TexasCHLforum.com

I hope I live long enough to see the day someone cries racism and no one cares.

For those being accused of racism we're almost there now.

As long as "combating racism" remains a multi-billion dollar industry funded by taxpayers, grants and endowments, "racism" isn't going anywhere. The last thing most politicians, community organizers, media and academia types want is to eliminate racism. What they want is to manage racism while collecting huge sums with which to do so.

AndyC wrote:A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries

[ Image ]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... countries/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An interesting more detailed followup: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... professor/

(2) Different people might hear the question differently. Saideman writes, "In some places, when one is asked this question, they may think of a single race, perhaps the Vietnamese think of the Chinese but not of other races. So it may not be that the people are very racist in general — they just hate one group that is defined by race." In other words, if Vietnam scored as particularly intolerant (they did), that might just be because they're less tolerant toward the race that popped into their heads first — e.g. the Chinese — than they are of other races in general. This makes it tougher to compare across countries.

Sorry TAM, I read no further than this. Only an idiot professor could write this. Webster defines the word racist this way:

Racist
1. a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist

2. having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
"we are investigating complaints about racist abuse at the club"

Hating a particular group of people as defined by their race pretty much fits the bill...unless language has lost all meaning. By his reasoning if a white man hates a black man (or vice versa) because that particular racial group was the first to pop into his head, then he is not a racist. Sound like the drivel we hear from "professors" today.

From my perspective, the whole issue of racism in America has been taken back 50 years since the current inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. took office. I don't think much supporting evidence is needed. Maybe just me though.

VoiceofReason wrote:I hope I live long enough to see the day someone cries racism and no one cares.

I've already started (not caring). Too many cries of "Wolf". I hope you find that consoling.

ShootDontTalk wrote:

(2) Different people might hear the question differently. Saideman writes, "In some places, when one is asked this question, they may think of a single race, perhaps the Vietnamese think of the Chinese but not of other races. So it may not be that the people are very racist in general — they just hate one group that is defined by race." In other words, if Vietnam scored as particularly intolerant (they did), that might just be because they're less tolerant toward the race that popped into their heads first — e.g. the Chinese — than they are of other races in general. This makes it tougher to compare across countries.

Sorry TAM, I read no further than this. Only an idiot professor could write this. Webster defines the word racist this way:

Racist
1. a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist

2. having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
"we are investigating complaints about racist abuse at the club"

Hating a particular group of people as defined by their race pretty much fits the bill...unless language has lost all meaning. By his reasoning if a white man hates a black man (or vice versa) because that particular racial group was the first to pop into his head, then he is not a racist. Sound like the drivel we hear from "professors" today.

From my perspective, the whole issue of racism in America has been taken back 50 years since the current inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. took office. I don't think much supporting evidence is needed. Maybe just me though.

Didn't say I agree with his conclusions.....I just found it interesting. Mein Kampf is interesting too, but I don't agree with it either.

VoiceofReason wrote:I hope I live long enough to see the day someone cries racism and no one cares.

You will need to live longer than Al Sharpton then.

As long as he is alive he will always be stirring the pot.

As long as mankind exists, some form of racism will exist...o.k. fatty?

Abraham wrote:As long as mankind exists, some form of racism will exist...o.k. fatty?

ShootDontTalk wrote:

(2) Different people might hear the question differently. Saideman writes, "In some places, when one is asked this question, they may think of a single race, perhaps the Vietnamese think of the Chinese but not of other races. So it may not be that the people are very racist in general — they just hate one group that is defined by race." In other words, if Vietnam scored as particularly intolerant (they did), that might just be because they're less tolerant toward the race that popped into their heads first — e.g. the Chinese — than they are of other races in general. This makes it tougher to compare across countries.

Sorry TAM, I read no further than this. Only an idiot professor could write this. Webster defines the word racist this way:

Racist
1. a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist

2. having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
"we are investigating complaints about racist abuse at the club"

Hating a particular group of people as defined by their race pretty much fits the bill...unless language has lost all meaning. By his reasoning if a white man hates a black man (or vice versa) because that particular racial group was the first to pop into his head, then he is not a racist. Sound like the drivel we hear from "professors" today.

From my perspective, the whole issue of racism in America has been taken back 50 years since the current inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. took office. I don't think much supporting evidence is needed. Maybe just me though.

I Absolutely agree. As soon as bambam was elected, it became all about racial identity, and the unfortunate thing is that we, the citizens of the US collectively, were trapped between the classic rock and hard place, if bambam had not been elected, that would have been about race too.

And in a classic example, proving his own point I guess, as soon as the distinguished professor began to profess that apparently one must hate more than one race in order to be truly a racist, I began to have doubts about his (sanity, qualifications, racist feelings, etc.) and the rest of his screed lost all meaning.

The real lasting tragedy is when you consider the healing a black President COULD have brought to the country. His legacy might have been among the great ones. As it is, he is the supreme example of who NOT to elect to the office. I just hope he enjoys how he will be remembered.

As for the "professor", one must read between the lines to see his true purpose. His view is that America is the MOST racist country on earth, rather than rated as one of the LEAST racist. Therefore, he must find a way to explain the map. Perfect liberal lunacy.

I don't...