Racism is more than a two way street.

Blacks are every bit as racist as whites are.

Published on September 4, 2005 By Moderateman In US Domestic

I am so tired of every time someone points out a black doing anything, they get leaped all over and called racist, well not every person that mentions the word black is a racist I know I am not.

The overuse of blacks of the race card is getting tiresome.

There are just too many examples to point out so I am not going to cite any.
Surely if I do someone will be quick to point out how racist that is, or what a closet racist I am.

MOST of the looting in New Orleans was done by blacks {fact} pointing this out is just calling it like it is, not some kind of vast white right wing conspiracy.

I see plenty of black racism that no one dares point out because it ain't politically correct to do so.

This crying racist is going the way of the boy that cried wolf.

I had my ass handed to me in Harlem for the crime of www.. {walking while white} what was I doing in Harlem? I lived there is what.

I was robbed at gunpoint by blacks while having my store open in Oakland California that just loved taunting me with racial slurs while they were taking a money donation from me at gunpoint. Am I to assume from that 2 instances {new york and 3300 miles away in Oakland that all blacks are thugs and thieves? nope I do not.

Are all blacks racist? I think not, well neither are whites all racist either.

I have been called in my life "dirty Jew" by both whites and blacks "Jesse Jackson called new york city, Jew york city where was the outrage then? The leader of the black Muslim nation Louis farrakhan is an out and out Jew hater, a white hater too, why are these two not mentioned when racism is being talked about?

Before you "african americans" throw stones
take a look at you own behavior, and the general behavior of your own people.
"

Comments (Page 3)

Moderateman

on Sep 05, 2005

#30 by Manopeace
Monday, September 05, 2005

Reminds me of a thread I wrote... where I saw 'suspected thieves' and called the police. The first question they asked me was "Were they Arabs"?
I took that as racist as I was able to identify them and tell the cops what they were wearing. The assumption that they were Arabs was just downright racist.

when the majoritty of crime is perpatrated by purple people, it's not uncommon to ask where they purple.That is not racist but using common sense and history.

Moderateman

on Sep 05, 2005

#33 by little_whip
Monday, September 05, 2005

Identifying the perpertrators of a crime as one race or another is one thing

As i did, when I asked the question "Why are all these looters black?"

I realize I should have used "the overwhelming majority of" rather than "all of" but I hate long titles that spill over into the second line of the sidebar.

If they had all been lesbians, or brazilians with pink hair, it would have been a legitimate question as well. But when asked of blacks, all hell breaks loose.

we are just not being politically correct enough, i AM TIRED OF p.c. BEHAVIOR AND WHEN THAT BEHAVIOR HAS ONE SET OF RULES FOR ONE RACE AND A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET FOR ANOTHER, Well that's just wrong and unfair.

philomedy

on Sep 05, 2005

and where did I do this?

Read what you write.

Let me pose a question: Why were you compelled to single out black people in this article? Do only black people have to look at what all other black people do before they criticize someone else, or does that go for whites and hispanics and asians and jews as well? And let's say that a black person does consider the actions of black people and then criticizes someone? Is their claim invalidated? More validated? I guess the place where I'm going with this is, what was your point?

As i did, when I asked the question "Why are all these looters black?"

You'll notice that MM's comments about identifying criminals mentioned a lot of other things beside race, like height, weight, hair color, clothing, etc. Just citing race, or just citing height or weight is an inadequate description, and so (rightfully) is met with indignation. If your entire description of a criminal is "he's black" or "he's tall" or "he's fat" or "he's got short hair", and the cops go and stop and question every black guy or every tall guy or every fat guy or every guy with short hair, there's going to be backlash from all of those people.

You obviously don't want to go into what I think of you, so all I'll say here is that your words went far beyond description.

Dr Guy

on Sep 05, 2005

Identifying the perpertrators of a crime as one race or another is one thing. making a sweeping generalization based upon incomplete data and extending that to a race is another.

and where did I do this?

Never said you did. I was making an observation on generalizations.

Dr Guy

on Sep 05, 2005

As i did, when I asked the question "Why are all these looters black?"

Never said you did not in your original thesis.

Dr Guy

on Sep 05, 2005

Since I instigated this brouhaha, I will respond. Identifying criminals of any race is never wrong. Making criminals of a race always is.

philomedy

on Sep 05, 2005

Gee whiz, I was supposed to say

How about if you want to write an article about race relations, you do it without questioning why an entire race performs an illegal activity (strike 1), you do it without implying that there's some difference between races that leads one race to commit crimes while others don't (strike 2), and you actually have the guts to answer the question that you pose (strike 3)?

philomedy

on Sep 05, 2005

pfft. Dont let your personal dislike of me stand in the way of reason, Phil...we know you wouldnt do that.

Just like you woulnd't possibly let your personal dislike of blacks affect your reasoning. It's not like you'd ever say they were all looters or anything.

Do you REALLY require that many "disclaimers for the dense?"

Forgive me if I require a little explanation. I must not speak racist.

philomedy

on Sep 05, 2005

Oh btw, feel free to come talk on the thread that's actually about this, instead of taking over MM's thread with it.

Moderateman

on Sep 05, 2005

well reading you 2 whip, philo was fun.. sounds like a good exchange. who knows maybe a comming together of ideas.

Moderateman

on Sep 06, 2005

Reply By: little_whipPosted: Tuesday, September 06, 2005It's not like you'd ever say they were all looters or anything.Again, you put words in my mouth, reversing the order in which they were said to change the meaning entirely.I NEVER said all blacks were looters, I said all the looters were black. Huge difference there.

typical , to turn ther order of words around to try and make a point. happens to me alla time.

philomedy

on Sep 06, 2005

I NEVER said all blacks were looters, I said all the looters were black. Huge difference there.

It's funny how you never imply anything, but everyone else does, isn't it?

I could say the same to you, I had a thread going where you could have expressed this, but you chose to take it to your own blog.

Yeah, my blog, where I can say whatever I want. Not to someone else's blog about a completely unrelated subject.

And given your history, one of two things would have happened had I responded on your blog: A) You would have blacklisted me or deleted my comments cuz your delicate nature can't stand cursing, or

I would have been reported to the moderators for bruising the delicate flower with my horrible inappropriate language.

drmiler

on Sep 06, 2005

I NEVER said all blacks were looters, I said all the looters were black. Huge difference there.

It's funny how you never imply anything, but everyone else does, isn't it?

I could say the same to you, I had a thread going where you could have expressed this, but you chose to take it to your own blog.

Yeah, my blog, where I can say whatever I want. Not to someone else's blog about a completely unrelated subject.

Are we having a hard time comprehending the written word? "You're" the one doing the implying here.

I NEVER said all blacks were looters, I said all the looters were black. Huge difference there.

What is so hard to understand here? This is NOT a racial statement! But you're trying to make it one, aren't cha?

Draginol

on Sep 06, 2005

I guess my view is what exactly is the relevance of pointing out what the pigment of the looters is? I mean, what's the point? Most of the looters were male too. They were mostly of a certain age group.

Unless the argument is that people who are "black" are more likely to steal than other reasons, then there's no real point in observing the color of the skin of the looters.

Pointing out the color of someone's skin isn't racism. It depends on what the motivation is behind pointing out someone's skin color.

bakerstreet

on Sep 07, 2005

I saw it as more of an observation. I mean, it was in the form of a question, right? I could give you several answers for why the majority of the looters were black, all of them PC and reasonable.

I don't for a moment have any doubt that LW has some beliefs that many would find distasteful. It does give me pause when we can't ask questions like that, though, considering it IS a dangerous social problem. The mere fact that looting is on the rise, now, after everyone knows about it and there are thousands of boots on the ground, makes me worry.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!