Post A Reply
my profile
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board
»
Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk
»
A Tale of Two Hate Crimes
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lucy Lastic: [QB] oh, my, goodness! people! PROBLEM #1: CONFUSION OF STEREOTYPES many americans grow up witnessing poor blacks, and mistakenly add what are in fact [b]stereotypes about poverty[/b] to their list of stereotypes about blacks. stereotypes do come from truths. but sometimes they are misplaced, or - come from a truth about the people who created the stereotype--- rather than the people it intends to describe. for ex: during slavery there were (bogus) scientific papers put out saying the "negro" brain was smaller. this made sensitive whites (women, in particular,) feel better about what was going on. (what was going on was going on for economic reasons.) in the end the stereotype that blacks are, by nature, less intelligent than whites, tells us more about the whites, and their need to justify their crime against humanity. (further truths one might discover behind this stereotype, would include the fact that intelligence tests were designed by white people.). i grew up in a town where all evidence seemed to point to jews being smarter than gentiles, on average. this, i think it is safe to say, is a fairly widely held stereotype. the "truth" that it comes from-- is that education is highly stressed in the jewish religion. going into the truth behind the stereotype is the only way to go, leading to actual learning, and protecting against ignorant behavior. in this case, the "truth" behind the stereotype suggests "nurture" , rather than "nature". forgive me here a little tangent .. the holocaust was a result of many things, but the genuine anti-semitism that existed had jews guilty of certain characteristics - being selfish, crass, conivers... among others. jews were, as we know, money lenders. and tax collectors i think. so there was this sort of resentment. perhaps the sickest irony of the holocoaust was that it created a form of "survival of the fittest" wherein the very qualities most detested were naturally selected in the death camps.. the ones most called for, for survival. -- if you could finagle a deal with a guard, you might get your name off some list, which would get someone else's name ON the list. much like the stock market, saving your own ass meant someone else loses. only it wasn't money, it was life. as a great jewish psychologist (victor e. frankl) who survived the camps, wrote in his famed "man's searh for meaning": "sadly, the best of us did not survive." oh irony of ironies! people who hated jews for not (in their opinions,) being generous kind-hearted loving souls, created a scenario which would sift out the very ones who WERE generous kind-hearted loving souls. (oh the biting reliability of the science of karma!) we work so hard to create our own reality... to get our own beliefs to come true... (and i'm NOT saying that jews really are these horrible things now.. please.. don't exhaust me more than i exhaust myself..) ok, end of holocaust tangent. back to stereotypes in general, and american blacks, in particular. as i said, many of the stereotypes pinned on black americans are misdirected. they are stereotypes of POVERTY. if you lived near a mexican or white ghetto, you might say many of the things you say about blacks, about mexicans or "white trash" instead. who drives around with outrageously loud thumping music pouring out of a hotrod? a black guy? no, a POOR guy. (in little armenia? it's the armenian thug.) the simple result of making this error is, quite simply: racism. (and obviously any black person who thinks all whites are racist pigs is making the same sad mistake.) this is the diseased thinking which perpetuates ignorance and war. lumping big groups together and assigning simple lists of attributes to them. US AGAINST THEM. it's ignorance. blacks more violent? when i lived in NY, i played a lot of basketball. my friends (white mostly, guys mostly,) and i, would play half-court 3 on 3. we learned in a hurry that playing with blacks was safer than playing with whites. the white guys aren't as good, not as graceful. so they try to make up for it on dEfense. and you get an elbow in your eye.. (i've been scratched to the point of bleeding by these hulks! and i tend to stay on the outside!) the black kids were more like dancers, offensively, (beautiful to watch,) and tended to be more lazy on dE. it was cultural. they didn't seem to be quite as indoctrinated with "win at all costs" as the collegiate whiteys were.. so all your elbows in the eye, and sprained #$@!!*#! ankles, always came from some pumped-up-at-the-gym over-zealous white hack. the resultant stereotype: whites are more violent than blacks. but the *truth* behind it, (that i just outlined,) is more informative; that it's in a specific context: of inner-city pick-up basketball, that the stereotype holds up. (and may not hold up elsewhere.) SGT. STEINER discusses a violent attack of black kids against 4 white girls. we don't know all the details; we don't know if perhaps the girls in question had already hurled racial slurs or some other offense at the attackers, maybe in the past. but never mind that. it is fairly safe to call this a racially motivated attack. to assume the black kids saw "white" girls on the court, rather than simply "4 girls." that they were thinking in terms of "us against them" and everything they hate about white people, they saw in these girls (who might not have been any of those things.) i'm not saying if they WERE racist girls, they deserved to be beaten, but i am saying that the black kids had to have attributed negative qualities to these girls, in order to feel righteous in beating them up. and it's safe to assume those negative attributes were racially inspired. what's disturbing is, SGT. STEINER then goes on, in his post, to exhibit the very same type of thinking, making sweeping generalizations that are quite simply, racist, (a form of ignorance.) in an attempt to complain about these issues he exhibits the very worst of the problem at hand. no different in his racist thinking from that of the girls' attackers. you think you can identify a quality or a tendency by the color of a person's skin, you're racist and ignorant. period. no matter who you are. THINKMONEY's story about the woman at the bank, is a story about a woman with [b]"victim mentality"[/b]. if you have this mental disorder and happen to be a person of color, you will likely use your color to back up your sense of being mistreated. it is a great error to see this woman's behavior as being primarily stemming from her blackness. it is not. it is from her "victim-trip-ness" and if you think whites don't have it, look again. the problem here, i believe, is: you have a file in your brain which tracks evidence to back up your racist beliefs. when you witness the woman in the bank, you add it to your file. but when you see a white person acting with the same victim disorder, you do not go and open up your "the problem with blacks" file and DELETE the info you put in there about the black woman victim-tripper. point: there are victim trippers. some of them are black. some of them are not. (please be more precise and delicate in your thinking.) and why sit there stewing, making up a racist story to explain what's happening, rather than standing up for yourself? rather than telling this woman "hey, we've been waiting. please wait your turn!" there is an old expression "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". this is what the bank manager tried to explain to you. the thing i note is, it seems that you only would have filed the experience away under "squeaky wheels" if the woman had been white, and a non-jew. (like you, i'm guessing.) why, because the person has a color on top of being a squeaky wheel, why does that get the experience filed under THE COLOR? when it's all about the SQUEAK? answer: racist ignorance. FINALLY, while the story about the 4 girls being beaten up seems fairly obviously to be racially motivated, the story about the baseball bat killing does not. when you hear of a ken lay, do you think of him as being "exemplary" of whites? no, you think of him as being exeplary of corruption. you don't think corruption has a color. and when you are the same color as the person you are thinking about, you often won't think of color at all. there is no evidence really, that suggests that if the 15 year old taunter were a different color, the tragedy would not have occurred. (there is a chance, of course, that if they were both poor and black, we wouldn't even have heard about it.) the parents themselves are saying this was not racially motivated. it seems to have been an issue of anger, plus not realizing one's own strength... (i assume the boy's intent was to hurt, not to kill.) the kids had been friends. therefore, they saw each other as many things (not first and formost colors, the way you see a stranger.) maybe the 15 year old was a real teaser and didn't know it really bothered the 13 year old. maybe a lot of things. but if they knew each other, then there were real personalities involved, and you don't just see color, you see qualities. popularity, stupidity, inteligence, smugness, success, generocity, meanness -- whatever. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
Allstocks.com Message Board Home
© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.
Powered by
Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2