That's the social definition not the text book definition. Social definition are, by their nature, adjusted to reflect social situations. I'm talking about the word, not what society has to come to equate it with. Racism - as sol' said - is blind to race. Any race can be racist against any other race and it hasn't a single thing to do with how many or who is in charge. Saying it can only be done by the majority oppressing the minority is nothing but a cop-out and does nothing but to perpetuate racism for generations to come.
EDIT: The UN doesn't define words - they politicize them... Find a real dictionary not some socio-political junk.
Well socio-political environment is what comes up with definitions for socio-political concepts and theories. The current definition in dictionaries was changed. The primary reason being is that in America "racism" in its traditional definition described the dominant group. They don't want to be considered racist so you change the definition of who can be racist. Traditionally it was about power and suppression.
I'd agree with that, but I do like the UN definition.
That's because it fits into our current understanding of society where racism is only talking about the opression of the people who aren't in power - that's a political defintion. The reason it seems right is because we've come to accept that only "the man" and the people in power can be truly racist although, for example, a black person not letting a white person into their group is just as racist as the reverse. We'll never, ever get past our self perpetuating racism until we realize that...
Well socio-political environment is what comes up with definitions for socio-political concepts and theories. The current definition in dictionaries was changed. The primary reason being is that in America "racism" in its traditional definition described the dominant group. They don't want to be considered racist so you change the definition of who can be racist. Traditionally it was about power and suppression.
And the UN hasn't altered their definition in, what, 10 years? Also how do you define "what comes up" because I typed "racism definition" into google and I don't see the UN definition anywhere so you obviously had to go looking for it. FWIW, the first one that popped up was Merriam Websters definition that I linked to earlier.
What does that have to with the cost of anal-beads in San Francisco?*
(I opted for that over the cost of tea in China since that term is such a cliche)
well, idk but since we're in a recession they better be going down because we're all going broke!!
Is it a wonder that box office numbers and alcohol consumption go up in a recession? (yeah, off-topic, I know but come on - we haven't been on topic for at least a page and a half!)
well, idk but since we're in a recession they better be going down because we're all going broke!!
Is it a wonder that box office numbers and alcohol consumption go up in a recession? (yeah, off-topic, I know but come on - we haven't been on topic for at least a page and a half!)
Well, if it wasn't for the "in your face" attitude of the gay community trying to force gay marriage on the rest of us, there wouldn't be any topic.
That's because it fits into our current understanding of society where racism is only talking about the opression of the people who aren't in power - that's a political defintion. The reason it seems right is because we've come to accept that only "the man" and the people in power can be truly racist although, for example, a black person not letting a white person into their group is just as racist as the reverse. We'll never, ever get past our self perpetuating racism until we realize that...
The problem with this thinking is that it undermines the more important issue.
The black man cannot stop the white man from getting a job, owning a home, opportunity at a good education, decent healthcare.
The problem with this thinking is that it undermines the more important issue.
The black man cannot stop the white man from getting a job, owning a home, opportunity at a good education, decent healthcare.
Where have you been? It's 11/5/2008, "the black man" is in charge of the whole d2mn country... And, apparently, the "white man" couldn't stop "the black man" from "getting a job, owning a home, opportunity at a good education, decent healthcare" because now he's POTUS.
The problem with this thinking is that it undermines the more important issue.
The black man cannot stop the white man from getting a job, owning a home, opportunity at a good education, decent healthcare.
You are the best resource for making something of your life. Even if you're black. Healthcare is not a right, and if the law-yahs were kept out of it, it would be a lot more affordable.
And the UN hasn't altered their definition in, what, 10 years?
Why should they. In the last 10 years have people stopped having their rights violated because of their ethnic, sexual, or social status.
Quote:
Also how do you define "what comes up" because I typed "racism definition" into google and I don't see the UN definition anywhere so you obviously had to go looking for it.
Why should they. In the last 10 years have people stopped having their rights violated because of their ethnic, sexual, or social status.
Well its there.
The first part was sarcasm... The UN re-defines stuff all the time as they see fit. It's really an insult to the language to be constantly re-defining things just so they support your political agenda. I honestly don't know how long it's been but I can guarantee you the text book definition that dates back to 1933 is older than the UN (began in 1945 as I'm sure you're aware).
Comments
That's the social definition not the text book definition. Social definition are, by their nature, adjusted to reflect social situations. I'm talking about the word, not what society has to come to equate it with. Racism - as sol' said - is blind to race. Any race can be racist against any other race and it hasn't a single thing to do with how many or who is in charge. Saying it can only be done by the majority oppressing the minority is nothing but a cop-out and does nothing but to perpetuate racism for generations to come.
EDIT: The UN doesn't define words - they politicize them... Find a real dictionary not some socio-political junk.
Well socio-political environment is what comes up with definitions for socio-political concepts and theories. The current definition in dictionaries was changed. The primary reason being is that in America "racism" in its traditional definition described the dominant group. They don't want to be considered racist so you change the definition of who can be racist. Traditionally it was about power and suppression.
Gays cannot adopt in Arkansas.
What does that have to with the cost of anal-beads in San Francisco?*
(I opted for that over the cost of tea in China since that term is such a cliche)
I'd agree with that, but I do like the UN definition.
That's because it fits into our current understanding of society where racism is only talking about the opression of the people who aren't in power - that's a political defintion. The reason it seems right is because we've come to accept that only "the man" and the people in power can be truly racist although, for example, a black person not letting a white person into their group is just as racist as the reverse. We'll never, ever get past our self perpetuating racism until we realize that...
Gays cannot adopt in Arkansas.
And if I read the amendment properly neither can un-wed couples correct?
What does that have to with the cost of anal-beads in San Francisco?*
(I opted for that over the cost of tea in China since that term is such a cliche)
I have no idea, but you asked the question.
And if I read the amendment properly neither can un-wed couples correct?
Possibly, I haven't yet read the amendment.
Well socio-political environment is what comes up with definitions for socio-political concepts and theories. The current definition in dictionaries was changed. The primary reason being is that in America "racism" in its traditional definition described the dominant group. They don't want to be considered racist so you change the definition of who can be racist. Traditionally it was about power and suppression.
And the UN hasn't altered their definition in, what, 10 years? Also how do you define "what comes up" because I typed "racism definition" into google and I don't see the UN definition anywhere so you obviously had to go looking for it. FWIW, the first one that popped up was Merriam Websters definition that I linked to earlier.
What does that have to with the cost of anal-beads in San Francisco?*
(I opted for that over the cost of tea in China since that term is such a cliche)
well, idk but since we're in a recession they better be going down because we're all going broke!!
Is it a wonder that box office numbers and alcohol consumption go up in a recession? (yeah, off-topic, I know but come on - we haven't been on topic for at least a page and a half!)
well, idk but since we're in a recession they better be going down because we're all going broke!!
Is it a wonder that box office numbers and alcohol consumption go up in a recession? (yeah, off-topic, I know but come on - we haven't been on topic for at least a page and a half!)
Well, if it wasn't for the "in your face" attitude of the gay community trying to force gay marriage on the rest of us, there wouldn't be any topic.
Well, if it wasn't for the "in your face" attitude of the gay community trying to force gay marriage on the rest of us, there wouldn't be any topic.
aww, come on! It always takes 2 sides!
aww, come on! It always takes 2 sides!
There's always at least two sides in a fight, but usually just one side that starts it.
There's always at least two sides in a fight, but usually just one side that starts it.
I thought it was some goofy sounding guy who has a bell???
That's because it fits into our current understanding of society where racism is only talking about the opression of the people who aren't in power - that's a political defintion. The reason it seems right is because we've come to accept that only "the man" and the people in power can be truly racist although, for example, a black person not letting a white person into their group is just as racist as the reverse. We'll never, ever get past our self perpetuating racism until we realize that...
The problem with this thinking is that it undermines the more important issue.
The black man cannot stop the white man from getting a job, owning a home, opportunity at a good education, decent healthcare.
The problem with this thinking is that it undermines the more important issue.
The black man cannot stop the white man from getting a job, owning a home, opportunity at a good education, decent healthcare.
Where have you been? It's 11/5/2008, "the black man" is in charge of the whole d2mn country... And, apparently, the "white man" couldn't stop "the black man" from "getting a job, owning a home, opportunity at a good education, decent healthcare" because now he's POTUS.
The problem with this thinking is that it undermines the more important issue.
The black man cannot stop the white man from getting a job, owning a home, opportunity at a good education, decent healthcare.
You are the best resource for making something of your life. Even if you're black. Healthcare is not a right, and if the law-yahs were kept out of it, it would be a lot more affordable.
I should copy that to john Edwards.
And the UN hasn't altered their definition in, what, 10 years?
Why should they. In the last 10 years have people stopped having their rights violated because of their ethnic, sexual, or social status.
Also how do you define "what comes up" because I typed "racism definition" into google and I don't see the UN definition anywhere so you obviously had to go looking for it.
Well its there.
...the gay community trying to force gay marriage on the rest of us...
Are you actually stating that you've had homosexuals try to force you marry someone of your same sex? Codswallop!
That is the only reasoned solution possible. Everything else is division.
Healthcare is not a right
What good is it to have an advanced medical system if a sizable portion of the population have no access to it?
Why should they. In the last 10 years have people stopped having their rights violated because of their ethnic, sexual, or social status.
Well its there.
The first part was sarcasm... The UN re-defines stuff all the time as they see fit. It's really an insult to the language to be constantly re-defining things just so they support your political agenda. I honestly don't know how long it's been but I can guarantee you the text book definition that dates back to 1933 is older than the UN (began in 1945 as I'm sure you're aware).