The Tulsa Race Riot

[Violet]

I love how racism is so often perceived only as negative

Actually, it isn't. All kinds of assholes see it as a positive thing.

But you seem to believe it to be otherwise. I don't wonder why, but maybe you could tell me if it is the case?

[Shell B]

Yes, I believe racism is a negative thing. I think it prevents groups from interacting with each other in productive ways and it spreads unnecessary hatred throughout the world. There is never a case where racism is not generalizing and pigeon-holing an entire group into a stereotype in which many of them likely do not fit. It is a flawed way of thinking that promotes violence. Now, I am not completely anti-violence. I know that the only way to protect people is often violence, but I do object to violence committed over superficial things like religion, skin color, geographic location, etc.

[Violet]

Yes, I believe racism is a negative thing. I think it prevents groups from interacting with each other in productive ways and it spreads unnecessary hatred throughout the world. There is never a case where racism is not generalizing and pigeon-holing an entire group into a stereotype in which many of them likely do not fit. It is a flawed way of thinking that promotes violence. Now, I am not completely anti-violence. I know that the only way to protect people is often violence, but I do object to violence committed over superficial things like religion, skin color, geographic location, etc.

Racism is the result of valuing one 'race' higher than others at a particular thing. I can be a (positive) racist towards blacks in basketball. I would then favor Kenyan Bucks for a basketball team from the onset. Sexism is no different in this regard, and I can easily be so by valuing women higher than men or men higher than women for any single task. And like most things... they are a matter of degrees (strongly racist towards X for Y/weakly racist towards Z for A)

A generalization does not necessarily have no reasoning behind it... there are several reason that I consider no tree to be worth my talking to. A 'group' of similar bodies is necessarily attributing at least those values to that group. No tree can talk, no tree can hear, no tree can compete with me in Chess. If one miraculously escapes this mold, then it is no longer a tree, but a being worthy of a unique understanding.

It so happens that I cut a wise swath through 3 different types of trees we have around here. Birch catches slow and burns long. Spruce catches quick and burns quick. Alder is junk. This is a process of simplification that is generalizing 3 entire groups... but it is also a necessary function of our brains. If I had to judge every tree every time I saw a new one (or even an old one from a new side), I would never get out of a forrest.

Racism at its core then, is simplification. It depersonalizes entire groups (all of which are simplifications) to judge them on a whole. I agree that this is not entirely accurate with people (some whites infact are not sissies, and they are called russians), but it also is not entirely accurate with trees. The fact that there are two groups with different characteristics means that there are differences between both groups... and herein lies the crux of racism: a focus on what is different between things rather than on what is the same. It simplifies everything and draws back to look at their perceived differences, and the result is a difference in value that has some declaring the differences to be so minute as to wonder why the distinction and has others firmly believing that an entire set is inferior (and necessarily another superior).

I also object to violence committed over religion and skin color. Geographic location, on the other hand, is militarily strategic. I object to violence to take swampland, but to take a mineral rich mountain? I'll have violence if it's worth it

[Shell B]

Racism is the result of valuing one 'race' higher than others at a particular thing.

That is not entirely accurate. Racism is valuing a race higher than another race, but not in a particular thing. It is not racist to say black people tend to be better at basketball, but it is racist to say, white people are superior to black people.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

I can be a (positive) racist towards blacks in basketball. I would then favor Kenyan Bucks for a basketball team from the onset. Sexism is no different in this regard, and I can easily be so by valuing women higher than men or men higher than women for any single task. And like most things... they are a matter of degrees (strongly racist towards X for Y/weakly racist towards Z for A)

I see racism as negative even in this regard. Look at it this way, say a man is more inclined to be good at things that women are good at. Well, if everyone just assumes he is not because he is a man and "values" women for these skills, he may never find a job, because of sexism.

A generalization does not necessarily have no reasoning behind it... there are several reason that I consider no tree to be worth my talking to. A 'group' of similar bodies is necessarily attributing at least those values to that group. No tree can talk, no tree can hear, no tree can compete with me in Chess. If one miraculously escapes this mold, then it is no longer a tree, but a being worthy of a unique understanding.

Trees do not make up a race, Sae. Therefore, that is irrelevant.

It so happens that I cut a wise swath through 3 different types of trees we have around here. Birch catches slow and burns long. Spruce catches quick and burns quick. Alder is junk. This is a process of simplification that is generalizing 3 entire groups... but it is also a necessary function of our brains. If I had to judge every tree every time I saw a new one (or even an old one from a new side), I would never get out of a forrest.

People are not trees.

Racism at its core then, is simplification. It depersonalizes entire groups (all of which are simplifications) to judge them on a whole. I agree that this is not entirely accurate with people (some whites infact are not sissies, and they are called russians), but it also is not entirely accurate with trees. The fact that there are two groups with different characteristics means that there are differences between both groups... and herein lies the crux of racism: a focus on what is different between things rather than on what is the same. It simplifies everything and draws back to look at their perceived differences, and the result is a difference in value that has some declaring the differences to be so minute as to wonder why the distinction and has others firmly believing that an entire set is inferior (and necessarily another superior).

The problem with this analogy, Sae is that just because a group of blacks, whites, hispanics, etc. are culturally more prone to be good at something does not mean they are all good at that thing. Therefore, even with so-called "positive" connotations, it is incorrect and encourages racial gaps that should not exist in society as a whole.

I also object to violence committed over religion and skin color. Geographic location, on the other hand, is militarily strategic. I object to violence to take swampland, but to take a mineral rich mountain? I'll have violence if it's worth it

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.

[Violet]

That is not entirely accurate. Racism is valuing a race higher than another race, but not in a particular thing. It is not racist to say black people tend to be better at basketball, but it is racist to say, white people are superior to black people.

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?

I see racism as negative even in this regard. Look at it this way, say a man is more inclined to be good at things that women are good at. Well, if everyone just assumes he is not because he is a man and "values" women for these skills, he may never find a job, because of sexism.

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.

Trees do not make up a race, Sae. Therefore, that is irrelevant.

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?

People are not trees.

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

The problem with this analogy, Sae is that just because a group of blacks, whites, hispanics, etc. are culturally more prone to be good at something does not mean they are all good at that thing. Therefore, even with so-called "positive" connotations, it is incorrect and encourages racial gaps that should not exist in society as a whole.

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

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.

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

I can certainly see strong racism as a useful tool for getting a 'democratic' country behind attacking someone you don't like ^_^

[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.

[Violet]

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.

Agreed with the first half... but the last bit is a nonsequiter (it does not follow that because X race is good at Y that all other races are worthy of disdain).

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.

I might. Depends on how serious the perceived superiority/inferiority is (and how can a judgement of value be anything but perceived?). I tend to take what I can get and make the most use of it as I can (within reason)... but if a thing absolutely fails I will cut the losses. I've been known to cut entire quadrants before due to distance from other superpowers in the galaxy. (The people on those planets being indefensible and therefore mostly worthless).

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.

Then different types of humans might as well be considered different species as well. Black skin pigmentation is better in tropical areas, white skin pigmentation is better in arctic areas. It cannot be escaped that there are measurable differences between the different human 'sub-species' (for that is what our 'races' are), and thus each can be valued according to what it brings to the table.

I consider 'races' to be a biological 'kind'/'type', ie: the crawling races and the flying races. It doesn't apply outside of biology (ie: computer races and races of tables?), but it is a term for distinction.

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

Not all humans are people, and Pearl (a dog) is a person unlike any other I've met. Human babies and especially pre-birth humans are certainly not people, and human children are scarcely so.

Not to mention it does every spacefarring race in the universe a huge disservice to declare only humans as people

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

This is a rare case? I think not. An employer can still be impressed if you break the mold excellently. If someone hires me to do some sort of dangerous/physically difficult work, it certainly is not due to my physical build. I've have to impress them with my reckless and ruthless method of getting the job done using leverage a great deal of energy

If brute force does not work: use more brute force.

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

And yet, a difference is necessarily an assumption that it is there and an assertion is necessarily the belief that it is there. There are differences between the different races of people... hence the different races of people.

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.

I misunderstood you then, me sorry!

[Shell B]

Agreed with the first half... but the last bit is a nonsequiter (it does not follow that because X race is good at Y that all other races are worthy of disdain).

Of course it is. I disagree with it too. That is what makes racism ridiculous.

I might. Depends on how serious the perceived superiority/inferiority is (and how can a judgement of value be anything but perceived?). I tend to take what I can get and make the most use of it as I can (within reason)... but if a thing absolutely fails I will cut the losses. I've been known to cut entire quadrants before due to distance from other superpowers in the galaxy. (The people on those planets being indefensible and therefore mostly worthless).

Then different types of humans might as well be considered different species as well. Black skin pigmentation is better in tropical areas, white skin pigmentation is better in arctic areas. It cannot be escaped that there are measurable differences between the different human 'sub-species' (for that is what our 'races' are), and thus each can be valued according to what it brings to the table.

Perhaps they could be defined as subspecies, but definitely not different species. There are no significant biological differences between races, apart from the superficial. However, a race goes further than that. A race is defined by subspecies, if you will, by culture, ethnicity, etc.

I consider 'races' to be a biological 'kind'/'type', ie: the crawling races and the flying races. It doesn't apply outside of biology (ie: computer races and races of tables?), but it is a term for distinction.

Humans are the only creatures defined by race. We may not agree with the limits of the distinction, but they are there. So, for purposes of this argument (term used loosely), I will use them.

Not all humans are people, and Pearl (a dog) is a person unlike any other I've met. Human babies and especially pre-birth humans are certainly not people, and human children are scarcely so.

Sae, when it comes to words and how we use them, I am a quite literal person. You can easily assume when I use a word like human that I am speaking of it strictly by definition.

This is a rare case? I think not. An employer can still be impressed if you break the mold excellently. If someone hires me to do some sort of dangerous/physically difficult work, it certainly is not due to my physical build. I've have to impress them with my reckless and ruthless method of getting the job done using leverage a great deal of energy

I worked in a largely male industry for most of my working life. I know that we must impress to break molds. However, I also know that people automatically act on their biases. It takes effort not to do so. However, this is really beside the point.

If brute force does not work: use more brute force.

And yet, a difference is necessarily an assumption that it is there and an assertion is necessarily the belief that it is there. There are differences between the different races of people... hence the different races of people.

No, to assume that it is there is basically to think you know it is there without every checking. Differences can be asserted and proved. (Forgive the bit of plagiarism of James Otis there, please). To assume a difference without clarifying that the difference exists and then asserting that there is a difference, as it pertains to race, is racism.

I misunderstood you then, me sorry!

No sorry needed, dear.

[Violet]

Of course it is. I disagree with it too. That is what makes racism ridiculous.

If racism as you define is necessarily the latter bit, then I agree that it is always ridiculous

I don't consider this to be the case most of the time, but at least for egotistical racial superiority there is no question that it is ridiculous.

Perhaps they could be defined as subspecies, but definitely not different species. There are no significant biological differences between races, apart from the superficial. However, a race goes further than that. A race is defined by subspecies, if you will, by culture, ethnicity, etc.

Granted... but then we might as well call it as it is: nationalism

Humans are the only creatures defined by race. We may not agree with the limits of the distinction, but they are there. So, for purposes of this argument (term used loosely), I will use them.

I don't agree with the that limit, and I never consider humans as something special deserving of a set of human-only designations

Sae, when it comes to words and how we use them, I am a quite literal person. You can easily assume when I use a word like human that I am speaking of it strictly by definition.

By what definition?

I love metaphors myself

I worked in a largely male industry for most of my working life. I know that we must impress to break molds. However, I also know that people automatically act on their biases. It takes effort not to do so. However, this is really beside the point.

If brute force does not work: use more brute force.

I'm glad you agree with at least this much

No, to assume that it is there is basically to think you know it is there without every checking. Differences can be asserted and proved. (Forgive the bit of plagiarism of James Otis there, please). To assume a difference without clarifying that the difference exists and then asserting that there is a difference, as it pertains to race, is racism.

Plagiarism only exists in the minds of those with such low self worth that they must artificially inflate it by asserting ownership over things that they do not, regardless of origination. ^_^

And I agree that is racism

[Shell B]

Granted... but then we might as well call it as it is: nationalism

Close enough for government work, but not for semantics. Race is a lot more than just where you are from.

I don't agree with the that limit, and I never consider humans as something special deserving of a set of human-only designations

Neither do I. That does not change the fact that there are human only designations. I do not seek to be a conformist, but I am also not in the habit of bending definitions as it muddles straightforward conversation.

By what definition?

The dictionary, of course.

Plagiarism only exists in the minds of those with such low self worth that they must artificially inflate it by asserting ownership over things that they do not, regardless of origination. ^_^

I have to disagree with you, but only because I own a great deal of copyrighted work and have been plagiarized. It not only pisses me off, but it has proven to me that plagiarism really is theft.