What Is A "Racist"?

[presidentgas]

An interesting article from Taki's Magazine.


http://takimag.com/article/what_is_a...e_browne/print

It has to be evident to all thinking people by now that racism is the new witchcraft. Once you’re branded with the Scarlet “R,” some people do not regard it as immoral to assault you…or worse.

Calling someone a racist is sufficient to brand them as outside the pale of civilized company. In academia, the accusation is a career-wrecker. Socially it is enough to get you dropped from the A-list of the best parties.

Gosh, this racist thing must be pretty vile, something that needs to be combated with a public fervor reserved for satanic pedophiles.

But has anybody bothered to tell us what this vile thing is?

Child molesting involves buggering little boys, or having sex with prepubescent girls, with or without the paraphernalia of the Black Mass. What is this “racism” that has aroused Western Civilization’s moral indignation?

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “racism” 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."

Another definition in common usage: “Racism is power plus prejudice.” Therefore, powerless minorities can never be racist, no matter how much they hate you for your melanin deficiency.
“Calling someone a racist is sufficient to brand them as outside the pale of civilized company.”

It seemed to me that the three youths of color that jumped me on the street when I was 16 had the balance of power at that given moment, but let it pass. I’m just relieved they weren’t racists. That incident might very well have made a “racist” out of me, but for the fact that the karate instructor who taught me this useful trick involving thumbs and eyeballs was not melanin-deficient.

Another working definition of “racist” is:

Someone winning an argument with a leftist.


But let’s stick with Mr. Merriam and Mr. Webster’s definition. This alone begs any number of questions.

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities


Which traits and capacities?

Is someone a racist who believes different races have different abilities—not superior or inferior, but different?

“Asians/whites/blacks are better than (blank) at (blank).” Racist?

Did Paul Robeson have such a magnificent voice because of his African ancestry? Do the Irish produce better tenors and the Welsh better baritones?

Excellence in athletics? Then we’d have to wonder if there is a superior race, and not the melanin-deficient one.

Note that the African races can live naked in mankind’s original home, but the white and Asian races need artificial support such as clothing, shelter, etc., just to stay alive in their lands of origin. Does that imply physical inferiority?

Ah, but the Indo-European peoples possess the gene for lactose tolerance, a trait lacking in a great many of the world’s peoples. Does dietary advantage count as “superior”?

But away with sophistry! Everybody knows that when we speak of superior, we mean one trait among many—intelligence.

So is a person a racist if they believe a race other than his own is more intelligent?

John Derbyshire has noted that though black people have measured average IQs a full standard deviation lower than whites, Asians have average IQs higher than white people.

Derbyshire got called a racist for the first observation, but what about the second?

Is it not racist if a white person says Asians are smarter, but racist if an Asian says it?

And how are we to count the average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews, a standard deviation higher than the non-Jewish white norm? Should we lump them in with whites (Yay for us!) or establish a separate category for them?

Jews have been the targets of some pretty racist sentiments themselves. Joseph Mengele, Auschwitz’s “Angel of Death,” is sometimes cited as an example of how racism always leads to genocide. And we all know that if you’re a “racist,” that’s the gateway drug to becoming a genocidal Nazi.

Racism is generally associated with a fixation on “racial purity.” So what would you call someone who believes in hybrid vigor, the idea that superior genetic stock is produced by mixing the races?

What about someone who thinks that one race might have on average lesser intellectual gifts than another, but that does not in any way justify oppressing them? Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln both might fall into that category, at least at some point in their lives.

You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

—Abraham Lincoln, July 1, 1854

Suppose it is true that the negro is inferior to the white in the gifts of nature; is it not the exact reverse of justice that the white should for that reason take from the negro any part of the little which has been given him?

—Abraham Lincoln, October 1, 1858

So was Lincoln a racist?

Given how much mileage the left is getting out of calling people racist, perhaps it’s asking too much for them to explain just what the hell they mean by the term before throwing it around so loosely. This is obviously their working definition:

A person who is so bad that you need not apply normal standards of decency or ethical conduct when dealing with them.

[vancity eagle]

I would say simply IMO a racist is someone who has hatred or is condescending to another person for no other reason than their race. There are many different levels or stages of this ranging from wanting to kill or harm people to just looking down on people.

[streetlife]

A racist is someone who hates black or people of colour.

[belch]

To hate a whole race makes you a racist.

Hating a "Coloured" man because he stole your bike is not racist.
Hating all "Coloured People" because your bike was stolen is racist.

Thinking that a particular "Coloured" man/woman looks like a gorilla is not racist.
Thinking that all "Coloured" people are gorilla's is racist.

I use the word "Coloured" because these days i dont know if its ok to use the words "Black, Tonned, African" or what.

So many eggshells.

[skanny]

great post PG..... i'm kinda wary to comment on this in case i get reported for having an opinion cos we all know just how dangerous it is to some people who just hate others to have an opinion that differs from their own.

i also love how the other 2 replies kinda make up their own definitions of what makes a racist... funny that isn't it?

that seems to be the issue with some people who like to willy nilly hand out the racist card when in reality they just seem to have the wrong end of the stick.

best stick to the clear definitions of what a racist entails and not just make it up as they go along.

please don't report me for having an opinion cos i know how much that offends some people.

[the obliterati]

I think racism is partially shown when, someone believes that they can tell your DNA/ethnic origin just by looking at you. Also, believing in races as separate "species" if you will, is also a problem that contributes to racism.

Saying the word "Mexican" or calling a Japanese guy named Aki "Sake" as a joke are not racist, but i got called racist for these things recently (the Sake thing was even hypothetical!). People are way too quick to equate talking about race with racism. It's annoying.

[streetlife]

Originally Posted by skanny

great post PG..... i'm kinda wary to comment on this in case i get reported for having an opinion cos we all know just how dangerous it is to some people who just hate others to have an opinion that differs from their own.

i also love how the other 2 replies kinda make up their own definitions of what makes a racist... funny that isn't it?

that seems to be the issue with some people who like to willy nilly hand out the racist card when in reality they just seem to have the wrong end of the stick.

best stick to the clear definitions of what a racist entails and not just make it up as they go along.

please don't report me for having an opinion cos i know how much that offends some people.

I was being sarcastic with my post.

[arcyclus]

Originally Posted by presidentgas

An interesting article from Taki's Magazine.


http://takimag.com/article/what_is_a...e_browne/print

It has to be evident to all thinking people by now that racism is the new witchcraft. Once you’re branded with the Scarlet “R,” some people do not regard it as immoral to assault you…or worse.

Calling someone a racist is sufficient to brand them as outside the pale of civilized company. In academia, the accusation is a career-wrecker. Socially it is enough to get you dropped from the A-list of the best parties.

Gosh, this racist thing must be pretty vile, something that needs to be combated with a public fervor reserved for satanic pedophiles.

But has anybody bothered to tell us what this vile thing is?

Child molesting involves buggering little boys, or having sex with prepubescent girls, with or without the paraphernalia of the Black Mass. What is this “racism” that has aroused Western Civilization’s moral indignation?

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “racism” 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."

Another definition in common usage: “Racism is power plus prejudice.” Therefore, powerless minorities can never be racist, no matter how much they hate you for your melanin deficiency.
“Calling someone a racist is sufficient to brand them as outside the pale of civilized company.”

It seemed to me that the three youths of color that jumped me on the street when I was 16 had the balance of power at that given moment, but let it pass. I’m just relieved they weren’t racists. That incident might very well have made a “racist” out of me, but for the fact that the karate instructor who taught me this useful trick involving thumbs and eyeballs was not melanin-deficient.

Another working definition of “racist” is:

Someone winning an argument with a leftist.


But let’s stick with Mr. Merriam and Mr. Webster’s definition. This alone begs any number of questions.

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities


Which traits and capacities?

Is someone a racist who believes different races have different abilities—not superior or inferior, but different?

“Asians/whites/blacks are better than (blank) at (blank).” Racist?

Did Paul Robeson have such a magnificent voice because of his African ancestry? Do the Irish produce better tenors and the Welsh better baritones?

Excellence in athletics? Then we’d have to wonder if there is a superior race, and not the melanin-deficient one.

Note that the African races can live naked in mankind’s original home, but the white and Asian races need artificial support such as clothing, shelter, etc., just to stay alive in their lands of origin. Does that imply physical inferiority?

Ah, but the Indo-European peoples possess the gene for lactose tolerance, a trait lacking in a great many of the world’s peoples. Does dietary advantage count as “superior”?

But away with sophistry! Everybody knows that when we speak of superior, we mean one trait among many—intelligence.

So is a person a racist if they believe a race other than his own is more intelligent?

John Derbyshire has noted that though black people have measured average IQs a full standard deviation lower than whites, Asians have average IQs higher than white people.

Derbyshire got called a racist for the first observation, but what about the second?

Is it not racist if a white person says Asians are smarter, but racist if an Asian says it?

And how are we to count the average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews, a standard deviation higher than the non-Jewish white norm? Should we lump them in with whites (Yay for us!) or establish a separate category for them?

Jews have been the targets of some pretty racist sentiments themselves. Joseph Mengele, Auschwitz’s “Angel of Death,” is sometimes cited as an example of how racism always leads to genocide. And we all know that if you’re a “racist,” that’s the gateway drug to becoming a genocidal Nazi.

Racism is generally associated with a fixation on “racial purity.” So what would you call someone who believes in hybrid vigor, the idea that superior genetic stock is produced by mixing the races?

What about someone who thinks that one race might have on average lesser intellectual gifts than another, but that does not in any way justify oppressing them? Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln both might fall into that category, at least at some point in their lives.

You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

—Abraham Lincoln, July 1, 1854

Suppose it is true that the negro is inferior to the white in the gifts of nature; is it not the exact reverse of justice that the white should for that reason take from the negro any part of the little which has been given him?

—Abraham Lincoln, October 1, 1858

So was Lincoln a racist?

Given how much mileage the left is getting out of calling people racist, perhaps it’s asking too much for them to explain just what the hell they mean by the term before throwing it around so loosely. This is obviously their working definition:

A person who is so bad that you need not apply normal standards of decency or ethical conduct when dealing with them.

Nice read, thanks.

Leave it to Merriam Webster to make a simple definition as ambiguous as possible.

[fishonwheels]

an anagram for "i c rats."

maybe wank to it as a sigil for world war III

[arcyclus]

Who knows?

It's a matter of opinion on this forum. Some people get called racist for simply disagreeing with another.

[fishonwheels]

Ya, I tend to agree with the dictionary definitions except that one, something like it's only racist from whites that's hopefully a joke. I just look at it as feelings coupled with beliefs which lead to actions, like "capitalist," "communist," etc etc.

The problem is obviously people over use and misuse the term so it's nearly lost its meaning.

*another thing Arcyclus I think abusing the word leads to oversimplifying of things. Race intersects with gender, class, culture, physical attributes, individual reputation, social trend, and others I'm not thinking of right now to affect how someone's treated. So it's not always clear cut if an act or belief is racist or not.

[arcyclus]

Originally Posted by fishonwheels

*another thing Arcyclus I think abusing the word leads to oversimplifying of things. Race intersects with gender, class, culture, physical attributes, individual reputation, social trend, and others I'm not thinking of right now to affect how someone's treated. So it's not always clear cut if an act or belief is racist or not.

People are being thrown in jail, business are being fined, Laws being passed on the subject. Surely they all operate on a genuine, agreed upon definition of the word.

So someone tell me. No more bullshit. What is the legal definition of the word, "racism" which the courts recognize. Don;t give me more speculation and rumor, just the facts cause I want to use that definition on this forum and in my daily life.

[fishonwheels]

Originally Posted by arcyclus

People are being thrown in jail, business are being fined, Laws being passed on the subject. Surely they all operate on a genuine, agreed upon definition of the word.

So someone tell me. No more bullshit. What is the legal definition of the word, "racism" which the courts recognize. Don;t give me more speculation and rumor, just the facts cause I want to use that definition on this forum and in my daily life.

If going by my definition (feelings and beliefs) it's difficult to prove in the court system we're familiar with, and it's a slippery slope to prosecute someone on their feelings and beliefs. Racial discrimination would be a bit easier to prove, say if a place has a definite record of rejecting certain applicants. I don't think anyone ever gets charged for just being racist, those women on commuter trains probably got in trouble for public misconduct or inciting hatred, something of the sort.

[trux newman]

I hold a few views that get me called racist sometimes. Mainly because I believe that the different races come from different planets. Does that mean I treat people differently based on their race? No. If someone is nice, I'm nice. If someone is bad, I have nothing to do with them. Race, Gender or any other label has nothing to do with it.

I feel that racism is used to prevent us from finding out about our true heritage and history and this is a deliberate agenda of tptb to keep us in ignorance and conflict with eachother.

Let's also not forget that racism exists within races. The Indian caste system is based on skin darkness. Look at black media. If you're a dark skinned black guy with a bald head, you're a bad guy. If you're a light skinned black guy with hair, you're a good guy. I never noticed this until it was pointed out in season three of The Boondocks. You see it in music, too. Gangsta Rap = Darker. Pop = Lighter.

As far as I'm concerned, this is deliberate programming that exists in all races and is based upon the natural survival instinct of favouring the people in your tribe over the people in the next valley so your dna gets passed on. Tptb use it to further their agenda of keeping us in the dark as to our ancestry and heritage and to keep us in conflict with eachother.

Yes we are all different, but so what? We can still be friends and work together. It's a choice.

[kodo4]

Originally Posted by arcyclus

People are being thrown in jail, business are being fined, Laws being passed on the subject. Surely they all operate on a genuine, agreed upon definition of the word.

So someone tell me. No more bullshit. What is the legal definition of the word, "racism" which the courts recognize. Don;t give me more speculation and rumor, just the facts cause I want to use that definition on this forum and in my daily life.

Best of luck with that.

The evidence of Genome research is quite clear that there is absolutly no grounds to believe in the concept of ´race` in and of itself. So I don´t see how the terms race, racial, racist or racism can be used with any accuracy let alone construct laws around them.

Most definitions of racism I have found are at best woolly, although there is seeming consensus about the belief that it (whatever it is) commonly engenders feelings of superiority that are expressed as discrimination.

Ethnicity, which I personally see as more definitive than race, is an even bigger minefield. With some claiming that ethnicity can only be recognised and applied by those outside any ethnic group. However it does rely upon the concept of an absorbed culture and therefore, to me at least, recognises that there are real tangible differences.

The UN definition whilst not defining ´racism` does define racial discrimination and is inclusive of enthnicity so that would seem to be your best resource. I do believe that in it´s definition lays the fact that we are all racist in one way or another in that it would seem to force one to surrender ones absorbed culture (ethnicity). Hardly any wonder there is racial/ethnic tension.

[wthree]

As the person above me posted, there are no real grounds for different races in genetics. The more obvious traits like skin colour are a fraction of a fraction of the genetic differences between people, let alone cultural differences. Most black British people have much more in common with their fellow British than their fellow blacks.

But i agree that racism gets thrown around so much, and is so often used as a get out free trick in a debate. I try never to use the term even in it appears they truly surprise entire "races". Lets also not forget that what is and isn't changes a great deal of the time. Discriminating against other races is considered racist, but then so is not acknowledging what they may or may not excel at. Saying that Africans are not better at running is considered racist, for example. While it is true the best runners often have recent African ancestry, it is only certain parts of Africa where they originated. In my mind, to apply traits to such diverse groups is nonsense. Applying traits to smaller populations is justified, however.

In any case, there needs to be a point that you either treat other races differently as a great deal of liberals choose, or you treat them the same and recognize that race really is just skin deep.

[jon galt]

People are being thrown in jail, business are being fined, Laws being passed on the subject. Surely they all operate on a genuine, agreed upon definition of the word.

So someone tell me. No more bullshit. What is the legal definition of the word, "racism" which the courts recognize. Don;t give me more speculation and rumor, just the facts cause I want to use that definition on this forum and in my daily life.

At its core racism or a racist, is (/holds) the belief that other races are inferior to your own, a predigest against other people based only on their race.

[jesuschristantichrist]

A rasist is the same as a person who sees them self as an American, Canadian, British instead as seeing themselfs as an Earthling. I think Rasist is just a branch out of Seperatisim, oneness there is no Rasisim as we are all one, anything that isn't One is a seperatist and can develope into Rasism. Oneness to me is about seeing the sleeping seperatists as me just being asleep...this is only a description and I wouldn't argue this, just makes sense to me today, perhaps is a week I may see another view point.

[arcyclus]

Originally Posted by jon galt

At its core racism or a racist, is (/holds) the belief that other races are inferior to your own, a predigest against other people based only on their race.

So, is a segregationist, a "racist", and why?

[jon galt]

Originally Posted by arcyclus

So, is a segregationist, a "racist", and why?

If their reasoning for segregation is to seperate percieved inferior races from there own then yes. Supose you could be zenophobic with out being a racist tho. Any beleife that one race is superior to any other is the definition of racism, by extention any one who believes this is a racist. Then you had catholics and protestants segragated in northern ireland, that was just plain ol bigotry, which in all forms, racism included is vile and honestly the hight of human stupidity. Why whould any one want to segregate races tho? There is more variation with in races than between them. Ie there only three races, white,black and asian, most people are mixed at some point in their ansetory, all if you go back far enough.