Nobody here is denying the continued existence of racism.

In a previous post of mine, I give examples of racism being practiced in the Middle East and in Japan.

While we acknowledge the continued existence of real racism, we should also acknowledge the existence of false claims of racism.

Here is an example of a false claim of racism:
Claiming that the Tea Party is racist.

Yeah, that image shown above is falsely representing the Tea Party.

Here is another example of a false claim of racism:
Claiming that most Americans are racists.

The former false claim is used in an attempt to silence political opponents.

The latter false claim is, IMHO, an act of psychological projection on the part of the one who is making the claim.

One very good example of brute collectivism would be the NOI. They don't allow whites or Jews in their gang.

Mormons used to be but,they were pressured into changing their belief system and allow Negros into their cult.

the tea party is obviously not racist, it is not a person
but it certainly includes racist people,,

that it includes racist people doesn't mean all people in the tea party are racist

most americans are racist, there is no way psychologically for them NOT TO BE, if they grow up with media and public education, the mind NATURALLY categorizes things and one category we learn to identify with early and often is RACE

it is also almost certainly silly to expect people to talk about the exceptions to a topic whenever they talk about a topic

when we talk about rape, we aren't obligated to talk about false rape accusations

when we talk about murder , we aren't obligated to talk about murders that go unsolved

there is usually a CONTEXT Set by the speaker of the boundaries and conditions of THEIR subject, without being subject to expand their boundary by those watching or listening,,,


If I talk about dogs, I don't have to talk about all the animals that are confused for dogs,,etc,,,


it opens up the kind of tangents in discussion that drive me quite mad actually,,,

[redacted]

America or England? Are those the two choices?

Honestly, the imperialistic nature of the British empire was genocidal... but the sun totally set on that.

America was also genocidal. I mean... we did use biological warfare against an entire nation that had no comprehension of the death-gift they were accepting.

So, I don't know if England ever used chemical warfare, but I know that America did and so my vote goes to them.

Damn, we're mean.

The fight against racism is against its appearance in any kind of legislation, it was originally about racism in laws that excluded some people from enjoying the same freedoms as other people, by law. The ridicule and slander was just icing on the cake, it was the laws (eg. apartheid) which were the big affront, the fact those subject to it were often treated with no better rights than animals by law enforcement and government bodies.

Nowadays in developed nations most racist legislation has disappeared, there are simply remnants of a bygone age still poking its ugly head up because no legal system has really been completely reformed since mediaeval times. Particularly in colonial nations where indigenous peoples were displaced, the very foundations of the legal system were specifically constructed to minoritise the indigenous populations often to the point of dehumanisation, so the very structure of law and governments are based heavily in racist theories and assertions held up with a face of innocence and conviction.

Where it stands today, a modern governing administration and/or legislative body can appease the public at large satisfactorily not by awarding more indigenous awards and compensation for proved crimes, nor by convening trials for accountability and lawsuit upon general humanitarian grounds, but by prosecuting members of the general public accused of speaking a racial slur or in some other way offending a person of a different culture.

This is appeasement to avoid reformation of residual, true racism, that which is buried in the very manner in which colonial nations came into being. And the fact is people which are very different culturally tend to become offended as easily as they are, like all other people, fallible and capable of misinterpretation or agenda.

eg. in Australia welfare organisations are required by law to ask whether any applicants wish to be identified as an indigenous person, so that certain specialised facilities maybe provided.
Yet if you identify as indigenous and live in the Northern Territory any wages or payments you're entitled to are held in trust and not paid directly, an advocate handles your finances by law, because public drunkeness is a big issue there and in trying to combat it, the local government has decided aboriginals are too barbaric to handle money, they're all just going to drink and take drugs with it, so it's kept from them even if they earned it, they have to apply for things they wish to buy with their own money.

Fighting racism whilst being inherently racist. That's the course of public appeasement on racism.

fighting racism while being inherently racist,,,,


profound