This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Nation of Cowards

edited February 2009 in Politics
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says that the U.S. is a nation of cowards when it comes to discussing racial issues. Do you agree?
«1

Comments

  • He's right, 100%.
  • I'm with him.
  • edited February 2009
    I'm inclined to agree. I recall an American exchange student telling me not so long ago that I should not celebrate my racial heritage - Irish and scottish, mostly - because that's racist, and I should just be proud of being human.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • I recall an American exchange student telling me not so long ago that I should not celebrate my racial heritage - Irish and scottish, mostly - because that's racist, and I should just be proud of being human.
    There's nothing wrong with celebrating racial heritage, and that really has nothing to do with what Holder is talking about.

    What Holder is talking about is a general reluctance among the populace to discuss racial issues with frankness and openness. People are afraid of being labeled as racist if they express non-racist opinions that might be contrary to the opinions of groups like the NAACP and others. People are also limiting their speech to avoid non-racist speech that may be perceived as racist by certain people. Whenever someone says something that is perceived as racist, even if only by a few people, they apologize and recant rather than defend the fact that there was no racist intent.

    Look at something like Resident Evil 5. I think it's pretty obvious that Capcom isn't racist. They were simply making a zombie game that takes place in Africa, and thus there are lots of African zombies. Because of outcry of racism, they changed their game. Capcom was in the right, but didn't try to defend themselves on the issue because they were cowards when it comes to racism. The same sort of thing happened with Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, and others.
  • Whenever someone says something that is perceived as racist, even if only by a few people, they apologize and recant rather than defend the fact that there was no racist intent.
    A few years ago, I had to ask for medical records from a hospital. This was shortly after the new HIPAA rules came out. The hospital called me and told me that my standard Release of Information form would no longer be sufficient.

    Now, sometimes it's difficult to get clients to come in and sign forms, and I needed the records as soon as I could get them. So, while I was on the phone, I muttered (more to myself than the person I was speaking to), "You people really try to make it difficult, don't you?"

    As I said, I wasn't really even talking to the person on the phone. The statement was more of an existential expression of disgust, and if it was directed at anyone, it was more directed at the promulgators of the new HIPAA rules. However, the person on the phone started bitching me out for being racist. I asked her what was racist, and she told me the phrase "you people" was racist. I told her that I had no intention of being racist when I said it and that "you people" referred to the set of people who were making it difficult for me to obtain medical records, regardless of their race. She was still mad.

    Then when I was working as a teacher soon after we moved to the DC area, I was frustrated with how loud my class was talking. I forgot myself and said, "Would you people please be quiet?" From the reaction I received, you would've thought that I had invited David Duke to talk as a guest speaker. I even had to have a meeting with the principal, at which I once again had to explain my understanding that "you people" refers to a group of people, regardless of race.

    I mean, how easily offended do you have to be to have a problem with that phrase when used properly? Don't try to explain the racial overtones of the phrase to me. The principal did a good enough job of that. My point is that it's wrong to tack on that meaning to such an innocent phrase when used innocently. Sheesh.
  • I recall an American exchange student telling me not so long ago that I should not celebrate my racial heritage - Irish and scottish, mostly - because that's racist, and I should just be proud of being human.
    There's nothing wrong with celebrating racial heritage, and that really has nothing to do with what Holder is talking about.
    I'm well aware of what Holder was talking about, However, I attempted to make my point far too briefly and in an inarticulate, clumsy fashion. Allow me to rectify my mistake.

    My point is that there are people who are such cowards when it comes to discussing race on any level, that they think that ignoring the problem and not discussing race at all makes the whole problem go away, when in reality, this will achieve nothing.
    If Americans want to make any steps in regards to race issues that are present in modern day America, they must become more tolerant, and the first step towards this is to be comfortable enough to be able to discuss race and racial issues without fear of offense nor being labeled racist.
  • Also, there are many issues for which race is a strong correlating factor, and to tell the truth about many of those issues is a sure way to get yourself in the racist bin. The fact is that it is only racist if you suggest that race is a causational factor, not a correlating factor.

    For example, if I someone were to say that hispanics do worse in school because they are hispanic, that is racist. It falsely suggests that race is a causational factor. Meanwhile, if someone were to say that urban culture results in worse performance in school, and that culture just so happens to correlate very strongly with minority populations, that is not racist. In fact, people like Bill Cosby and myself think it is true. Making either of these statements will get you called a racist, but only the former of the two actually is racist.
  • If Americans want to make any steps in regards to race issues that are present in modern day America, they must become more tolerant, and the first step towards this is to be comfortable enough to be able to discuss race and racial issues without fear of offense nor being labeled racist.
    That's funny, because most Americans think of the opposite when they think of "tolerance". As in, they feel they should be offended and avoid being called racist at all costs.
  • edited February 2009
    If Americans want to make any steps in regards to race issues that are present in modern day America, they must become more tolerant, and the first step towards this is to be comfortable enough to be able to discuss race and racial issues without fear of offense nor being labeled racist.
    That's funny, because most Americans think of the opposite when they think of "tolerance". As in, they feel they should be offended and avoid being called racist at all costs.
    Allow me as an Australian to clear that up for you then.

    To have a society where race is such a taboo subject that the frank, open, and honest discussion of it could cause severe offense or cause one to be labeled a racist is fucking stupid - yet this is the situation many Americans find themselves in.

    (Edited for grammar)
    Post edited by Churba on
  • The problem with racism in America is that too many people have thin skin. We can't talk about racism because most people who look at the issue (and try to discuss it logically) find themselves branded as a racist.

    Just look what happened to Bill Cosby after he spoke before the NAACP a few years back arguing that black people in America are their own worst enemy. He was trying to make the case that it is up to black people to fix their problems (broken homes, unwed moms, crime, gangster rap culture, etc...) and not white people.

    You want to move race relations forward in America? Get rid of people like Al Sharpton who cry racism over the smallest things and then never apologize when they are wrong (Duke LaCrosse players/Tawana Brawley). You can't have an open and honest discussion if one side holds a big fat club in their hand.
  • I also agree with him. I mean, the first thing that my aunts told me when i arrive to the USA were: "Erwin when you talk with someone do not ever talk about religion, politics or race". I was kind of at a loss because those are the subjects that I like to talk the most.
  • edited February 2009
    We need to be frank and realize that there are true inequities, but there is also personal responsibility. Going too far to one extreme or the other is ignoring the truth.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • edited February 2009
    Just look what happened to Bill Cosby after he spoke before the NAACP a few years back arguing that black people in America are their own worst enemy. He was trying to make the case that it is up to black people to fix their problems (broken homes, unwed moms, crime, gangster rap culture, etc...) and not white people.
    Is that what he said? Are those problems exclusively "black" problems? Did he really say there exists an unwarranted reliance on white people to "fix" those problems?

    You want to move race relations forward in America? Get rid of people like Al Sharpton
    Just how do you propose to "get rid of people like Al Sharpton"?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • (snip)
    We cannot blame white people. White people -- White people donÂ’t live over there.
    (snip)
    Now, look, IÂ’m telling you. ItÂ’s not what theyÂ’re doing to us. ItÂ’s what weÂ’re not doing. 50 percent drop out. Look, weÂ’re raising our own ingrown immigrants. These people are fighting hard to be ignorant. ThereÂ’s no English being spoken, and theyÂ’re walking and theyÂ’re angry. Oh God, theyÂ’re angry and they have pistols and they shoot and they do stupid things. And after they kill somebody, they donÂ’t have a plan. Just murder somebody. Boom. Over what? A pizza? And then run to the poor cousinÂ’s house.
    (snip)
    Bill Cosby - Address at the NAACP' on the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education

    Read the entire speech.
  • Bill Cosby rules. That is all.

  • Read the entire speech.
    I did. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where he said that anyone was relying on white people to fix any problems, as you stated.

    I'm still interested in how you want to "get rid of people like Al Sharpton." What, exactly, do you mean by that and how, exactly, do you propose to do it?
  • I did. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where he said that anyone was relying on white people to fix any problems, as you stated.
    He's saying that the blacks who have a 50% drop out rate and who go to jail continue to blame their problems on whites. By blaming their problems on whites, they necessarily believe that the whites must take action in order for their problems to be solved, and they also feel no need to take any action themselves.
  • I did. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where he said that anyone was relying on white people to fix any problems, as you stated.
    He's saying that the blacks who have a 50% drop out rate and who go to jail continue to blame their problems on whites. By blaming their problems on whites, they necessarily believe that the whites must take action in order for their problems to be solved, and they also feel no need to take any action themselves.
    That's a pretty big inferential leap. People often blame others for their problems with no expectation that those others are obliged to fix the problems.
  • That's a pretty big inferential leap. People often blame others for their problems with no expectation that those others are obliged to fix the problems.
    Common sense and intuitive justice dictate that if the blame lies with a particular party, the responsibility for fixing things also lies with that blamed party. If you break my window with your baseball, then responsibility for fixing or replacing it lies with you. If you believe that your sad state of living is to blame on whites, which is a racist and false idea in itself, then responsibility for fixing your sad state of living lies with same party that carries the blame.

    This is a type of psychology that can be seen in many places. People who are unhappy with their lot will believe that "the man is keeping them down." That belief helps their self esteem, as it allows removal of personal responsibility. It also is a self-fulfilling prophecy. By believing that some man is keeping you down, you are also likely to feel that no matter what you do, you can't move up. Thus, you won't do anything, you won't feel bad about not doing anything, and you won't move forward. To put it more simply, believing that the man is keeping you down keeps you down.
  • What is race, but a bunch of slander created to mislead people into a path of dehumanizing their fellow man. We should confront this myth head on, and not simply sweep it under the rug because it might be inconvenient. So yes, I do think we are a nation of cowards.
  • What is race, but a bunch of slander created to mislead people into a path of dehumanizing their fellow man. We should confront this myth head on, and not simply sweep it under the rug because it might be inconvenient. So yes, I do think we are a nation of cowards.
    Are you implying that there is no factual basis for race whatsoever?
  • I think he's complaining about the continual re-enforcement of racial stereotypes.
  • I think he's complaining about the continual re-enforcement of racial stereotypes.
    That's a different story.

    Racial differences exist. Knowing this has enabled us to create numerous targeted therapies that are more beneficial.

    Differences, however, do not (and should not) equate to social inequities.
  • I think he's complaining about the continual re-enforcement of racial stereotypes.
    That's a different story.

    Racial differences exist. Knowing this has enabled us to create numerous targeted therapies that are more beneficial.

    Differences, however, do not (and should not) equate to social inequities.
    Perhaps I was too vague, in which case, I apologize. I was referring to the social concept of race, not the biological one.
  • Race in society is a kinda broad term. Do you mean stereotyping, nationalism, etc..?
  • Race in society is a kinda broad term. Do you mean stereotyping, nationalism, etc..?
    I mean all of the social contexts of race. Since race amounts to little more than a few strands of DNA, how is it rational to make such a ruckus over so small a trait? It should have no social implications, period.
  • edited February 2009
    People stereotype you on much more than just the genetic traits. How much you play up to any stereotype is up to you and how you want people to perceive you. You can play to one of your default racial stereotypes or play to a stereotype that isn't connected to race.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • People stereotype you on much more than just the genetic traits. How much you play up to any stereotype is up to you and how you want people to perceive you. You can play to one of your default racial stereotypes or play to a stereotype that isn't connected to race.
    But the initial impression, of say the Africans, by the Europeans, was based on physical difference. The physical (skin color, eye shape, etc) is regulated by our DNA, and while the Europeans and Africans of old knew nothing of it, it was the source of the difference. And they went from there.
  • Racial differences exist. Knowing this has enabled us to create numerous targeted therapies that are more beneficial.
    Could you expand on this a little? I was under the impression that race had no biological significance. Sure, we can say people of African descent are more likely to have sickle-cell, but could I hand you a genome and you say, "Oh, this person is Asian"?
  • Racial differences exist. Knowing this has enabled us to create numerous targeted therapies that are more beneficial.
    Could you expand on this a little? I was under the impression that race had no biological significance. Sure, we can say people of African descent are more likely to have sickle-cell, but could I hand you a genome and you say, "Oh, this person is Asian"?
    Right now, probably not. The problem is that a collections of genes may not tell you much about how those genes are regulated, and that matters a lot. We'd need to know all the micro RNA's and a host of other things to really say anything for certain.

    There is most certainly a biological significance to race; it just doesn't necessarily carry the social implications we attach to it.
Sign In or Register to comment.