- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
1.) IMO if we really want to get rid of racism, then no one should be identified by race at all.
2.) Each person should be judged by their character, skills for a particular employment, and other tests of individual merit.
3.) You cannot demand respect, you must earn it.
4.) IMO people who keep emphasizing their differences based on immutable physical characteristics in efforts to demand respect and advantages are merely maintaining racial divisions and encouraging conflicts.
That isn’t true. Discrimination laws aren’t about actions against people who have a particular characteristic, they’re about actions against people because they are believed to have a particular characteristic. If someone discriminates against you because they think you’re (say) Jewish, gay or French, it’d still be illegal even if they’re wrong. It doesn’t matter what race you, the government or the courts say you are, all that matters is what the accused believes and that being the motive for their discriminatory actions.
“Affirmative action” and the like obviously provides a different issue but that’s just another reason why it’s a mistake in the first place.
Since we have affirmative action and punishment for racial discrimination, there is at least a de facto legal racial identity/definition. Therefore, one's race must be a legal status in order for discrimination laws to function.
Please give your input as to which racial metrics or methods should be used to determine legal racial identity, and who decides what race we are for the purposes of a racial discrimination case.
Your thoughts, please.
No, you’re still wrong as per how existing laws are written and are actually implemented right now. Clearly the offender openly stating their discriminatory motive is helpful but indirect or circumstantial evidence can also build a valid case, just like it can for any other offence. Regardless, their perception and motive is key to the discrimination, not the characteristic (or sometimes even existence) of any immediate victim.I understand what you're saying, but this assumes that the perpetrator will openly state their reasons for the discrimination - "Leave my store because you're black" - "I'm beating you right now because you're gay". If those reasons aren't stated, then the precise minority status of the victim must be assessed. How black or gay the victim is would shine a light on possible motives. Hence, a scientific, court-worthy determination of blackness or gayness is required.
IMO if we really want to get rid of racism, then no one should be identified by race at all.
Each person should be judged by their character, skills for a particular employment, and other tests of individual merit.
You cannot demand respect, you must earn it.
IMO people who keep emphasizing their differences based on immutable physical characteristics in efforts to demand respect and advantages are merely maintaining racial divisions and encouraging conflicts.
MLK said:I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
No, you’re still wrong as per how existing laws are written and are actually implemented right now. Clearly the offender openly stating their discriminatory motive is helpful but indirect or circumstantial evidence can also build a valid case, just like it can for any other offence. Regardless, their perception and motive is key to the discrimination, not the characteristic (or sometimes even existence) of any immediate victim.
And even if you could establish some objective measurement of categorisation, it doesn’t really help it determining discrimination. Whether someone is an officially registered African-American/homosexual/Christian/whatever (scary concept in itself) or not, you still face exactly the same challenge of proving the accused was actively discriminating on that basis. After all, discrimination on grounds of sex, age or nationality are no easier to convict than on grounds of race, religion or orientation despite the former (generally) having more clearly defined categorisation.
Sometimes, but only by the general perception of the defendant and that doesn’t require any kind of strict scientific measurement. You’re still missing the key fact that discrimination is based entirely on the offenders perception – the reality of any victims is irrelevant. There might not even be an actual victim; a shopkeeper putting up a “No dogs, no blacks, no Irish” sign would be breaking discrimination law even if no black or Irish people see it.I can understand your point. However, when you only have indirect or circumstantial evidence in order to determine whether one has actively discriminated on the basis of race, a key piece of evidence must be the difference in races between plaintiff and defendant.
Skin colour isn’t the same thing as race. Western European whites could discriminate against Eastern European whites, European Spaniards could discriminate against American Hispanics, West African Blacks could discriminate against East African Blacks etc. And while it would be an odd situation, it’s perfectly viable that a person could discriminate in favour of other races against their own, say a white employer choosing to employ a black candidate over a better white one to make their racial statistics look better.A key point here is whether or not a white person can discriminate against another white person based on race. If so, then race means nothing.
Sometimes, but only by the general perception of the defendant and that doesn’t require any kind of strict scientific measurement. You’re still missing the key fact that discrimination is based entirely on the offenders perception – the reality of any victims is irrelevant. There might not even be an actual victim; a shopkeeper putting up a “No dogs, no blacks, no Irish” sign would be breaking discrimination law even if no black or Irish people see it.
Skin colour isn’t the same thing as race. Western European whites could discriminate against Eastern European whites, European Spaniards could discriminate against American Hispanics, West African Blacks could discriminate against East African Blacks etc. And while it would be an odd situation, it’s perfectly viable that a person could discriminate in favour of other races against their own, say a white employer choosing to employ a black candidate over a better white one to make their racial statistics look better.
Anyway, legally, “racial discrimination” will tend to cover discrimination on the basis of nationality, creed or culture too.
I agree that as a fundamental core principle, “race” as a division between human beings is fairly meaningless and tends to cause more harm than good. It remains a concept that lots of people hold to though and continue to actively discriminate against others based upon their perceptions and the law continues to account for that.
The context of racism is global. G l o b a l. Spell it out again. Someday, maybe you'll have a clue what you're babbling about.
So now you are savior of the world of no individuals and everyone is just a bee of the hive - no communities, no different societies, just "global" people! :roll:
I don't know how many ways I can say it but you're simply wrong as per the law. If someone discriminates on ground they believe are based on race, it is illegal. End of story.My point is that we need a scale by which traits of food consumption, language spoken, hairstyle and appearance would qualify as important in a discriminatory case.
I don't know how many ways I can say it but you're simply wrong as per the law. If someone discriminates on ground they believe are based on race, it is illegal. End of story.
You're not only proposing a change in establishing a deterministic measure of race, you're also effectively proposing a change that discrimination is based on whether the victim has a legally defined race, regardless of the reason the defendant took their actions. Since everyone has a race, that is obviously ridiculous.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist in law, I'm saying it doesn't need to be (and indeed can't be) definitively measured and categorised in the way your OP describes. Racial categories are about perception, it can even very between observers (such as outsiders seeing all blacks the same while they may well differentiate between West and East Africans). In the case of discrimination, it is that perception that is relevant. And since there have been plenty of successful discrimination cases on that basis, it clearly isn't necessary to measure things in the way you're talking about.If that racial distinction does not exist in law, then the business owner gets to hire his 50 whites.
Since we have affirmative action and punishment for racial discrimination, there is at least a de facto legal racial identity/definition. Therefore, one's race must be a legal status in order for discrimination laws to function.
Please give your input as to which racial metrics or methods should be used to determine legal racial identity, and who decides what race we are for the purposes of a racial discrimination case.
Your thoughts, please.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist in law, I'm saying it doesn't need to be (and indeed can't be) definitively measured and categorised in the way your OP describes. Racial categories are about perception, it can even very between observers (such as outsiders seeing all blacks the same while they may well differentiate between West and East Africans). In the case of discrimination, it is that perception that is relevant. And since there have been plenty of successful discrimination cases on that basis, it clearly isn't necessary to measure things in the way you're talking about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?