mad4u689

Now how about you find a similar piece from an Iraqi perspective? To hear the Iraqi perspective very honestly and without too much bias, I highly recommend the recent documentary "Iraq in Fragments," which is up for an Academy Award this year. The director James Longley spent two years in Iraq - moving among Kurdistan, the Shiite, and the Sunni areas - and follows the lives in three kind of... chapters, or stories. I learned a LOT from the film, and highly recommend it. Edit: In addition, I think dusqi is spot on. An Iraqi soldier has a very real and very valid perspective. This winter, when I went to Israel and spent some time with Israeli soldiers, I realized how hard it was to criticize a war or military action to the face of someone who is doing it - someone who has HAD to rationalize and really internalize everything they are doing in order to avoid cognitive dissonance and make sense of themselves - someone who is clearly a good person, and believes they are doing good, even if I know they are looking from a very limited perspective and even if I disagree of the military's actions. More specifically, they discussed stopping all Palestinians at checkpoints and why it was necessary for security. How could they not stop one, and then he/she might go blow up a mother and her baby? So how do I refute that? How does my third person perspective compete with their first person perspective? The answer is that it must, because if there had been a Palestinian in the room explaining THEIR perspective, I would have the same difficulties but in the other direction. The answer is that everyone must try to take a third person perspective, understand ALL sides, and that's the only way we can make progress and get anywhere - or else we just start calling the "other side" animals and destroy them mercilessly. And when both sides have rationalized destroying the other mercilessly - that's a lot of death and destruction, folks.

It annoys me when I try to sign up for something, and "madjoy" is already taken. I mean, I guess it's a common enough word combination, but yo, it's really my name. Madeline Joy. So clearly I deserve it more than the rest of you... :P :D

Enjoy, Rob :D I should probably do the same. I was 13 when I started using RS forums. I'm 19 now. Wth am I still doing here? :P

Haha, Dawkins. :D

:D

Racism and ignorance are very intricately tied together. Nowadays, most people are racist in some way (and most people are racist in some way - including myself, most likely) have the best intentions. They sincerely want to be good people. However, ignorance causes them to think things and make assumptions that just aren't true, and causes unintentional racism. Intolerance is not necessary for racism (though, arguably, racism is a form of oppression, and prejudice + power is necessary for it to be termed thus - however, I won't get into the politics of it.) The best thing to do is try to educate yourself. That doesn't mean you have to join the ACS if you don't have a special interest in it - but attending their events is a good start. Also, ask your friend why he isn't interested in joining the Chinese society. My guess is that it's because he feels a positive push towards his identity (Afro-Caribbean), but has no real passion or connection for a culture that is foreign to him. He probably doesn't know much about Chinese culture. I'd suggest he attend some of their events, and maybe educate himself, too :D What I meant about power relates to Edward's comment that "I would not feel scared to join a large group of White English people." That's probably because he has to face that every day - I am not judged every time I'm in a group because I'm white; rather, I just blend in. He probably gets judged every time. You should try to understand why that experience is difficult for him, and why he can be frustrated with ignorance and racism.

I feel like the tip.it off topic community has gotten CONSIDERABLY more conservative than a few years ago. It's surprised me. Tomato and Insane (and Barihawk) used to be the intelligent conservative folk, mostly.

I live about an hour (20 miles) out of Manhattan, so I'd been to the World Trade Center quite a lot. We'd often take the PATH train to the WTC - that was a good way of getting into the city, if we didn't want to drive. On 9/11, my mom and brother were actually going to take the PATH train to to the World Trade Center after school, to go to the dentist. As it turned out, that was impossible, clearly. A lot of parents of students worked either in the World Trade Center, or in the area. The father in this family of kids I was babysitting for, worked there. He got out, but wasn't able to get out of the city and home for a couple of days, I believe. The whole family is just.. they're really great people. And he's so young... When they first told us the news over the loudspeaker in 3rd period, it didn't really sink in. And then, over the course of the day, we just wound up watching the TV screen in all of our classes, and the weight of what had happened sank in - except for math. In math, our teacher's husband worked near the World Trade Center, and she hadn't heard from him, and she taught the class anyway, because she couldn't bear to watch the TV. No one learned much math that class, but I guess she needed it. All day, people were just walking through the halls, many crying, many frantically trying to call and make sure people were okay. Some students left early. I remember just feeling kind of numb, alternately wondering if I should feel more, and feeling.

I really wanted to go to Wesleyan University (a top liberal arts school in Connecticut which is also top-notch in sciences, and with a reputation for... liberalism). I applied early decision, got in, and am there now :D And I highly recommend it :D PM me if you have any queeestions about it :D

I think that's just not true :D To a large degree, at least.

The solution to having less overcrowded prisons would be to reduce crime in the first place. How can we do that? Well, we could have prisons be centers of reform that educate inmates and teach inmates how to survive out there in the real world in a crimeless lifestyle. That would reduce crime. But we're too hellbent on having "justice served" (aka revenge crimes - putting someone in a cage, having them commit slave labor, executing them, etc - exactly what our current "justice system" is) to do that.

I don't know that you can make that judgement call that the MAJORITY of African-Americans have role models who sing about breaking the law and treating everyone with disrespect. Not all black rappers have messages that are morally reprehensible; that is just often the white perception of them. (And of course, there are similar white rappers - i.e. Eminem, but we don't think about that as representing all white people). However, I do concede that there is an African-American culture which does value rap and hip-hop to a greater degree than the prevalent white culture does. However, I see no reason why this is a bad thing - it's just a bit different of a culture, and one that need not be looked down upon. The truth is, because that kind of culture is looked down upon, many African-Americans try to distance themselves from it and act more "white," or as you would say, "respectable." I would refer you back to gonpost's interesting quote perspective. No it's not. Well, in a way, it is, but in a way not. I used to think the same why the majority of people on this forum did, to be honest. And then I had five days of intensive "social justice training" where I was educated about issues of oppression, racism, prejudice, and how these can be and have been institutionalized and embedded, and how to break out of the cycle; and it really changed the way I think about EVERYTHING. It's weird, because at age 19, I assumed most of my world opinions were pretty much set - but this really shook me. I *was* shaken out of my ignorance. But it was through confrontational but savvy education - not mere aggressive "YOU'RE A STUPID RACIST." They don't have to act or dress like a gangster, just like a white person does not have to. "Thug" is an appearance. Once again, you fail to respond to my actual points, like the point I made about "chavs" not being black but still be thought of in the same. See, I do agree with a lot of the basic points Chris is trying to make. A white person - a "chav" - is able to live within this subculture, but break out of it at any time by wearing a suit or nice skirt when ze applies for an interview. A black person has to live with it day in, day out, for the rest of hir life. As for why "chavs" are thought of in a prejudiced way, even though they're not black: just because racism exists, doesn't mean that other "isms" don't exist. We should work to break down all of them :) Including classism (which is, in a large part, what the hatred of "chavs" is). I would also argue that while "chavs" and black individuals are both discriminated against, they have very different experiences of prejudice throughout their lives.

Actually, while I still disagreed with it, I found it to be more intelligent and well-articulated than most others I've seen here. I find his arguments worthy of reading and response, whereas certain others (i.e. jirka) are just not worth responding to. While I might not have worded it so... aggressively... I do think you are basically right. Locke, yes, I *was* the one who introduced the word "white" to describe the mentality you were embodying. And I will continue to maintain that the ideals you are setting - the "standards of professionalism" which provide an image of a well-tailored suit, the "respectable"ness - come from a foundation on white, Western, wealth-valuing culture. Your conception of people who don't act "respectable" seems, to me, to actually be formed largely from classist concerns (perhaps NOT racist). Also, I would like to point out that respectably dressed Middle Eastern and Asian students were discriminated against in the communities I've experienced, as well. However, I acknowledge that your view is one held by many, and that you are not likely to change your opinion, or to see how the opinions you hold are the result of an interesting interplay of sociological forces. So I'll agree to disagree :D I'm sorry, but that's just kind of out of line. I'm pretty sure it's okay to respect someone for some of the things they did, and not everything - all humans are flawed, after all.

I did, and got a 5. :) However, the situation in Iraq right now is NOT great. I agree that the US can't just leave right now - it makes no sense to topple a government, then be like "wee, gotta go!" and leave the Iraqi people in a confused governmentless anarchy. However, that isn't what's happening right now. Iraq HAS a good government, but we maintain that they aren't strong enough to stand up on their own. We maintain that position largely because there is still so much violence that clearly the Iraqi police would never be able to deal with. But we have to examine why there is still so much violence. It is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy - the more troops we bring in, the more resentful the rebels feel against this occupying force, and the more violence is created. No, I don't think the US should leave entirely, yet. I think we can't just call for immediate withdrawal of troops. However, ESCALATING the number of troops in Iraq is precisely the exact wrong thing to do. The Iraqi rebels will never die off. They have patience, they can wait 10-15 years, then start attacking again. America isn't going to keep troops in Iraq for 10 years! I read an article about a few marines saying how whenever they run into "rebels" the rebels just run off and hide. Waiting for a weak tear in their army. It won't be easy to get rid of the rebels in Iraq, they have patience we DON'T have. And for the people complaining that it's taking "too long", these types of things don't happen so fast. I'm not saying they will die off; I'm saying we should stop giving them something to rebel about.

I did, and got a 5. :) However, the situation in Iraq right now is NOT great. I agree that the US can't just leave right now - it makes no sense to topple a government, then be like "wee, gotta go!" and leave the Iraqi people in a confused governmentless anarchy. However, that isn't what's happening right now. Iraq HAS a good government, but we maintain that they aren't strong enough to stand up on their own. We maintain that position largely because there is still so much violence that clearly the Iraqi police would never be able to deal with. But we have to examine why there is still so much violence. It is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy - the more troops we bring in, the more resentful the rebels feel against this occupying force, and the more violence is created. No, I don't think the US should leave entirely, yet. I think we can't just call for immediate withdrawal of troops. However, ESCALATING the number of troops in Iraq is precisely the exact wrong thing to do.

I thought, overall, it was a pretty good speech for what it was, and he delivered it well. That said, the rhetoric he used to describe the great "evil" we face (terrorists who have a "fear of freedom"? Come on. Studies show that the only real common thread among terrorists is that they have a lack of fear. Let alone a fear of freedom... :P) made me pretty angry. There were some racist ideas coming out of the President's mouth - and the President, of all people, should be the best role model. Then again, maybe I've gotten cynical, but I guess I'm almost used to it by now.

Oh, so if all African-Americans presented themselves in a perfectly "white" manner, there would be no institutionalized racism? I don't think asking high-profile African-Americans to "act more white" and "be assimilated into white culture" is quite the solution. Rap artists and NBA stars (AND other high-profile African-Americans; way to assume the only famous African-Americans do rap or play basketball) who have a "thug" persona, but don't commit crimes and do donate money to charity - why aren't they good role models? Just because they don't fit into the fairly arbitrary white model of a good role model. There are plenty of high-profile white stars who commit drug or domestic crimes, and spend their money partying and not on charity; why doesn't that cause institutionalized racism against whites? Because institutionalized racism is embedded into a system of power, and currently, whites hold that power and are the "dominant" group receiving an unfair balance of privilege. It is more difficult for a Hispanic woman to be perceived as college-prep, and get good grades, and get good SAT scores than a white woman - but that doesn't mean she isn't just as qualified. Affirmative action just helps level the playing field so that qualified applicants get seen, across the board.

Just to clear up something: The reason chris and I are speaking about white people as privileged is that white people ARE privileged. There is subtle embedded racism everpresent in our society (that is, at least, in the US, the UK, and Australia; I can speak less for other societies internationally). For example, in kindergarten, a teacher will (without being conscious of it or realizing it) have lower expectations for a black student than a white student. Psychological studies show that when a teacher has lower expectations for a student, the student's performance suffers (and vice versa for higher expectations). Interestingly, a similar trend occurs with males and females in math and science classes - this is the most popular theory for the achievement gap between the sexes in the sciences. Living as a black person in society, every day, 24/7, you are bound to have a different experience than a white person. People will see your skin color and judge you a little bit, before making a conscious effort to not judge you (after it's already too late). Race is separate from class. The lived experience of every black person is certainly not the same as the lived experience of every working-class person, and so it is naive to think that affirmative action can just be boiled down to income.

gonpost, thanks for posting that. It really made me think.

Sadly though their differing views and beliefs can lead to a potential risk to other human life. I hope you aren't suggesting that Islam is such a belief that leads to potential risk to other human life? You're a moderator on this site; I would expect more. But maybe I'm misunderstanding.

This is the type of "thinking" that makes me sick. I can't even respond to it right now. Please read my previous post.

IF that were true, that would make sense. However, I don't think it is - racial profiling certainly does happen and is an accepted practice in the US, Israel, and (I'd presume but don't know for sure) the UK.

The problem is precisely this: While most terrorists are young Muslim men, most Muslim men aren't terrorists. That means that when you search every single Muslim man, every time, the government is officially telling you that you aren't trusted. This makes you feel like an outsider (even when you're not) and less connected to the government. Like I said in another thread, I just returned from Israel, which I found fascinating. There, the profiling that exists is FAR more extreme than it is here (I'm sure you've all heard about checkpoints, etc.) The checkpoints do often work - and if you got rid of them, you wouldn't want to be the one responsible for a mother who gets blown up. HOWEVER, the checkpoint situation has created a dynamic where Muslims and Arabs feel unwelcome in the country. By looking at someone's skin color or name, their threat level is assessed as high. Imagine if you were such a person. How could you feel patriotic toward the country? Wouldn't you get angry? Wouldn't you feel unwelcome? Wouldn't you feel like a separate nation, and want no part with that country? Because that's exactly what is happening in Israel. The security does work to a large extent, in the short term - but it creates a worse situation in the long term. Why do you think terrorism exists? Precisely because so much hate exists (on both sides), and they feed into each other, and make each side more angry. On the Jewish Israeli side, security and military action (sometimes, IMO, excessive) increases. On the Arab/Muslim/Palestinian side, terrorist activity (or lack of caring to work for peace) increases. So, no, I don't think that racism/prejudice is ever justified. Even when it seems logical, the stereotypes you make assumptions about will only make those stereotypes become self-fulfilling prophecies. (When a Muslim is told all his life that he will become a terrorist, it's difficult to break out of that expectation, and maybe he will. When a black student is told all his life that he won't succeed, it's difficult to break out of that expectation, and maybe he won't.)

Chris, I agree with almost everything you have said. That would be true only if the field were already balanced. However, subtle forms of oppression (often institutional) already work to give whites an extremely unfair balance of privilege. It is much easier for a white person to succeed and do well in school WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF TODAY'S SOCIETY than for a student of color. Therefore, the field is already tilted, and affirmative action IS just leveling it. Ooo... Smart words. I wonder why not many people thought of using income instead of race, hmmm... Every individual has myriad intersecting identities. Class, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, sex, gender expression, religion, nationality - none of these can really be isolated. However, each identity has its own power dynamic associated with it. In our current (Western) society, heterosexuals have more privilege than queer individuals. Upper and upper-middle class individuals have more privilege than working class individuals. And white individuals generally have more privilege than individuals of color - within the realm of that specific identity. Someone may be privileged in one regard, and not in another. It is important to acknowledge the privilege that has enabled us to get where we are with such ease. I have no doubt that if I had been black, subtle racism (i.e. kindergarten teachers expecting less from me to begin with, without even realizing it) would have led me to not do as well in school, and not get to where I am as easily. To be honest, I have had such a strong support system and "crutch" network that it would have been near impossible for me to fail and not go to college - despite my putting in little to no effort in high school. This is largely because of the privilege I have enjoyed. Please do not disregard the experiences of an individual living as a certain race in society, and also please do not disregard the experiences of an individual living in a certain class in society. For the record, I am a white.

I just got back from visiting Israel. The problem is that "the terrorists" is an incredibly ill-defined group. In much of the propaganda out there, Hamas is considered a terrorist group - and they ARE, and in the past have supported terrorist activities. However, they're also the best (and often only) source of funding of good and legitimate services - for example, they fund Palestinian schools that otherwise are extremely lacking. Who doesn't support improved education? So do we just take down Hamas? Does their funding for "bad" things de-legitimize the good things they do? In addition, I had the opportunity to speak to some Arab Israeli students. They didn't seem to view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, but more as something of a government, and they have a point; Hezbollah provides a lot of services for Southern Lebanese citizens that are legitimate. Hezbollah certainly isn't recognized as a government in the eyes of the UN and much of the rest of the world, so the people who fight on their behalf are labeled terrorists instead of soldiers - but deep down, at the root, how is them sending rockets into Israel so different than Israel sending missiles to them? These are deep questions, and I certainly don't mean to solve them now. I just want to point out that there's a lot more grey area than we would like to admit. Terrorists aren't just "crazies." We have to understand what has brought them to this point of killing if we even want to actually solve anything. (My personal suspicion is that military force will NOT be the solution to this problem, and in fact, will escalate tensions and just result in more death and destruction in the future.)