It's just that it wasn't only your first statement but your subsequent best efforts amounted to more profiling. You just dug a pretty deep hole trying to explain yourself with more and more examples that were akin to saying:
He's black "check"
He's young "check
He's male "check
" I wouldn't be surprised if he's a criminal. "
That's what ticked me off. I think we're trying to tell you that that logic is not a good way to approach anything.
Wow now you're taking me WAAAAAAYYYY out of context. Go back and read the post in which I brought up the young black male thing again.
I was making a point about generalizations not black people. The fact that you are saying my earlier post is akin to that crap you have above leads me to believe you are way out of touch on this discussion (and need to be a little less judgmental yourself because that drivel of yours i just quoted is nonsensical crap designed to shock not to debate.)
I don't know how much more I can do to make you realize what I meant.
I know what you are trying to say, but ticking off characteristics about Mccain or old American southerners and coming to the conclusion that there is a strong possibility that they are 'racists' is same stream of logic in action. I'm just trying to point out that it's not so different. It's just profiling again. I'm sorry, I know this thread is going badly. Some of it is my fault but I really vehmentely hate profiling, I hate generalizations, and I hate racism.
All of the above which I have personally experienced in Calgary and let me tell you, there isn't much that makes me angry or makes me feel hurt...but those things do.
I know what you are trying to say, but ticking off characteristics about Mccain or old American southerners and coming to the conclusion that there is a strong possibility that they are 'racists' is same stream of logic in action. I'm just trying to point out that it's not so different. It's just profiling again. I'm sorry, I know this thread is going badly. Some of it is my fault but I really vehmentely hate profiling, I hate generalizations, and I hate racism.
All of the above which I have personally experienced in Calgary and let me tell you, there isn't much that makes me angry or makes me feel hurt...but those things do.
Let's not forget that when I was pointing out McCain's characteristics I was merely trying to support my viewpoint that it isn't totally out of the question to at least say that McCain may be a racist.
All that being said I empathize with your situation and being a white male I likely have not experienced profiling the way a person of Asian descent may have, like you. But I want to make it quite clear that my attempt at guessing whether or not McCain is a racist was based on numerous traits that, as I've said before are likely statistically proven to be traits more often associated with racism than numerous other demographics. While there are numerous traits that he does not possess that are likely associated with being racist too.
Generalizations are ok, racism is not. Profiling is ok (I'm thinking more criminals, sociology and not racial profiling at the airport where only brown people get "randomly" searched), using profiling to make concrete opinions isn't.
I don't mean to be rude but I'd say your oversensitivity has definitely got the best of you here, so much so that it has had an opposite affect where you've just assumed I must be a stupid, typical, stereotyping jack off. By doing so I actually got pretty offended because you were stereotyping me.
Let's not forget that when I was pointing out McCain's characteristics I was merely trying to support my viewpoint that it isn't totally out of the question to at least say that McCain may be a racist.
I know I'm late to the party here, but he wasn't using that word to describe an entire race of people, he was using it to describe a select few that tortured him for 5 1/2 years. I don't see how what he said could be confused with racism. If part of his platform was that no Vietnamese can vote in the USA, that would be racism.
I know I'm late to the party here, but he wasn't using that word to describe an entire race of people, he was using it to describe a select few that tortured him for 5 1/2 years. I don't see how what he said could be confused with racism. If part of his platform was that no Vietnamese can vote in the USA, that would be racism.
Yeah my saying he might be a racist had less to do with the comment than him in general (although let me be clear I have no actual evidence to suggest he's actually racist).
Personally I find the comment rather inconsequential when taken in context, like you said he was tortured for 5 1/2 years I would expect him to harbor some pretty angry feelings. Although it still isn't a word someone should be saying in any case regardless of context.
flip--I don't want to dog-pile on you, so I'll add this proviso: a 70-year old white man from the South is old enough to have grown up in the Jim Crow years, so in that context they've seen a lot of change in race relations in the U.S. In that sense, it may be more likely that they harbor racial prejudice than some other person, just because they were raised in a different context, and under different belief systems. Not justifying it, just noting it for the record. That of course doesn't make him a racist--people can change over the years, see the error of their ways, or simply forget the blind hostility of a different time. I do think it's important to remember that the history of racism in the U.S. is not some distant memory--there are plenty of people alive today who lived through it. Even slavery in the U.S. was not so very long ago in real terms, and it's not like things changed overnight with Emancipation, or indeed with Brown v. Board of Education, etc. Change takes time--generations. And that change is still going on in the U.S. just as it is elsewhere in the world.
But a few points of fact: Arizona isn't really "the South." It's usually considered the "Sun Belt" or the "Southwest." It's demographically more similar to Nevada than Alabama. Secondly, my feeling on affluence is opposite to yours--I think it's much likelier that you'll find racist attitudes among the poor, for two reasons: a) they look for reasons to explain their disenfranchisement and b) they are usually less educated.
As for the topic, I think it's insensitive to continue to use the word after he's been asked to stop--but it doesn't necessarily make him a racist. You can understand why he'd be hostile to his captors, and the word for him (by his own explanation) helps him to express his anger toward them for what they did to him. Understandable. But he probably should do it in private, in my view--because to someone else the term may represent all sorts of other things that he doesn't mean. But a racist? Naah. That doesn't seem like his style.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
2 things.
1....I highly doubt "old rich white men (and women for that matter) from the South" are any more likely to be rascists than there Northern brethern. Do they exist? Sure they do, but they exist EVERYWHERE. I think people that do not live in the South have a very distorted view of it. Yes there are differences in culture...as there is in any part of any country, but that means squat.
2. I think that the term being discussed is about a NATIONALITY not a RACE. I wish people would differentiate these things. I remember studying Vietnam and this was part of the course. Its a shortened version of nother word describing the people of NVK. Its the same thing as calling Americans.....Yanks...which is short for Yankees. Should they then be appalled for being called such? No of course not. Same thing with this subject.
1....I highly doubt "old rich white men (and women for that matter) from the South" are any more likely to be rascists than there Northern brethern. Do they exist? Sure they do, but they exist EVERYWHERE. I think people that do not live in the South have a very distorted view of it. Yes there are differences in culture...as there is in any part of any country, but that means squat.
2. I think that the term being discussed is about a NATIONALITY not a RACE. I wish people would differentiate these things. I remember studying Vietnam and this was part of the course. Its a shortened version of nother word describing the people of NVK. Its the same thing as calling Americans.....Yanks...which is short for Yankees. Should they then be appalled for being called such? No of course not. Same thing with this subject.
Man I didn't expect to wake up to 4 pages. I have to get ready for work and I'll post my real thoughts in a hour or two. The word actually comes from our invasion of Haiti. There is a book out about McCain and the word written by an Asian man.
I know I'm late to the party here, but he wasn't using that word to describe an entire race of people, he was using it to describe a select few that tortured him for 5 1/2 years. I don't see how what he said could be confused with racism. If part of his platform was that no Vietnamese can vote in the USA, that would be racism.
I agree that it wasn't used to describe an entire race of people but for someone in his position it's still uncalled for. This article is from 2000 so hopefully he's softened his stance. It's the past and you have to move on. You might not fully overcome something a dramatic as being a POW and shouldn't even expect to but you still have to learn how to cope and deal with it in a professional manner. I don't want someone who could be the leader of the free world using those terms.
If someone was beaten by a group of black men then used racist terms to describe that group claiming that it's only towards the attackers not the entire race I doubt many would feel my sympathy. If anything the sympathy felt for the beating would be offset by my racist remarks.
Pretty good debate in here... good question about dropping the n-bomb though... let's say a guy is eating dinner and his house gets home-invaded by 6 black men... they tie the family up, beat them, rob them and leave... in an interview on camera later, the man describes to the reporter that he is certain that they were six n****rs that robbed and beat him and his family... is that racist? He's only describing the pricks that did this... I think it certainly is.
EDIT - Or, put yourself in the victim's shoes here... would you use the same language? I'm gonna guess that most if not all of you wouldn't... and if I'm right, why wouldn't you?
Pretty good debate in here... good question about dropping the n-bomb though... let's say a guy is eating dinner and his house gets home-invaded by 6 black men... they tie the family up, beat them, rob them and leave... in an interview on camera later, the man describes to the reporter that he is certain that they were six n****rs that robbed and beat him and his family... is that racist? He's only describing the pricks that did this... I think it certainly is.
EDIT - Or, put yourself in the victim's shoes here... would you use the same language? I'm gonna guess that most if not all of you wouldn't... and if I'm right, why wouldn't you?
That's my problem with it. Why does he have to use a race based term? Why can't he say s or dirtbags or worse that doesn't have any attachment to race?
By the way I don't think that Mccain is a racist. I do feel that he shouldn't use that term as it is offensive and he should be intelligent enough to not use it.
Last edited by FlamingLonghorn; 08-27-2008 at 08:29 AM.
flip--I don't want to dog-pile on you, so I'll add this proviso: a 70-year old white man from the South is old enough to have grown up in the Jim Crow years, so in that context they've seen a lot of change in race relations in the U.S. In that sense, it may be more likely that they harbor racial prejudice than some other person, just because they were raised in a different context, and under different belief systems. Not justifying it, just noting it for the record. That of course doesn't make him a racist--people can change over the years, see the error of their ways, or simply forget the blind hostility of a different time. I do think it's important to remember that the history of racism in the U.S. is not some distant memory--there are plenty of people alive today who lived through it. Even slavery in the U.S. was not so very long ago in real terms, and it's not like things changed overnight with Emancipation, or indeed with Brown v. Board of Education, etc. Change takes time--generations. And that change is still going on in the U.S. just as it is elsewhere in the world.
But a few points of fact: Arizona isn't really "the South." It's usually considered the "Sun Belt" or the "Southwest." It's demographically more similar to Nevada than Alabama. Secondly, my feeling on affluence is opposite to yours--I think it's much likelier that you'll find racist attitudes among the poor, for two reasons: a) they look for reasons to explain their disenfranchisement and b) they are usually less educated.
As for the topic, I think it's insensitive to continue to use the word after he's been asked to stop--but it doesn't necessarily make him a racist. You can understand why he'd be hostile to his captors, and the word for him (by his own explanation) helps him to express his anger toward them for what they did to him. Understandable. But he probably should do it in private, in my view--because to someone else the term may represent all sorts of other things that he doesn't mean. But a racist? Naah. That doesn't seem like his style.
Another fact about McCain that might lend towards racism is that he was opposed to MLK Jr. day for Arizona and Arizona is also the last state to have it as a recognized holiday. He did say he was wrong about that though, which I can admire a man especially a politician who can admit when he has made a mistake.
This comes from a paper based in a city that releases illegals so they can murder US CIVILIANS.
MCCAIN had every right to use whatever language he wanted to describe those complete waste of human excrament. Its too bad Vietnam didnt allow abortion, maybe some of those guards would have been casualties of it.
Again, the Liberal based media attempts to shame McCain's character by any and all means necessary. I wont be surprised to see this on MSNBC or ABC Sunday News this weekend as a result.
HA HA HA.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
I agree with most here that in the context MacCain used the term it wasn’t racially motivated. My issue is that about a week ago I was watching MacCain on some show talking about his time as a POW. He concluded it with saying some along the lines of “through the grace of god I was able to forgive my captors for what they had done to me” pretty admirable. But here he says he “hates them” so much so that he isn’t even willing to back down on comments that could offend a large demographic of people.
That's my problem with it. Why does he have to use a race based term? Why can't he say s or dirtbags or worse that doesn't have any attachment to race?
By the way I don't think that Mccain is a racist. I do feel that he shouldn't use that term as it is offensive and he should be intelligent enough to not use it.
Yeah, I think you're right actually. Using my example, the guy using the n-bomb isn't necessarily racist, but I'm definitely against the use of those types of words.
My Fiancees Bros is in the US Army Reserves and he just got back from a tour in Kuwait. The US Army teaches racism. They promote the use of 'slurs' when talking about the enemy. This is not a new thing, it is used to de-humanize the enemy. In WW2 they called the Germans 'Krauts', In Nam it was g**k. In Iraq they call them 'Hodgies'. Not sure of the spelling, but that is my phonetic version (wtf, why can't you spell phonetic phonetically?)...
This comes from a paper based in a city that releases illegals so they can murder US CIVILIANS.
MCCAIN had every right to use whatever language he wanted to describe those complete waste of human excrament. Its too bad Vietnam didnt allow abortion, maybe some of those guards would have been casualties of it.
Again, the Liberal based media attempts to shame McCain's character by any and all means necessary. I wont be surprised to see this on MSNBC or ABC Sunday News this weekend as a result.
HA HA HA.
Ouch, this has blue box written all over it. Uncalled for.
From the comedic mind of Jim Norton. Even makes the same reference as Flip does. Relevant piece starts @ 7:00 in video 1, carries over to #2 (Jesse Jackson reference).
Not safe for work, language.
Sorry, this has to be quoted. Best post in this thread.
