Race and Racism in The United States

[The Cobalt Sky]

Maybe touch on it a little more. School systems seem to be somewhat avoiding it. Apparently a few in Texas have decided to call the trans-Atlantic slave trade the the Atlantic triangular trade, conveniently omitting the bit about slavery, although I think they changed it back. It might not seem like much, but it's the small things that can end up being big and then detrimental. History is sacred, and to know who your ancestors really were, no matter how much it hurts, I believe, is one's sacred duty in life, along with building society for the benefit of everyone.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bryan-mon ... 86633.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/2 ... 24157.html

Strictly speaking, only one leg of the trade triangle was actually the one traversed by slave ships: the one from Africa to the colonies. The leg from the colonies to Europe took raw materials like cotton, sugar, and tobacco. The leg from Europe to africa brought manufactured good and luxuries. At least, that's how it's usually educated. I'm curious if they just wanted to better specify the title of the triangle, which I can understand; but if they omitted the slave trade altogether that's another story.

Yes. I'm fairly certain the intent was to erase slavery altogether, though.

In any case, Texas is as always the exception, rather than the rule. Public education about history in most of America focuses in on black involvement (Crispus Attucks, for example, wouldn't be famous if it weren't for his race) and English courses love to focus on African novels or books with focuses on poor treatment of blacks. I cannot attest to Texas, but here in PA my 'World Literature' course featured three books from African writers (Cry, the Beloved Country; Things Fall Apart; Half of a Yellow Sun) and one from Germany, and my American literature course featured Uncle Tom's Cabin, To Kill a Mockingbird, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, and The Help. There's really not too much more my school could've touched on without excluding literature not related to blacks in some way.

We may need to do more research into the schooling systems around the country. I'm personally from Massachusetts, and even here I think that it isn't covered enough. When I went through elementary school, I felt like we only briefly touched upon it. The issue may also be not just learning about the involvement of blacks in history, but blatantly more coverage of how not to be racist. This inclusion of African Americans in literature may also be a fairly new phenomenon as well, and may only be present in the Northeast. These statistics are of all of America, too, so we might not be the epicenter of the problem, but I'm not sure. It is my suspicion, though, that much of the rest of the country's coverage of these issues is poor at best.

[Patridam]

It's on the front page, you don't need to copy it every single time.

I would counter that they are searched more often because they are more likely to live in high crime areas. A much larger portion of whites live in posh suburbs - police don't go around frisking people in areas like that, because there isn't much crime like there is in the inner city. This source of yours simply says 'it's not because of that' without providing an explanation of how they know.

Um... Why don't you actually read the part where they explain that blacks stopped weren't more likely to have weapons, drugs, etc than white people. There's literally no reason to search minorities more often if they aren't more likely to be holding drugs or illegal weapons. The only explanation is racism and their explanation for why they don't buy other explanations is there you just ignore it for some reason like you ignored shit that I posted.

Um.. why don't you actually consider what I'm saying for a moment rather than tell me to keep rereading everything. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're an idiot.

Police, underfunded as they are, focus their efforts on areas that have more crime. Neighborhoods that have more crime are going to have more officers patrolling, more officers stopping people, more frisking people. So it would stand to reason that people living in neighborhoods that have more crime are going to be frisked more often. Blacks (as a generalization, mostly to do with the FHA bias/white flight of 60 years past) live in inner city areas with more crime. So they are going to get frisked more.

Whether or not such frisks bear fruit is functionally irrelevant to the situation, it's a matter of police presence. If you compared the amount of people frisked, but instead of arraying by race you separated it by the police presence in the area it occurred, you'd see a pattern.

Also, I ignore any posts that resort to angry and or impolite language, and many of yours have.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Um... Why don't you actually read the part where they explain that blacks stopped weren't more likely to have weapons, drugs, etc than white people. There's literally no reason to search minorities more often if they aren't more likely to be holding drugs or illegal weapons. The only explanation is racism and their explanation for why they don't buy other explanations is there you just ignore it for some reason like you ignored shit that I posted.

Um.. why don't you actually consider what I'm saying for a moment rather than tell me to keep rereading everything. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're an idiot.

Police, underfunded as they are, focus their efforts on areas that have more crime. Neighborhoods that have more crime are going to have more officers patrolling, more officers stopping people, more frisking people. So it would stand to reason that people living in neighborhoods that have more crime are going to be frisked more often. Blacks (as a generalization, mostly to do with the FHA bias/white flight of 60 years past) live in inner city areas with more crime. So they are going to get frisked more.

Whether or not such frisks bear fruit is functionally irrelevant to the situation, it's a matter of police presence. If you compared the amount of people frisked, but instead of arraying by race you separated it by the police presence in the area it occurred, you'd see a pattern.

Also, I ignore any posts that resort to angry and or impolite language, and many of yours have.

It specifically says it isn't because of high crime areas.
"Not only did we find that African Americans and Latinos were subjected to more stops, frisks, searches and arrests than whites, we also found that these additional police actions aren't because of the fact that people of color live in higher-crime areas or because they more often carry drugs or weapons, or any other legitimate reason that we can discern from the rich set of data we examined.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23 ... oe-ayres23

[Patridam]

Um.. why don't you actually consider what I'm saying for a moment rather than tell me to keep rereading everything. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're an idiot.

Police, underfunded as they are, focus their efforts on areas that have more crime. Neighborhoods that have more crime are going to have more officers patrolling, more officers stopping people, more frisking people. So it would stand to reason that people living in neighborhoods that have more crime are going to be frisked more often. Blacks (as a generalization, mostly to do with the FHA bias/white flight of 60 years past) live in inner city areas with more crime. So they are going to get frisked more.

Whether or not such frisks bear fruit is functionally irrelevant to the situation, it's a matter of police presence. If you compared the amount of people frisked, but instead of arraying by race you separated it by the police presence in the area it occurred, you'd see a pattern.

Also, I ignore any posts that resort to angry and or impolite language, and many of yours have.

It specifically says it isn't because of high crime areas.
"Not only did we find that African Americans and Latinos were subjected to more stops, frisks, searches and arrests than whites, we also found that these additional police actions aren't because of the fact that people of color live in higher-crime areas or because they more often carry drugs or weapons, or any other legitimate reason that we can discern from the rich set of data we examined.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23 ... oe-ayres23

It presents no explanation for why they reached that conclusion.

[Mavorpen]

Police, underfunded as they are, focus their efforts on areas that have more crime. Neighborhoods that have more crime are going to have more officers patrolling, more officers stopping people, more frisking people. So it would stand to reason that people living in neighborhoods that have more crime are going to be frisked more often. Blacks (as a generalization, mostly to do with the FHA bias/white flight of 60 years past) live in inner city areas with more crime. So they are going to get frisked more.

This is all well and nice, but it's utter bullshit when you actually read what was posted. Focusing on certain areas only works when the crime is ACTUALLY centered in that area. The source he posted demonstrated that the profiling does not work. So either there is more crime and the police are consciously avoiding the criminals or the profiling doesn't actually work because they AREN'T committing crimes that stop and frisk are meant to prevent at a higher rate, making your explanation bullshit.

Whether or not such frisks bear fruit is functionally irrelevant to the situation, it's a matter of police presence.

Just because it proved you wrong yet again doesn't make it irrelevant.

If you compared the amount of people frisked, but instead of arraying by race you separated it by the police presence in the area it occurred, you'd see a pattern.

And I'm sure you have a source to back this up and did not pull this out of thin air.

I mean come on, you're literally combating actual research on nothing more than faith.

[Mavorpen]

It specifically says it isn't because of high crime areas.
"Not only did we find that African Americans and Latinos were subjected to more stops, frisks, searches and arrests than whites, we also found that these additional police actions aren't because of the fact that people of color live in higher-crime areas or because they more often carry drugs or weapons, or any other legitimate reason that we can discern from the rich set of data we examined.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23 ... oe-ayres23

It presents no explanation for why they reached that conclusion.

Yes it fucking did. It already stated that blacks weren't more likely to carry drugs or weapons and so the explanation that they were subjected to more stop and frisk because they were more likely to commit crimes stop and frisk are supposed to combat is unsubstantiated and downright refuted by research. Seriously what do you have against reading?

[Patridam]

Police, underfunded as they are, focus their efforts on areas that have more crime. Neighborhoods that have more crime are going to have more officers patrolling, more officers stopping people, more frisking people. So it would stand to reason that people living in neighborhoods that have more crime are going to be frisked more often. Blacks (as a generalization, mostly to do with the FHA bias/white flight of 60 years past) live in inner city areas with more crime. So they are going to get frisked more.

This is all well and nice, but it's utter bullshit when you actually read what was posted. Focusing on certain areas only works when the crime is ACTUALLY centered in that area. The source he posted demonstrated that the profiling does not work. So either there is more crime and the police are consciously avoiding the criminals or the profiling doesn't actually work because they AREN'T committing crimes that stop and frisk are meant to prevent at a higher rate, making your explanation bullshit.

Whether or not such frisks bear fruit is functionally irrelevant to the situation, it's a matter of police presence.

Just because it proved you wrong yet again doesn't make it irrelevant.

If you compared the amount of people frisked, but instead of arraying by race you separated it by the police presence in the area it occurred, you'd see a pattern.

And I'm sure you have a source to back this up and did not pull this out of thin air.

I mean come on, you're literally combating actual research on nothing more than faith.

You realize that the source you are all quoting from is from the opinion section of a notoriously liberally-biased newspaper.

[Mavorpen]

Also, I ignore any posts that resort to angry and or impolite language, and many of yours have.

Stop fucking lying.

Oooh, watch out, this tough guy's using bad words.

You said that to prove that the crime disparity was not a result of racial profiling, you would have to compare our disparity between races in regards to criminal arrest/conviction to a control group without racial profiling

By your own admission, no such place without racial profiling so as to provide control group has existed, or will exist. Without the control group, no comparison can be made, therefore your demand can never be met.

You are literally asking for evidence that can never exist to prove you wrong.

No, you ignore posts or sections of posts that are inconvenient for your unsubstantiated claims. Don't blatantly lie when I can go back and read your posts.

[Mavorpen]

This is all well and nice, but it's utter bullshit when you actually read what was posted. Focusing on certain areas only works when the crime is ACTUALLY centered in that area. The source he posted demonstrated that the profiling does not work. So either there is more crime and the police are consciously avoiding the criminals or the profiling doesn't actually work because they AREN'T committing crimes that stop and frisk are meant to prevent at a higher rate, making your explanation bullshit.

Just because it proved you wrong yet again doesn't make it irrelevant.

And I'm sure you have a source to back this up and did not pull this out of thin air.

I mean come on, you're literally combating actual research on nothing more than faith.

You realize that the source you are all quoting from is from the opinion section of a notoriously liberally-biased newspaper.

No I'm not. I'm citing the research paper the source itself is citing.

Nice try though. Are you going to address my post now?

[Patridam]

Also, I ignore any posts that resort to angry and or impolite language, and many of yours have.

Oooh, watch out, this tough guy's using bad words.

You said that to prove that the crime disparity was not a result of racial profiling, you would have to compare our disparity between races in regards to criminal arrest/conviction to a control group without racial profiling

By your own admission, no such place without racial profiling so as to provide control group has existed, or will exist. Without the control group, no comparison can be made, therefore your demand can never be met.

You are literally asking for evidence that can never exist to prove you wrong.

No, you ignore posts or sections of posts that are inconvenient for your unsubstantiated claims. Don't blatantly lie when I can go back and read your posts.

At the point when I expressed displeasure at your language and tone which you still continued, yes, I chose to stop discussing with someone as rude as yourself.

What was it you wanted? An explanation (other than your catch-all 'systemic racism') to explain why many blacks remain poor in the inner city? An explanation as to why the evidence you are demanding to prove you wrong is impossible to obtain?

[Mavorpen]

At the point when I expressed displeasure at your language and tone which you still continued, yes, I chose to stop discussing with someone as rude as yourself.

And it just HAPPENED to be the part where you dodged parts of my posts proving you wrong because you didn't have a response and I pointed that out repeatedly, rather than any other time before when I had the exact same tone? Yeah, riiiight.

What was it you wanted? An explanation (other than your catch-all 'systemic racism') to explain why many blacks remain poor in the inner city?

Yes.

An explanation as to why the evidence you are demanding to prove you wrong is impossible to obtain?

And you're STILL pushing this stupid straw man after I already explained this to you?

Oooh, watch out, this tough guy's using bad words.

You said that to prove that the crime disparity was not a result of racial profiling, you would have to compare our disparity between races in regards to criminal arrest/conviction to a control group without racial profiling

Yes, that's because every single other explanation so far has utterly no standing or substantiation, and your refusal to provide evidence for those other explanations demonstrates this fact. I GAVE you other scenarios where you could demonstrate to me that I'm wrong in another post. You chose to ignore it and latch onto your downright asinine and dishonest straw man of my argument because let's face it, you have utterly no damn clue what you're talking about. You have utterly NO evidence to support your stance, and your only final recourse is to ignore all of my arguments while attacking caricatures you've erected to knock over easily with a simple tap. It's wearing thin.

By your own admission, no such place without racial profiling so as to provide control group has existed, or will exist. Without the control group, no comparison can be made, therefore your demand can never be met.

Yeah, that's nice, now actually read the rest of my damn post instead of childishly ignoring it, because I EXPLICITLY explained to you this is a shitty straw man. Me asking you for evidence for God is asking for evidence that can probably never be met because, surprise surprise, there isn't any. That in no way makes my argument any less valid. It just means you have no damn evidence to substantiate your position. That's not a fault in my argument. That just means I'm right.

You are literally asking for evidence that can never exist to prove you wrong.

Once a-fucking-gain, read the rest of my post and quit being intellectually dishonest as hell. It's pathetically annoying at this point. Don't bother responding if you aren't even going to TRY to respond to what I actually post.

Oh, and no, there is actually something that could convince me otherwise: that racism and profiling doesn't exist. There's no evidence of that being true though.

That's nice for you, but neither did I claim that you said that.
Bullshit. It's a necessary part of the discussion that is inseparable if you're going to argue that poverty contributes to something. The next question is INEVITABLY going to be "well then what causes that poverty?" because we have to get to the root of the problem. It isn't that we weren't discussing it, it's that you're clearly avoiding it because you don't have a damn clue of any legitimate answer except racism.

There's intellectual dishonesty and then there's just...whatever the hell you're doing. I can't believe you've managed to go SO far past that.

[Patridam]

And it just HAPPENED to be the part where you dodged parts of my posts proving you wrong because you didn't have a response and I pointed that out repeatedly, rather than any other time before when I had the exact same tone? Yeah, riiiight.

Believe it or not, your tone and condescension get incredibly grating after a while.

What was it you wanted? An explanation (other than your catch-all 'systemic racism') to explain why many blacks remain poor in the inner city?

Yes.

Simple. The FHA and bank loans of the 1940s-60s that led to the development of the modern suburb were rather notably biased against blacks, simply because a black family in a neighborhood drove prices down and anything other than an all-white suburb was seen as an unsafe investment by any number of private banks and even the US government. It got to the point where banks would refuse to provide any sort of capital for the development or improvement of what were seen as 'red zone' neighborhoods - i.e. inner city black neighborhoods. There were a smattering of mainly black suburbs, but those were the exception rather than the rule. Thus blacks were stuck in the inner city, where opportunities dried up and investment was all but disappeared.

While the FHA and banks are no longer doing such reprehensible things, the racism of 60 years ago has placed us in the modern predicament with no easy solution.

An explanation as to why the evidence you are demanding to prove you wrong is impossible to obtain?

And you're STILL pushing this stupid straw man after I already explained this to you?

I hate how you disown any of your argument turned back upon you as a strawman argument.

You can't point to the crime disparity for justification for profiling when profiling and racism caused the disparity in the first place. You'd need to compare it to an actual control group and given that we have yet to find an area where profiling doesn't exist at all, there's utterly no evidence to suggest that without profiling blacks would still commit crimes at a higher rate.

You indicated that I cannot use my crime disparity explanation, because you believe that the disparity is caused by the profiling itself. Yes?

You say that to prove otherwise, that the disparity is not a result of the profiling, you'd have to compare the current disparity to that of a control group that has never experienced profiling.

By your own admission, no such control groups exists.

Without a control group, the comparison cannot be made.

Without the comparison, no evidence can be created (to your satisfaction) that would prove the disparity explanation.

I will say it again: you are asking for evidence that cannot exist so that I might use my argument.

[Mavorpen]

Believe it or not, your tone and condescension get incredibly grating after a while.

The ignore list is a thing, you know. Otherwise, I'll continue replying to you and continue dismantling your unsubstantiated claims as usual.

Simple. The FHA and bank loans of the 1940s-60s that led to the development of the modern suburb were rather notably biased against blacks, simply because a black family in a neighborhood drove prices down and anything other than an all-white suburb was seen as an unsafe investment by any number of private banks and even the US government. It got to the point where banks would refuse to provide any sort of capital for the development or improvement of what were seen as 'red zone' neighborhoods - i.e. inner city black neighborhoods. There were a smattering of mainly black suburbs, but those were the exception rather than the rule. Thus blacks were stuck in the inner city, where opportunities dried up and investment was all but disappeared.

So basically, racism caused the poverty disparity among races.

While the FHA and banks are no longer doing such reprehensible things, the racism of 60 years ago has placed us in the modern predicament with no easy solution.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You...you sincerely believe that racial discrimination in the housing market no longer exists. Holy shit. Just...wow. Please do some actual research:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/07 ... wanted=all
http://uar.sagepub.com/content/36/4/452.short
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 98.9521322
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2 ... id=4&uid=2

You're free to make the claim that it no longer exists and thus racism is no longer directly responsible for the poverty gap, but you'll need to actually source your claims. Otherwise, I can't take them seriously.

I hate how you disown any of your argument turned back upon you as a strawman argument.

I can't "disown" arguments I never owned.

You indicated that I cannot use my crime disparity explanation, because you believe that the disparity is caused by the profiling itself. Yes?

No, I indicated that the disparity between crime has no substantiation and that you have repeatedly REFUSED to provide any sources at ALL to do so. I never said you CAN'T use the explanation. My problem is that you continue to use it and for whatever reason don't want to back it up.

You say that to prove otherwise, that the disparity is not a result of the profiling, you'd have to compare the current disparity to that of a control group that has never experienced profiling.

No, no, and fucking no. I said that you comparing the current disparity to that of a control group that has never experienced profiling is the only argument you have left because you REFUSE to provide any other sources backing up your claim.

By your own admission, no such control groups exists.

And since you agree with me, you agree that racial profiling is extremely prevalent, which doesn't hinder my argument, but only strengthens it.

Without a control group, the comparison cannot be made.

Nope, it certainly can. It's possible to control for violent and property crime rates, as the source Cobalt posted did, and then determine experimentally whether profiling led to finding more criminals engaging in acts profiling is supposed to stop. If it did, then that would indeed point to there being more minorities engaging in the criminal acts and would therefore support the claim that blacks are arrested and convicted more not simply because of profiling. You, however, haven't done that. So I gave you a methodology that would effectively demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt your claim.

Without the comparison, no evidence can be created (to your satisfaction) that would prove the disparity explanation.

Once again, enough with this stupid fucking straw man. There's PLENTY of potential evidence. It's up to YOU to provide them.

I will say it again: you are asking for evidence that cannot exist so that I might use my argument.

I'll repeat one of my earlier responses: stop fucking lying. You don't HAVE any evidence. Not a single shred of evidence. And you know that. So you're sticking to this stupid caricature of my argument to avoid the burden of proof you have. I'll ask this up front: give me evidence that the disparity in arrests and convictions don't have to do with racism and is because they commit more of the crimes that profiling seeks to prevent. I've given you possible sources of avenue for you to look for. You have NO excuse to continue your pathetic dodging of the burden of proof.

[The Cobalt Sky]

I have a theory that many people are racist, but are closeted about it. I think that the stigma of a racist is sort of an irrational brute, someone who anyone of any race couldn't stand to be around because they're such a jerk. But it seems unlikely that that's what ALL racists are. I think they can be kind and caring people, people who you'd never really suspect, and would never want to admit are racists, and we go into denial about who they really are.

I live in a white southerner Texan family and I can confirm this. A lot of people I know, including some family members, are really sweet and nice people on the outside, but behind closed doors they are heavily racist. Not just against blacks, but also Mexicans and Arabs and to some degree "Orientals" (Asians). The use of racially-charged language isn't even hesitated when they're alone together discussing these kinds of topics.

My belief is that the problem nowadays isn't so much overt, blatant, public racism (although that is still sometimes a problem), but private racism expressed solely behind four walls or within the context of other closeted racists.

Sad.

Sad indeed. I hope that things get better. I agree that privet 'oh come on, it's just us,' sort of racism is really insidious, although the brashness of some of the more open racists is also quite worrying.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Strictly speaking, only one leg of the trade triangle was actually the one traversed by slave ships: the one from Africa to the colonies. The leg from the colonies to Europe took raw materials like cotton, sugar, and tobacco. The leg from Europe to africa brought manufactured good and luxuries. At least, that's how it's usually educated. I'm curious if they just wanted to better specify the title of the triangle, which I can understand; but if they omitted the slave trade altogether that's another story.

Yes. I'm fairly certain the intent was to erase slavery altogether, though.

In any case, Texas is as always the exception, rather than the rule. Public education about history in most of America focuses in on black involvement (Crispus Attucks, for example, wouldn't be famous if it weren't for his race) and English courses love to focus on African novels or books with focuses on poor treatment of blacks. I cannot attest to Texas, but here in PA my 'World Literature' course featured three books from African writers (Cry, the Beloved Country; Things Fall Apart; Half of a Yellow Sun) and one from Germany, and my American literature course featured Uncle Tom's Cabin, To Kill a Mockingbird, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, and The Help. There's really not too much more my school could've touched on without excluding literature not related to blacks in some way.

We may need to do more research into the schooling systems around the country. I'm personally from Massachusetts, and even here I think that it isn't covered enough. When I went through elementary school, I felt like we only briefly touched upon it. The issue may also be not just learning about the involvement of blacks in history, but blatantly more coverage of how not to be racist. This inclusion of African Americans in literature may also be a fairly new phenomenon as well, and may only be present in the Northeast. These statistics are of all of America, too, so we might not be the epicenter of the problem, but I'm not sure. It is my suspicion, though, that much of the rest of the country's coverage of these issues is poor at best.

It depends on the school.

Some schools omit the material and some schools do not, other just teach the necessary in their curriculums.

African American history and literature among other subjects are taught at least nominally and never in enough depth for kids to make any sort of meaning out of it. We still have the common whitewashed version of history in our schools.

[Chernoslavia]

Racism isn't really that ''widespread''. Accusing people of being racist on the other hand is common.

[Busen]

Racism isn't really that ''widespread''. Accusing people of being racist on the other hand is common.

There are certain racist individuals in the US but they are in minority and have no influence. However, there is no institutionalized racism in the governments, states and mainstream media; so that is what is only important.

The liberals are using racism to spread fear and justify ideology just like Hitler used to say that there is some International Jewish conspiracy that he needs to protect the people so are liberals using racism to fear blacks that KKK might come in power if they dont vote for them.

[Edgy Opinions]

Racism isn't really that ''widespread''. Accusing people of being racist on the other hand is common.

There are certain racist individuals in the US but they are in minority and have no influence. However, there is no institutionalized racism in the governments, states and mainstream media; so that is what is only important.

No racism in police forces, media or subtle fears in political debate? Hah.

[Mavorpen]

Racism isn't really that ''widespread''. Accusing people of being racist on the other hand is common.

There are certain racist individuals in the US but they are in minority and have no influence. However, there is no institutionalized racism in the governments, states and mainstream media; so that is what is only important.

The liberals are using racism to spread fear and justify ideology just like Hitler used to say that there is some International Jewish conspiracy that he needs to protect the people so are liberals using racism to fear blacks that KKK might come in power if they dont vote for them.

So wait a second. You're comparing liberals to Hitler by stating they're spreading fear to justify their ideology thus trying to spread fear and justify your ideology and stating there's a liberal conspiracy, just like Hitler.

What a fantastic display of hypocrisy. I applaud you.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Racism isn't really that ''widespread''. Accusing people of being racist on the other hand is common.

There are certain racist individuals in the US but they are in minority and have no influence. However, there is no institutionalized racism in the governments, states and mainstream media; so that is what is only important.

The liberals are using racism to spread fear and justify ideology just like Hitler used to say that there is some International Jewish conspiracy that he needs to protect the people so are liberals using racism to fear blacks that KKK might come in power if they dont vote for them.

Except that unlike Hitler, there are actual studies--many in this very thread--that show troubling continuing racist trends in society.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

There are certain racist individuals in the US but they are in minority and have no influence. However, there is no institutionalized racism in the governments, states and mainstream media; so that is what is only important.

The liberals are using racism to spread fear and justify ideology just like Hitler used to say that there is some International Jewish conspiracy that he needs to protect the people so are liberals using racism to fear blacks that KKK might come in power if they dont vote for them.

So wait a second. You're comparing liberals to Hitler by stating they're spreading fear to justify their ideology thus trying to spread fear and justify your ideology and stating there's a liberal conspiracy, just like Hitler.

What a fantastic display of hypocrisy. I applaud you.

It's them dung liburds! If we ain't doin what they want we'll see our jerbs being taken away! We should put 'em in concentration camps first, that'll solve evr'thing! *nods*

[Chernoslavia]

There are certain racist individuals in the US but they are in minority and have no influence. However, there is no institutionalized racism in the governments, states and mainstream media; so that is what is only important.

The liberals are using racism to spread fear and justify ideology just like Hitler used to say that there is some International Jewish conspiracy that he needs to protect the people so are liberals using racism to fear blacks that KKK might come in power if they dont vote for them.

Except that unlike Hitler, there are actual studies--many in this very thread--that show troubling continuing racist trends in society.

Your right, I've been called a cracker alot.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Except that unlike Hitler, there are actual studies--many in this very thread--that show troubling continuing racist trends in society.

Your right, I've been called a cracker alot.

That's rude behavior, not an institutional trend.

[Chernoslavia]

Your right, I've been called a cracker alot.

That's rude behavior, not an institutional trend.

I was being sarcastic. But it's still racist especially if it is said to a white person. Just like calling a black person a nigger is still racist even though your not racist towards blacks.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's rude behavior, not an institutional trend.

I was being sarcastic. But it's still racist especially if it is said to a white person. Just like calling a black person a nigger is still racist even though your not racist towards blacks.

If you call a black person a nigger, odds are you're racist towards black people.