Racial Stereotypes

[WinePusher]

I've heard many apologists for Trayvon Martin in the media bring up issues regarding racial profiling. They'll either say something like:

1) Had Zimmerman been black and had Martin been white then Martin would have been convicted and sentenced to prison.

or

2) Had Trayvon Martin been white instead of black, Zimmerman would have never followed him in the first place.

These two statements are stereotypes. They imply that the only reason why Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin was because of his race, and the first implies that the criminal justice system is biased against blacks.

But the real question is why do these stereotypes exist in the first place. My opinion is that a racial stereotype exists because many members of a certain ethnic group behave or act a certain way, and this trait/feature is extrapolated to the entire ethnic group.

Questions:

1) If you were walking alone in a dark alley and saw a group of hooded black men walking your way, would you be scared?

2) If you were walking alone in a dark alley and saw a group of teenage girls walking your way, would you be scared?

3) Do you yourself engage in racial profiling and stereotyping in your everyday life?

[Danmark]

It is easy to make prejudicial judgments that may be unfair.
For example:
The fact that WinePusher has started the topics "Affirmative Action Is Racism!" and
"Racial Stereotypes" and "Should An Islamic Mosque Be Built At Ground Zero?" [where his OP says "This is completly outraegous [sic] and infuriating...!" implying that since Muslims were involved in 911, no Muslim should have a Mosque near the site]; and states:

We do not see Asians dropping out of school, we do not see many Asians wallowing in poverty. And that's because the Asian culture promotes values such as hard work and respect, something the Black culture does not. :

... the observer might be prejudiced that he has an unhealthy racial agenda or obsession. This might be a completely unfair and prejudicial assessment, or it might be spot on. Determining whether it is mere prejudice or fact may depend on how much time and effort one wishes to devote to studying the issue.

The only person with an obsession here is you. You are obsessed with my posts and my previous writings on this forum. Do I think it's weird that you stalk my posts? Yes, to a certain extent. But then again, maybe it'll help you learn a thing or two about Politics and Religion.

And yes, race is an interesting topic that I enjoy discussing because it involves many academic disciplines, ie: Economics and Sociology. Again, do you even know anything about those two subjects. Whenever you try to debate them, you either end up ignoring key points or copying and pasting off of internet articles.

Oh, if you're still intent on stalking my posts I'll make it easier for you. I still think affirmative action is racism and that there should be no mosque at the ground zero site. I'm entitled to my opinion and I guess you are entitled to see the world through your distorted 'racist' lens.

I may be projecting, but I'll get to that at the close of this response.

Yes, I'm so obsessed with you that I put you on 'ignore.' The only reason I saw this post was that I was alerted to it. Racism is a subject of Sociology and Anthropology more than economics, tho' obviously economics is related, as it is to almost every social issue. I was a Sociology instructor years ago, having been asked to teach an introductory course by the head of the department upon completing my undergraduate degree. The only objective I have is to help you see your self for what you are at the moment. Thankfully that can change if you open your mind to it.
By one definition [this is certainly controversial] a member of the majority race in a group cannot, by definition, be 'racist.'

Yes, when I was 22 years old and looking for work, it was frustrating to find out a 10 or 20% addition would be added to my 'score' if my race were different. Affirmative action is certainly 'racist' by a narrow definition. It also seeks to legitimately remedy past racism that crippled generations of African Americans, the only group I'm aware of that was ever enslaved by the government of this country.

To be candid, I see in so much of what you write on this subject, and on economics, as exactly the same arguments and positions I made and held in my early 20's. They are natural positions and arguments to make. I'll resist characterizing this change as anything other than change, because I'd like to get off this 'personalizing' every argument. I am guilty of making things personal myself, particularly when I think I've been goaded into it by what I view as . . . never mind. I'd like to avoid personalizing things. My suggestion is that when people start butting heads, and making things personal, they look first at themselves, their own foibles and contributions. We can only change ourselves, not others.

It is amusing that most times when we quote Jesus and his advice that we look first into our own eye, so we can remove the beam that is in it, so then we can see clearly to remove the speck that is within our brother's eye; we say this as if WE are the ones with the speck, while our brother has the beam. I'll try to do better.

[bluethread]

It also seeks to legitimately remedy past racism that crippled generations of African Americans, the only group I'm aware of that was ever enslaved by the government of this country.

What makes it a legitimate remedy? It seeks to "remedy" the actions of one group of people by penalizing another group of people. To be specific, how many people of Asian descent held slaves? Though they were one of the most discriminated against groups in our history, they are often the victims of this travesty. In fact, an argument can be made that they were treated as slaves by the Union Pacific Railroad under direct government contract and not just permitted to be enslaved by private citizens. "Affirmative action" was enacted as nothing more than a political payoff designed to keep people on the democrat plantation in the sixties. As proof of this, is there an objective standard by which we can judge when "affirmative action" is no longer necessary?

[Danmark]

It also seeks to legitimately remedy past racism that crippled generations of African Americans, the only group I'm aware of that was ever enslaved by the government of this country.

What makes it a legitimate remedy? It seeks to "remedy" the actions of one group of people by penalizing another group of people. To be specific, how many people of Asian descent held slaves? Though they were one of the most discriminated against groups in our history, they are often the victims of this travesty. In fact, an argument can be made that they were treated as slaves by the Union Pacific Railroad under direct government contract and not just permitted to be enslaved by private citizens. "Affirmative action" was enacted as nothing more than a political payoff designed to keep people on the democrat plantation in the sixties. As proof of this, is there an objective standard by which we can judge when "affirmative action" is no longer necessary?

I agree with much of what you write, particularly when it is put in the context of 2013 as opposed to 50 some years ago when affirmative action and school bussing were first implemented on a large scale. There is no question that Japanese and Chinese Americans were heavily discriminated against in this country in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

I don't know if many today recall the origin of the phrase, 'He doesn't have a Chinaman's chance.' Chinese workers were lowered over cliffs by rope, in boatswain's chairs to set dynamite to clear mountain sides and other obstructions to make way for railroad construction. If they were not lifted back up before the blast, they were quite literally 'blown away,' giving birth to the phrase a "A Chinaman's Chance."

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall affirmative action and racial quotas that were designed to help minorities that had been discriminated against included Asian Americans. Certainly we do not have nearly as strong a need for such programs today, as we may have had in the 60's.

Some accommodation should be made for the wrongs that were committed in an obviously racist America that resulted in even our finest institutions uttering formal opinions that were clearly racist:

According to the California Supreme Court, the Chinese "recogniz[ed] no laws . . . except through necessity, [brought] with them their prejudices and national feuds, in which they indulge[d] in open violation of law." The court also noted that their "mendacity is proverbial; [that they were] a race of people whom nature has marked as inferior, and who are incapable of progress or intellectual development beyond a certain point . . . [and they would not be granted] the right to swear away the life of a citizen, . . . [or] the . . . privilege of participating with us in administering the affairs of our Government."
_ wikipedia

The point I have perhaps not made effectively enough, is that when a group's entire identity and culture is stripped away; when their families have been destroyed, when there is no one left to properly raise the children, the effects of these atrocities go beyond the 7th generation. Social scientists have known for at least 60 years that the number one correlate to incarceration is an absent father.

The question on THIS forum is, why are some conservative or fundamentalist Christians such zealous advocates against reforms that aim to compensate the legitimate wrongs that were done to groups and classes of people who where disadvantaged, not just by the culture of their times, but as a matter of law?

[Goat]

I agree with much of what you write, particularly when it is put in the context of 2013 as opposed to 50 some years ago when affirmative action and school bussing were first implemented on a large scale. There is no question that Japanese and Chinese Americans were heavily discriminated against in this country in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

I am not so sure. One thing the last 6 years has taught me is that there are plenty of very strong racists out there, and they are encouraged to be vocal by the anonymity of the internet, the attitude of certain 'conservative' talk show hosts and opinion networks.

However, I think many of the issues can be modified not to refer to race. One of the biggest results of the discrimination is economic disadvantage, and lack of educational opportunities. If the 'affirmative action' scenarios targeted educational opportunities based on income, that would allow much of the issue to be addressed without explicitly considering race.

[Danmark]

I agree with much of what you write, particularly when it is put in the context of 2013 as opposed to 50 some years ago when affirmative action and school bussing were first implemented on a large scale. There is no question that Japanese and Chinese Americans were heavily discriminated against in this country in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

I am not so sure. One thing the last 6 years has taught me is that there are plenty of very strong racists out there, and they are encouraged to be vocal by the anonymity of the internet, the attitude of certain 'conservative' talk show hosts and opinion networks.

However, I think many of the issues can be modified not to refer to race. One of the biggest results of the discrimination is economic disadvantage, and lack of educational opportunities. If the 'affirmative action' scenarios targeted educational opportunities based on income, that would allow much of the issue to be addressed without explicitly considering race.

There is much truth to this; however it does not address the fact there is still unconscious racism at work even among those who genuinely hate racism, as evidenced by the study of physicians' racial discrimination that I posted.

Certainly my friend Christopher, who was born into a professional, upper middle class family, both parents having earned doctorates, would seem to be one who did not need to have the assistance of affirmative action. As he puts it, 'affirmative action may have helped me get into the University of Virginia, but it didn't help me graduate." He went on to graduate from Georgetown Law, and is one of the finest criminal defense attorneys in the State of Washington.

Before he moved to Seattle, he was one of the 3 or 4 best lawyers in my region. There were and are dozens of white lawyers practicing criminal law here who are not fit to hold his jockstrap, who, frankly, should not be sullying the practice with their limited abilities and commitment. Would Christopher have succeeded without affirmative action? I certainly think so, but it is a chance I would not want to take.

[Goat]

I agree with much of what you write, particularly when it is put in the context of 2013 as opposed to 50 some years ago when affirmative action and school bussing were first implemented on a large scale. There is no question that Japanese and Chinese Americans were heavily discriminated against in this country in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

I am not so sure. One thing the last 6 years has taught me is that there are plenty of very strong racists out there, and they are encouraged to be vocal by the anonymity of the internet, the attitude of certain 'conservative' talk show hosts and opinion networks.

However, I think many of the issues can be modified not to refer to race. One of the biggest results of the discrimination is economic disadvantage, and lack of educational opportunities. If the 'affirmative action' scenarios targeted educational opportunities based on income, that would allow much of the issue to be addressed without explicitly considering race.

There is much truth to this; however it does not address the fact there is still unconscious racism at work even among those who genuinely hate racism, as evidenced by the study of physicians' racial discrimination that I posted.

Certainly my friend Christopher, who was born into a professional, upper middle class family, both parents having earned doctorates, would seem to be one who did not need to have the assistance of affirmative action. As he puts it, 'affirmative action may have helped me get into the University of Virginia, but it didn't help me graduate." He went on to graduate from Georgetown Law, and is one of the finest criminal defense attorneys in the State of Washington.

Before he moved to Seattle, he was one of the 3 or 4 best lawyers in my region. There were and are dozens of white lawyers practicing criminal law here who are not fit to hold his jockstrap, who, frankly, should not be sullying the practice with their limited abilities and commitment. Would Christopher have succeeded without affirmative action? I certainly think so, but it is a chance I would not want to take.

You might be right, and I would expect the race issue to be more apparent in certain areas of the U.S... I don't know the answer.. but I suspect he is also right.
Of course, I also think that things are less critical now than they were 20 years ago too.

I don't know if there is a solution that will be satisfactory to all people. There will always be the marginal people who didn't get in one place, and will whine about reverse discrimination.

[Danmark]

I agree with much of what you write, particularly when it is put in the context of 2013 as opposed to 50 some years ago when affirmative action and school bussing were first implemented on a large scale. There is no question that Japanese and Chinese Americans were heavily discriminated against in this country in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

I am not so sure. One thing the last 6 years has taught me is that there are plenty of very strong racists out there, and they are encouraged to be vocal by the anonymity of the internet, the attitude of certain 'conservative' talk show hosts and opinion networks.

However, I think many of the issues can be modified not to refer to race. One of the biggest results of the discrimination is economic disadvantage, and lack of educational opportunities. If the 'affirmative action' scenarios targeted educational opportunities based on income, that would allow much of the issue to be addressed without explicitly considering race.

There is much truth to this; however it does not address the fact there is still unconscious racism at work even among those who genuinely hate racism, as evidenced by the study of physicians' racial discrimination that I posted.

Certainly my friend Christopher, who was born into a professional, upper middle class family, both parents having earned doctorates, would seem to be one who did not need to have the assistance of affirmative action. As he puts it, 'affirmative action may have helped me get into the University of Virginia, but it didn't help me graduate." He went on to graduate from Georgetown Law, and is one of the finest criminal defense attorneys in the State of Washington.

Before he moved to Seattle, he was one of the 3 or 4 best lawyers in my region. There were and are dozens of white lawyers practicing criminal law here who are not fit to hold his jockstrap, who, frankly, should not be sullying the practice with their limited abilities and commitment. Would Christopher have succeeded without affirmative action? I certainly think so, but it is a chance I would not want to take.

You might be right, and I would expect the race issue to be more apparent in certain areas of the U.S... I don't know the answer.. but I suspect he is also right.
Of course, I also think that things are less critical now than they were 20 years ago too.

I don't know if there is a solution that will be satisfactory to all people. There will always be the marginal people who didn't get in one place, and will whine about reverse discrimination.

Yes. I used to argue that affirmative action might be a reasonable idea, up to a point. Where that point is, I'm not sure. But at some point, whether high school, college, or graduate school it certainly would seem that the individual must sink or swim.

OTOH, there is an aspect of affirmative action that is incalculable, that we all benefit from diversity; that those benefits may not be immediately obvious, but are very real and invaluable. This has become increasing apparent to me over the years . . . almost against my will.

[WinePusher]

Yes, I'm so obsessed with you that I put you on 'ignore.'

Since you obviously do stalk my posts (and memorize my favorite phrases lol) that would be cognitive dissonance on your part. And what was the phrase, it went something like 'if you can't stand the heat...get out of the kitchen?'

The only objective I have is to help you see your self for what you are at the moment. Thankfully that can change if you open your mind to it.
By one definition [this is certainly controversial] a member of the majority race in a group cannot, by definition, be 'racist.'

You see, this is a very creepy statement in and of itself. I'm sure you feel it's your job to help random people over the internet 'see themselves for what they are' but many in society would not see this as normal behavior. Besides, you know nothing about me other than the info I willingly provide on my profile. You choose to hide things like your post history and my question is why? What are you afraid of?

To be candid, I see in so much of what you write on this subject, and on economics, as exactly the same arguments and positions I made and held in my early 20's.

I'm glad you're able to see your early reflection in my posts, perhaps that's why you're so obsessed with reading what I write?

I've actually thought through my positions and have educated myself about the opposing positions. I also went to an undergrad school where ever single professor was a socialist along with most of my classmates. If anything, you're the one who is going along with the flow.

[bluethread]

The point I have perhaps not made effectively enough, is that when a group's entire identity and culture is stripped away; when their families have been destroyed, when there is no one left to properly raise the children, the effects of these atrocities go beyond the 7th generation. Social scientists have known for at least 60 years that the number one correlate to incarceration is an absent father.

Well, for the last 60 years, with all of these programs, the absentee father problem has nearly doubled and ballooned to 72% among blacks. So, maybe we should try something else.

The question on THIS forum is, why are some conservative or fundamentalist Christians such zealous advocates against reforms that aim to compensate the legitimate wrongs that were done to groups and classes of people who where disadvantaged, not just by the culture of their times, but as a matter of law?

Where do the Scriptures say that such a problem can be or should be solved through government action? Maybe they are more results oriented and would like to see an answer to the question I posed at the end of last post. What objective measure do we use to determine when "affirmative action" or any of these programs has had any significant positive effect?

[Goat]

The point I have perhaps not made effectively enough, is that when a group's entire identity and culture is stripped away; when their families have been destroyed, when there is no one left to properly raise the children, the effects of these atrocities go beyond the 7th generation. Social scientists have known for at least 60 years that the number one correlate to incarceration is an absent father.

Well, for the last 60 years, with all of these programs, the absentee father problem has nearly doubled and ballooned to 72% among blacks. So, maybe we should try something else.

The question on THIS forum is, why are some conservative or fundamentalist Christians such zealous advocates against reforms that aim to compensate the legitimate wrongs that were done to groups and classes of people who where disadvantaged, not just by the culture of their times, but as a matter of law?

Where do the Scriptures say that such a problem can be or should be solved through government action? Maybe they are more results oriented and would like to see an answer to the question I posed at the end of last post. What objective measure do we use to determine when "affirmative action" or any of these programs has had any significant positive effect?

The thing about Scripture, if we followed scripture, the problem wouldn't be solved at all. And, scripture doesn't say that it SHOULDN'T be handled by the government either. When it comes to government, it says 'Render on to Caesar's what is Caesar's', and I would say that would be taxes to support that things.