The Tulsa Race Riot

[Shell B]

I don't follow the sacrosanct opinion of dictionaries, and thus questioned the definition and found it lacking. If it is not racist to be racist in one way, then why would it be racist to be racist in more than one way?

The simplest way to explain that would be to be "racist," you have to have some opinion about the race, as a whole. Whether you think all people of one race have big penises or all people of one race smell funny, it has to pertain to the entire race. Like I said, saying a group has a tendency to be good at a sport is not quite the same as saying "All black people are good at basketball, so I hate every other race." or something to that effect.

It is true, and we've that as our society as it is. My belief regarding breaking a societal standard is that if you're going to break the mold: you must be excel, you cannot be of a common value. As with the trees above, I must judge one alder so considerably superior to the others of its kind that it is worthy of a unique judgement.

You may find one alder worthy of unique judgment, but you would not commit violence or give windfalls to a particular type because of their perceived inferiority or superiority.

But different races of trees do make up the example. How are spruce and birch different as trees in a way that african and russian are not different as humans?

A. Because they are not races, they are species. B. Because they have not split themselves up into races, as we have. Now, if trees thought and talked amongst themselves and one group of trees felt themselves superior to other trees, after having established races, that would be racism. They would have different cultures by which to judge each other. Humans judge trees as trees, not as humans. We do not judge a tree's ability to play baseball or their historical propensity toward *insert cultural habits here*. I would cite the dictionary for the differences between race and species, but you're one of those nutters who doesn't pay attention to definitions.

But trees could be people. I assume they have no brain or capacity for personality, and hence cannot be people... doesn't mean I am the leading expert on the subject of whether or not trees have a personality

Personality or no, they are not defined by race. And, they could not be people. People=human.

However, it does mean that an employer is more likely to economically manage his time by scouting only for people of the group that would typically be good that the thing

If they didn't, it would be a rare case of sexism without unconsciously acting on that ism.

Again, if an individual wishes to break a mold: they must excel. The racial gaps in society are not going away, because there infact are differences. As cleanly as alders and spruce are different trees: black and red are different humans.

Differences are fine, in this regard, without assumptions or assertions.

It is not racism to attack people in a location for resources or military strategy. That is government and military-related, not race-related. However, if you attack a country to "kill the infidels," "wipe out the *insert ethnic slur here*," then it is racist and I find it repulsive.

I didn't say it was... I was agreeing with you on the anti-pointless violence message

Haha, I knew you were not saying it was; I was pointing out that military and governmental issues are not racism. Therefore, my example of geographic location still stands.