in their interests.

Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

the problem is that "free" market capitalism is easily manipulated by powerful individuals and groups. that is why there are laws against market collusion, anti trust, stock manipulation, artificial shortages, fraud, and a host of other problematic business practices.

all one needs to do is go into any law library and look at the corporate codes. they are usually the oldest and most non changed laws in a state. in most instances you need to get a very recent precedent is you are writing a legal brief and you shepardise for such. in business law you can find laws from the early 1900's to the 1920's that are virtually unchanged.

the rise in both regulation and government is a response to the adjudication of many cases that wronged individuals have brought against businesses and corporations.

In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers.

this is new new lie that is being promulgated by unlimited "free market" advocates. businesses that discriminate will not go into bankruptcy or disappear.

the denny's lawsuit, of which i was a plaintiff, is just one recent example that businesses don't go away because they discriminate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denny's#Racial_discrimination_lawsuits

In 1994, Denny's settled a class action lawsuit filed by thousands of African-American customers who had been refused service, forced to wait longer, or pay more than white customers. The $54.4 million settlement was the largest and broadest under Federal public-accommodations laws established 30 years previously to end segregation in restaurants and public spaces.^[

then they got caught doing it again

http://www.totalinjury.com/news/articles/discrimination/dennys.aspx

Denny's Sued Hit Hard in Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
By: Gerri L. Elder

Denny's Restaurant is in the news again, and for the same reason they have been in the news so many times before. The restaurant has been sued again for racial discrimination.

In the latest lawsuit against Denny's, an African American family in East St. Louis, Illinois sued the restaurant chain for racial discrimination and has been awarded $600,000 in damages by a federal jury

and the argument that "i wouldn't want to go to a place that discriminates" has no bearing when it is 1:00 am and the only resteruant that is open to eat discriminates, or the only hotel that has rooms discriminates.

More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant.

but the unlimited Free society" you envision is nothing but a survival of the fittest "society".

the statement of "developing a group/victim mentality" completely disregards history, both past and recent, and blames the people victimized rather than advocating remedies for the causes of victimization.

what is your remedy for employment discrimination? what is your remedy for compensation discrimination? environmental (the placing of environmental hazards like waste in poorer communities) discrimination? educational funding inequities? the shipping of jobs to the suburbs? poor services in inner city communities? schools designed by the same firms which design prisons in the cities, but schools that look like andy hardy movies in suburbs? the disparity in school funding? gestapo like policing in cities that make it harder for the police to gain the trust of the communities (with the rampant corruption of units like the ramparts police division in los angeles, the "riders" in oakland, new york police, chicago, cincinnati, miami "the miami riots were started when the police shot and killed an attorney riding on the back of a motorcycle").

what to discuss momentarily Jeff-573598's rather ill informed comments. unfair police and prosecutorial misconduct is rampant throughout this country. jeff do you realize there is rampant bias in all areas of law enforcement? there is bias in who is stopped. there is bias in who is charged. there is bias in the severity of charges. there is bias in who is convicted for the same crimes charged, there is bias in sentencing.

Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

again this is a solution that has no historical validity. only when groups of people with like grievances band together can they fight a common foe or problem. to fight the problem as a fragmented group they will only experience failure. this is why there was a unified opposition to the racist status quo in america and a civil rights/black power movement. this is why the workers had to unionize, to fight the power of the bosses who hired thugs to break the unions and a few heads. it is why the homesteaders formed granges to fight against the elites. what you advocate is historically and tactically ridiculous

homesteaders were not treated wrongly as individuals, but as a group. the same for miners, factory workers of the early industrial age and many others. they were treated worngly because of the group they belonged to.

african americans are not discriminated against because of who we are. we are discriminated against because of what we are.

because of that it makes no sense to disband as a group to fight the discrimination and unfairness.

your calls of individualism ring hollow when analysed against history.

Hello,

I always find it interesting to read or listen to the rhetoric of the neo-libertarians. I admit to being a libertarian, but I distrust the libertarian movement and party. If you also note, that conservative libertinism only exist in the US and does not even reflect Goldwater and is considered a fusion of libertarian language and conservative ideas who are divided into two groups which are constitutionalist and those that assert the constitution does not prevent large invasive government. Both groups assert the 1964 Civil Rights Act infringes upon liberty and that capitalism will end racism and etcetera.

There is an old idiom, “anyone can talk the talk, but few can walk the walk” (yep, some more of that Old Corp Marine) and if I apply it here, it is obvious they never read or understood the thinking of modern libertarians that (in the US) appreciated the necessity of the Civil Rights Act. Fact, after almost one-hundred (100) years of Jim Crow, Capitalism did nothing to slow or end discrimination – even in government and banking. Entire groups were denied the ability to prosper during a time of prosperity. Therefore their concept of liberty only applies to those who prosper and they can again blame the victims for being the victims.

We old “radical Republican libertarians” read and understood the thinking of modern libertarian thinkers and what they considered “lower self” and why the lower self should be considered unlawful. Discrimination and segregation can only exist when individuals and society yields to its “lower self” and using literal libertarian reason, should be made unlawful. Does this take liberty from the racist? Yes, however, we also do not grant the liberty for non defensive violence, or sex with children, or theft and many other evils that reflect some individuals “lower self.”

I think my humble point is the importance of learning and thinking for self is still needed if we do not want to see the return of Jim Crow.

Be Well,

it protected big ranchers against the homesteader. it protected the mine owner against the mine worker.

The right to unionize should be a basic right of any group. You should be able to organize. I don't believe in special benefits legislated to benefit the unions, but you should never deny any working group to organize and negotiate for the best set of standards of working conditions.

the problem is that "free" market capitalism is easily manipulated by powerful individuals and groups.

We live in an era of unbridled government regulation of both our personal lives and the economy. All federal agencies, ultimately uses its regulatory powers in political ways. Certain industries and companies are rewarded, and others are punished. No regulatory agency is immune from politics and special interests. A government stamp of approval simply gives people a false sense of security. It fosters a complacent attitude and a lack of personal responsibility. Our country produces little or nothing and consumes vast quantities of materials on debt. That’s not an economic model that will ever work. The Austrian school of economics teaches that only a free market economy, unencumbered by onerous government controls, creates long-term prosperity. We can all agree on basic safety regulations, but all the red tape and bureaucracies has created another system that is easily manipulated by lobbyists and special interest groups.

and the argument that "i wouldn't want to go to a place that discriminates" has no bearing when it is 1:00 am and the only restaurant that is open to eat discriminates

This is America, there is always a choice. To consume or not to consume, truck stop diners are open 24/7, as are most convenience stores that now make food to order. The power of the almighty dollar - Boycott.

what you advocate is historically and tactically ridiculous

There will always be people who want to live their lives in peace unmolested by government, and there will always be people who want to exploit them or impose their own ideas on others.

The concept of protecting individual rights from the heavy hand of government is as old as the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.). The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this principle and incorporated it into our Constitution.

Making people moral or society better can only come about by persuasion, and not compulsion, and should be a concern of all decent people. Any attempt by liberals and conservatives to make people and society moral through coercion destroys moral law.

"We cannot legislate morality." But it is also correct to say: "All good legislation is based on a strict moral principle". Laws can never make people better or compel people to be socially responsible. Good legislation, however, is consistent with the moral principle of the natural and God-given right to our lives, our liberty, and our property. Conservatives and liberals misuse the law when they attempt to use it to improve people or society at the expense of the moral commitment to individual God-given rights.

The Founding Fathers understood God-given rights and presented us with the most unique political document ever known in history – our Constitution. This set of laws demonstrated a moral commitment to liberty and was written principally to establish once and for all a new concept – that sovereignty shall be placed in the hands of the people, not in the power of the state. For this reason, the Constitution's entire theme is the limitation of government power – prohibiting the government and the law from being a social and economic planner or individual moralist.

When we allow the seeds of government intervention to be sown, they grow and spread as bad weeds do in an unattended garden, destroying the useful crop.

Temptation has always been great to legislatively restrict rudeness, prejudice, and minority views, and it’s easiest to start by attacking the clearly obnoxious expressions that most deem offensive. We should all know that the 1st Amendment was not written to protect non-controversial mainstream speech, but rather the ideas and beliefs of what the majority see as controversial or fringe. If a moral society could be created by law, we would have had one a long time ago. The religious fundamentalists in control of other countries would have led the way. Instead, authoritarian violence reigns in those countries.

This response is a few days late and I hope you check back. I wish I had more time to explain my perspective, but I have to get going.

You are very close to the psychological basis of determining psychological "diseases".

There are 4 paradigms upon which all psychological health and "disease" rests:

1) I am ok and you are ok.

2) I am ok and you are not.

3) I am not ok and you are ok.

4) I am not ok and you are not ok.

Paradigm 1 is the sole indicator of psychological heath. All psychological "diseases" are based upon paradigms 2, 3 and 4. There psychological "disabilities" are classified and dependent upon which paradigm is enforce and how ingrained the paradigm is, how intensely they are believed and how the individual with the paradigm acts upon them.

yup -- that's the *ism*

RHope-- I remember when I first read Harris' book; it was one of the few psych books that made the bestseller lists that wasn't total snake oil. I would say that racists and their ilk suffer most from #2 publicly, which masks #3, or sometimes #4. The Teabaggers have Parent-contaminated Adult with blocked out Child, or as my brother once put it about an especially petulant acquaintance, a Parent-contaminated Child with a blocked out Adult.

Or as known in other psychological circles, just plain stunted growth.

One of the most dangerous mistakes one can make, especially in the study of Psychology is to believe that any one theory, or philosophy, explains everything. That error is then compounded by using that information to justify one's own biases.

James, please realize, in a non-critical manner, that by making your own statement about the Tea Party members in post# 16.1, you find yourself guilty of the 2nd paradigm.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

- Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) in An Essay on Criticism, 1709

@James...... BTW, Dr. Bales book is brilliant, fascinating, and highly disturbing. A fantastic read by a very, very talented (and brave) Sociologist!

RE 16.6: It was meant tongue-in-cheek (at least partly). New to this, forgot /sarc or /joke tag. {There does seem to be a certain degree of absolutism in their rhetoric, just the same.}

RE 16.7: Indeed; he's trying to make known what few know outside of the areas where it occurs, and those who are involved are either slavers (who won't admit the evil of their behavior) or slaves (who have no voice).

McSpocky,

No need to apologize for rambling...because you're not...and I think both of your thoughts go hand in hand...the second thought is fed by the first one...and it is obviously, a very dangerous combination.

The phrase "only human" refers to the fact that perfection is beyond any mortal on this plane of existence.

So to believe that you or anyone else for that matter is truly okis a falacy.

Every person has some type and to some degree a psychological "abnormality". No one is perfect, therefore no one is ok.

So even if you say to yourself " I am ok, and you are ok" It can't possibly be true and on some level everyone know this, so by saying it repeatedly isn't that person suffering from compulsive lying, a psychological disease.

Ok does not exist. As long as we are human -imperfect- it can't.

@lastone - from a philosophical standpoint, your comment has strong merit. In real work applications of clinical Psychology or Social Psychology it is not accurate.

The statement that none are perfect is a universal truth for Homo-sapien Sapiens. However, from a clinical standpoint, there can be an absence of major psychosis and relative clarity of process (both mental and psychological). These people are determined to be baseline "normal".

Without some objective baseline of normality, there can be no baseline for the various types of abnormalities.

Just wanted to clear the line between philosophy and practical application of a valid science.

Besides, you're assuming that OK = perfect. I believe the affirmation "I'm OK. You're OK" relates to the assumption that imperfect is OK.

And as DLMaston alluded to, "normal" and "perfect" are subjective, arbitrary. I personally use the old saying (unknown origin, sometimes attributed to Chinese philosophy) -- that perfection is 80%, and 20% is built in to learn and improve through mistakes. Only the Western world believes that 100% is perfection, but 100% is actually obsession.

Only the Western world believes that 100% is perfection, but 100% is actually obsession.

I like that!

Empathy is impossible to practice if you havent gone through the same type of circumstances. Sympathy is possible reguardless if you have had the same struggles or not.

I disagree, it may depend on your own personal abilities to imagine. I can empathize with a lot of situations I have never personally encountered because I can effectively imagine what it might be like, it won't be the same experience but I can empathize. Empathy is tougher but certainly attainable. When our nervous system actually reacts seeing someone get hurt that our empathy at work in a way. We feel their pain. Sympathy is merely requires being able to feel badly for someone without trying to put yourself in their shoes.

Empathy is possible for similar situations. Survivors of oppressions of differing types empathize with others. Victims of oppressions of differing types same thing.

What is not possible is "I know just how you feel."

Empathy is the ability to identify and understand someone else's feelings or emotions.

I'd have to agree that empathy is possible even if you haven't been through the same circumstances, though it's difficult, and it's helpful to have experienced similar, if not exact circumstances.

I say this having worked as a crisis counselor. For some people empathy can come naturally; others have to be trained; some do it well; some don't. But I do believe it is possible. IMO, the most important aspect of empathy is believing that person, and making every attempt to accept their perspective without question or denial. To be empathetic, you don't say "if it's true" -- you just accept that it is true. Very difficult for most people, but not impossible.

Also, consider that similar circumstances can result in similar feelings. Abandonment and betrayal aren't the same feeling, but they are similar.

Empathy is defined as-

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

The feelings and thoughts and attitudes of another person cannot be put into words like happiness or sadness or grief. It is a wide spectrum that is almost always mixes with other emotions' spectrums. So while to some degree we may empathize. True empathy is impossible until we can truly get into someones heart and soul and mind.

17.8 True empathy is impossible until we can truly get into someones heart and soul and mind.

I guess I believe that a little bit of "false" empathy can have a big impact on those who need a bit of understanding:) LOL

McS----The Carl Rogers definition covers it best for me. It eliminates that "if I were you" aspect that gets in the way, the one that sets up for judgment as you move forward.

But then, I haven't read any Carl Rogers that wasn't spot on.

Hello,

I live and work in an old large industrial city and although I too have the blessing/curse of empathy, victims need understanding. This is true for victims of racism. (To explain my point, I need to share some personal asides.) I am an Old Corp Marine that has been a fire fighter for more than thirty years and although I know longer ride on one of the big red trucks, I still follow and give directions. My son loves the movie Grand Torino, because he thinks the character is a bigoted alter ego of me and my daughters joined his congregation.

It is this man that allows another man to talk about being stopped for DWB (driving while Black) or WWB (walking while Black) and knowing these are facts. I started with going to the district (you may call them precincts) where I live and talking to the commanding officer, who told me the usual about anti crime anti drug and this is what the citizens wanted. (I thought I was a citizen too.) Being apolitical, I wrote the police chief and safety director and naturally found myself in the fire chief’s office. (I need to be honest and state the chief accepted my stance, put nothing in my record and asked me to only do this outside of official channels.)

These activities got back to my people, (old Marine term) who always knew were appreciated and supported by the citizens. Why? When we roll it is always to make worse better and it is the goal of everyone to lessen the suffering. I can then know what I understand and I understand suffering.

Racist reading this will be happy to know that racism hurts the victims and as an empathetic citizen of this world it hurts me too. Therefore, when I saw police force Black children to their knees and lock their hands over their heads like POWs, I would stop and argue for those children. When I saw police getting DNA swabs from Black children merely to increase their data base, I would stop and make them stop. Why? What father wants to hear their child was violated and worse no one tried to stop it?

In my humble opinion, understanding (knowledge) should reflect itself in what I do or do not. In my belief system, I read a rhetorical question “Am I my brother’s keeper?” and my answer is “I should be.” We need to know that obviously many people complained and/or acted upon the aforementioned wrongs against children because those practices were stopped. I remember an officer yelling that I was interfering with official police activities and stating these were his orders and I said “isn’t that the same reason given by the Nazi’s?” and he began to yell “I am not a . . .” and told the children to go home. My point here is obviously this man was not a racist or bigot but was only acting on racist policies.

Before you law enforcement professionals pile up wood and drag me to the stake, if you try to understand my humble point, it is not anti police, but only how police can be used to promote a racist agenda. More importantly, understand my selfish need to prevent a potential human suffering to spare me suffering. When my grandchildren grand nieces and nephews visit, they play with the children and therefore all of the children know me. I tend to stay to myself, but all of my neighbors know me and wave (I have no idea what these children’s’ names are, but I think the most beautiful sound in the world is the sound of children playing)and I wave back and get elected in absentia to my neighborhood organization and do what they ask.

The Sioux idiom is “To understand another man, walk two weeks in his moccasins” and although it is impossible to live any life but your own, I think as others have stated that we can use our experiences to gain understanding. I need to add one more point (stop groaning *_*) I am a political conservative. I am one of those “Radical Republicans” that was so hated by the Dixiecrats and I became an independent in 2000 (I was for McCain) obviously a libertarian in personal philosophy that missed the hippie movement because I was a Marine inclusive of Viet Nam and I am concerned that many of my countrymen are talking like they want a return of Jim Crow and personally, I do not want to see that suffering repeated.

Be Well,

Your story could be a side article in itself titled Help Me Understand How To Defuse Racism As It Pops Up Around Me. Thank you for sharing your experience, and giving us hope.

There's an old black-and-white movie starring Gregory Peck called Gentleman's Agreement that addressed how we perpetuate racism (in the movie it was anti-Semitism) by looking the other way, allowing it to happen, at the upper levels of society -- those making policy decisions. Someday maybe someone will write your story as inspiration for our own times.

Wow. Thanks for posting.

Out of curiosity, do you have any insight on my comment at #13.3? I realize it's more of a pop culture study, but there's something of importance to me I don't seem to be able to articulate about how the different generations think they've *learned* and then they stop. Like the old saying about not being as bad as your parents, which is good, but stopping there as if that's the end of the road. That's what I perceived from his original speech, and where the conflict arose with accusation of racism by the younger generation. Once I saw this in him, I saw it abundantly.

Storyartist - Interesting. It's not really a pop cultural thing, but I understand why you see it that way...completely. In today's society where the race card is thrown about like so much confetti in Times Square on New Year's Eve, people have seemingly lost the ability to differentiate between a racist statement, and a racial statement.

(...FYI, fellow NVers. When you see RCGE, it stands for Race, Class, Gender, and Ethnicity)

What Heston found himself guilty of is making a racial statement, and the kids interpreted it as a racist one. But the distinction is one that must be addressed, as you accurately inferred in your posting....I'll get to that at the end of this post.

His statement that there is nothing wrong with having "white pride", just like there's nothing wrong with having "black pride" or "red pride" is correct.....and is NOT a racist statement, unless that pride is also accompanied by a prejudice/sense of superiority toward those of a different race.Only then does it become a real problem of RCGE.

He (and many non-racist people of his generation) can easily see that differentiation. The students did not. The question is, why?

One prevalent reason for that is the era of Politically Correct speech in which we live.

I view PC speech as, without exception, a vile and contemptuous practice. It forces people to live "a lie within a lie". We do not want to see racism, so we hide it. We force it underground.....make it nearly invisible, thereby ignoring it without ever trying to really fix it. Back in the days in which we grew up (I'm 46 so, I'm probably close to your age), there was no PC speech.

Because of that, people were not as easily (or quickly) offended. That was because you did not have to guess.....you did not have to wonder. The vast majority of racists identified themselves readily, and often with a certain amount of pride.They wore their prejudice of RCGE like a badge of honor, and it was obvious to all.

PC speech hides those facts, and forces people to try and read between the lines. Since PC forces racism, and other prejudices, "underground", the resulting consequence is that now when people hear something that even sounds remotely racial, and they automatically assume the worst and throw the race card at it. They become hyper-sensitive to the entire society, except their own RCGE. It is also what allows the use of "the race card" with such devastating effect.

For example, my mom is in her early 80s, and Mr. Heston was 85 when he died two years ago so, they are of the same generation. She does not understand PC speech, and it angers her. I'm certain that Heston's confusion came from this same place.

However, for Americans to eliminate racism from our daily lives, we must also eliminate racial separation. No amount of governmental control can honestly force this change. Governmental actions can force a certain type of behavior, but it does not make the prejudice go away......and it will never go away until we, each and every one of us, reach a point where we refuse to acknowledge it.

Now, I am not talking about pure colorblindness....not at all. But I am saying that we must stop using RCGE it as a line of division. And....the less we mention it, the less it matters. Not in an ignoring way, but in an accepting and understanding manner. We must all find a way to accept that, regardless of our race, there are social realities in American culture that effect each RCGE differently. Once we truly accept this, then we can begin to find honest tolerance of the reactionary behaviors caused by those influences. All of this combined allows us to finally look beyond them.....and to begin to see each other as equals. Each person taking mutual responsibility for his/her own prejudice, and conquering them, leads to true tolerance.

Does that help?

PC speech hides those facts, and forces people to try and read between the lines. Since PC forces racism, and other prejudices, "underground", the resulting consequence is that now when people hear something that even sounds remotely racial, and they automatically assume the worst and throw the race card at it.

DLMaston: I agree and have appreciated your posts. Thanks for contributing:)

DLMaston----I've heard the racial/racist distinction before, but never considered applying it to my inarticulation about that Heston controversy. Thank you for recognizing that!

You mentioned the *unlearning* in #19. (Only peripherably aware of Tofler, just had lots of unlearning during alcoholic family dynamics therapy in my 30s..., and I turned 60 last week, so I'm a little closer to your generation than your mom's). I mention it because, for me at least, during certain stages of unlearning, repressed emotions from the original event overtake any understanding that is guiding the unlearning. This happened when I read about Heston's speech during the RCGE class. I'm guessing, but I'd probably be closer to your social understanding, but closer to your mom's emotional understanding on the topic of the mid 1960s.

I differ from you somewhat in this context about political correctness. In fact, if I were to write on the topic of pc, not knowing what research might say -- only experiential research -- I'd say that pc moved the target but didn't suppress or eliminate any more than before. It helped in the workplace, in housing opportunity, etc, but the same levels of *code* are there, they just moved around. That's what angers your mom, and Heston, who cut their path to freedom through the old language, only to find a new language at the end. The infuriating part for most, I believe, is more than the language itself -- that the very generations who benefitted behind them are the ones who invented pc and now call them racist. Heston's defense about his days with MLK. Even the other students in my classroom, high school grads around 1980, who felt their mothers and grandmothers had no backbone because they didn't speak pc ..... I think it's about honor. We have to honor each generation's journeys, as we have to honor each racial journey. Just as Heston had to honor the generation who (he perceived) didn't appreciate what he'd done, because frankly he wasn't appreciating them either.

Unlearning is like ripping off the scab with one quick jerk. If it didn't hurt, even bleed a little, then it's only revision and not unlearning.

We have to honor each generation's journeys

Good point storyartist! I think we frequently judge history and our ancestors without considering or really understanding the context of their time. I don't think it's fair to judge them only by our "current standards."

Correct.

Thanks for the positive feedback, folks! It's appreciated.

@storyartist - (re:19.6) The people who created PC were....well.....people like me. Sociologists, Social Psychologists, and Psychologists that were well intended, but did not look beyond their theory to how the real world would manipulate the function. PC was intended to make people stop and think about what they were doing, and what they were saying, with the end result being that, in time, this would become a part of everybody's psyche.....thus leading to a short-cut to solving the race problem. Here's the problem......there are no short cuts, only deviations.

What happened was that everything became buried under a forced agenda of politically repressed speech. This made it possible for the intelligent racist to hide their true intents, and for everybody else to make the mistake of "out of sight, out of mind".

Racism is a nasty, derisive problem.....one of the nastiest problems a society could face. But if it is to be conquered, then it must be attacked bravely.....head on......and done so in a mature and understanding environment.

The comment I like the most, and is perhaps the most telling, was your comment about being understanding of the previous generation. Yes....we must! But, we must also not lose sight of the lessons they learned, assimilate them, and expand upon them.

Fantastic exchange! Really good stuff!

Good discussion!

And yes, each generation needs to assimilate -- and continue to assimilate during life's stages of maturity. How many people who came of age around civil rights in the 60s assimilated, but stuck there. Our society moved through the pc era, and now the "post racial Obama era" (if you don't gag on that title) and yet to have a discussion, their thoughts and dialogue come right out of a 40yr-old documentary. The learning stopped there, and just stuck on continuous play like an old 8-track cassette tape. What that does is to stay egocentric about racial awareness, and stop the "honoring" of the experience of other generation's journeys, or as you said "expanding." Or I tried to express how Heston was frustrated that those raised on pc didn't appreciate what he'd done, because frankly he wasn't appreciating them either. Heston was stuck in the 60s paradigm.

Not to repeat myself, but this is what I intended by my revelation in the RCGE classroom in reading an article interpreting his recent remarks as racist. I had a foot on each platform -- I could see my old 60s dialogue, and its context, yet see his and my stratifying from the racial studies viewpoint also.

#13.3 ....And what stunned me was, I could see my own. In fact, in the 60s I was so busy *helping* to defend that I didn't dig too deep myself. That *helping* was no longer needed, and that was what Heston didn't seem to grasp. He missed that in helping "them", he was creating a "them."

In the *unlearning* stages, for me, the central element is dialogue. (probably the underlying reason you sociologists encouraged pc) The key to unlocking oppression is changing dialogue. It's fundamental in breaking open the power structure in alcoholic family systems, dynamics of domestic violence, oppressed women, etc. In this case above, creating a *them* by our language even to help *them* which most of us did in the 60s -- and our dialogue reflects that stratifying unless we've continued to grow.

I agree that PC did not work out as planned, as it only masks whatever bigotry a given person harbors who is not such a boor as to just keep using the old-fashioned words, but I'm not sure that the open method would seem preferable either to somebody's who is constantly addressed as "Boy" or "Taco Bender" or "Hebe" because it's a more honest form of bigotry. It may be more honest, but it's also more brutal. I admit that there's probably no workable hybrid between the two. That leaves working to (eventually, and soon it is to be hoped) eliminate the fear and loathing so much as is possible. Then people won't have to learn PC terms as PC terms--they just won't countenance using the brutally honest terms in the first place.

The rest of 19.3 and 19.9 were excellent.

And yes, each generation needs to assimilate -- and continue to assimilate during life's stages of maturity. How many people who came of age around civil rights in the 60s assimilated, but stuck there.

I will have to strongly disagree with this statement. It is anti-diversity (different) and an example of Step 5, being told how and what to do, how to be.

What Lion King gave to Black Americans was that our ancestors fought hard to keep our original culture and had succeeded. We recognized our culture in the movie. I had taken my youngest child to see the movie and while watching and this warm feeling came over me as I realized what I was seeing and it meant as hard as the oppressor tried to take the Africa out of the African, they had not succeeded. My son looks at me, not knowing what I was feeling and said Mommy; "I know this is my real culture and the one I live in is not." Assimilation is a destruction of culture and part of the oppression. The oppressed are less and need to rise up and be as the oppressor. No one has the right to tell another person who they should be.

I disagree that the 1960's was about assimilation. It was about finding our true selves and history. It was a rise in Pan African movement. That does not mean assimilation.

Radio----You misunderstood my comment #19.10 completely. I was not talking about assimilation of races. I was responding to the ongoing discussion begun in #19.6

I think it's about honor. We have to honor each generation's journeys, as we have to honor each racial journey. Just as Heston had to honor the generation who (he perceived) didn't appreciate what he'd done, because frankly he wasn't appreciating them either.

which DLMaston responded in #19.9

was your comment about being understanding of the previous generation. Yes....we must! But, we must also not lose sight of the lessons they learned, assimilate them, and expand upon them.

and I then continued in #19.10

And yes, each generation needs to assimilate -- and continue to assimilate during life's stages of maturity. How many people who came of age around civil rights in the 60s assimilated, but stuck there. Our society moved through the pc era, and now the "post racial Obama era" (if you don't gag on that title) and yet to have a discussion, their thoughts and dialogue come right out of a 40yr-old documentary. The learning stopped there, and just stuck on continuous play like an old 8-track cassette tape. What that does is to stay egocentric about racial awareness, and stop the "honoring" of the experience of other generation's journeys, or as you said "expanding." Or I tried to express how Heston was frustrated that those raised on pc didn't appreciate what he'd done, because frankly he wasn't appreciating them either. Heston was stuck in the 60s paradigm.

I could have been clearer if I'd begun by saying "assimilate the lessons" but I'm not always the best communicator -- I was tagging on. Read it again. Let us know if you don't perceive it differently.

Perhaps it's just my generation, but every time I hear the word "assimilate," I can't help but think of the "Borg". Without realizing it, I've subconsciously started attaching a negative connotation to the word. LOL

Resistance may be futile, but still worthwhile.

Hello,

What is so wrong with the individual identity? The Borg Collective is the antithesis of liberty and used their military power to force compliance. Personally, I hope no one assimilates.

Be Well,

@RFA - The modern language for what you are referring to is commonly called Multiculturalism.

Retaining one's own cultural uniqueness while learning to appreciate, and be tolerant of, the cultures of others. Together, yet separate. As with all things, there is good and bad in everything.....and that holds true, even for this most effective of societal tools.

As a descriptive term, it's a wonderful celebration of cultural diversity. Their beauty, their uniqueness, their similarities to all of the others.

As a normative term, it's both good and bad. It is my firm belief that one should never lose sight of ones intrinsically unique culture. That is a very good thing. But historically, there are numerous examples of how a focus on multiculturalism lead to two very bad things. One is an effect Social Scientists refer to a "turtle effect". People tend to hide within their own culture, and that can lead to an even greater, more deeply rooted bias/prejudice against other cultures. Secondly, a focus on multiculturalism alone as a social tool can ultimately lead to an erosion of the host country's own culture as it becomes devalued by the focus on the alternative cultures.

A Balance must be struck between maintain a connection to ones culture, and not only being tolerant.....but truly accepting of others cultures. In time.....this does lead to assimilation of the best traits of all the cultures. You may not like the word, (I'm not certain that I do either), but a certain level of assimilation is a very good thing.

Oh...one last thing. Multiculturalism tends to relate more to ethnicity that to race. Your race may be, for example, African American. But.....if your family has been in the host country (in this instance, the US) for more than 3 full generations......your heritage (not your ancestors, but YOURS) is from that point forward, American. It is no longer that of the country of your ancestors. There may still exist within the family unit, habits and celebrations from the original ancestral roots.....and those should be valued and maintained......but they are no longer the culture of your birthright. Being able to grasp that difference (and I acknowledge that it is a difficult one for some to accept) is vital is understanding the roots of many ethnic biases and prejudices.

What does that all mean? At some point.....one stops being a true (by definition) "African American" (from the example given above) and simply becomes an American. I know I will get some disagree with that, but it is a fact.

as a marxist i'd like to say the democrats are more groucho than karl

lol thank you raymondparker

Racism to me today is a label used to those who oppose a Marxist agenda of the Democrats and is applied unfairly to those who are opposed to the political agenda of President Obama

As a result I am proud to be called a racist for opposing the failed Marxist ideologies

This is an unbelievable simplification of the extremely serious and profound issue of Racism , Racism didn't begin with Obama or Marxism , it doesn't belong to any agenda and it's not a slur used to silence any opponent. It didn't even begin in America it is a wideworld plague. It's pertained to mankind since the begining of human existence. I suggest you read good posts and links on this seed to know what's racism

Racism has and always will be around. Democrats trying to use it to demean political opponents is pretty disgusting in my book and avoids helping anybody affected by it. Having lived as a racial minority overseas has taught me a few lessons about it. The first is that is is present in small children. They will always prefer those of their own race when they are very small. If you have been around many small children you will know what I mean. I have found many pockets of racism from all different colors and creeds. One of the most interesting to me was the killings in Rwanda. Two nearly identical tribes killed 800,000 of each other in 1994 over racism. It is a serious problem but I think there has been significant improvement in America over it's history and that continues today.

Racism has and always will be around. Democrats

One of the most interesting to me was the killings in Rwanda

At least you know that there was a tribal racism in Rwanda which is contradictory with your first statement about Democrats . Tribal racism is the only part in your post that could be relevant to this seed

Democrats are not automatically Marxist, nor is Obama.

Can it be said that certain GOP factions, cloaking themselves as "patriots" with little concept of that term or of American history and law, are not racist? (Texas I do not mean you. I believe you are sincere barring the Dem=Marx bit.)

Im not sure what I find scarier in your statement. The fact that this is indeed very true ( I have lived in the south and have seen the modern KKK remnants ) or your choice to use the word "exterminate". Such a sadly powerful word to choose.

He could blame Blacks for taking jobs when he could have chosen to get more education and training and moved somewhere to get a better job.

This is heard from the other side as well. A statement that I heard from a black gentleman on the radio the other day made all the sense in the world. "A man with his hand out will never be looked at as equal". I believe that this applies to all races.

My brother lives in the hills of Pennsylvania, where we were both born. His racism cannot be blamed upon living in the South. He only lived in GA for a year. Where ever there are patches of rural poverty, one can find racism.

The rust belt contains racism as deeply disturbing as rural south. Only the anger seems more extreme.

Ayn Rand - one of my personal heroes. If her writings were taught in school along with Shakespeare we might actually be on track today.