How can Bryant Gumbel be racist? He didn't say anything bad about black people.

[quote="EagleRockCafe"]His tirade on the Winter Olympics is over the top in my opinion. The following comment is just an example.

[b]''So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world

[quote="ultraviolet"][quote="EagleRockCafe"]His tirade on the Winter Olympics is over the top in my opinion. The following comment is just an example.

[b]''So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world

Pillager Wrote:So if a member of a minority race goes on an extensive murder spree, targeting a majority race ("or those with whom more power lies") simply because of who they are; that is not leveraging racism?
Taking someones life due to there race alone?

That is a racially motivated murder spree, but since they have done nothing to gain power over another race, therefore, not true racism.

ProfessorEagle Wrote:I'm sorry but that is just bunk. Anyone can be racist. A racist is a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others. It has nothing to do with their position in the "power system." Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, et al. can all be racist. Women can be sexist. Now the extent to which one can impose those racist views on others is a function of power and majority standing. But that is not a necessary condition for being a racist. This double standard drives a further wedge between races. This arguement is used as an excuse for holding beliefs that are otherwise unacceptable (and I agree that racism in any form is unacceptable). I just don't buy it. A racist is a racist is a racist, regardless of color.

You have to look at the true sense of the word racist. For someone to truely be racist, there has to be some systematic advantage to it. Can the black race systematically hold down the caucasian race? No, there is no advantage built into the system for it.

Someone that holds a prejudiced opinion that one race is superior to another has a racist attitude, but the only way they can be racist (and not just think like a racist) is if that person is at the top of power chain.

fsquid Wrote:Remember that Wayne Brady makes Bryant Gumbel look like Malcolm X

The Wayne Brady response to that bit was my favorite Chappelle show moment.


Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a *****?

[quote="ProfessorEagle"][quote="MinerInWisconsin"][quote="ProfessorEagle"][quote="EagleRockCafe"]His tirade on the Winter Olympics is over the top in my opinion. The following comment is just an example.

[b]''So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world

TMcCarty Wrote:

Pillager Wrote:So if a member of a minority race goes on an extensive murder spree, targeting a majority race ("or those with whom more power lies") simply because of who they are; that is not leveraging racism?
Taking someones life due to there race alone?

That is a racially motivated murder spree, but since they have done nothing to gain power over another race, therefore, not true racism.

ProfessorEagle Wrote:I'm sorry but that is just bunk. Anyone can be racist. A racist is a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others. It has nothing to do with their position in the "power system." Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, et al. can all be racist. Women can be sexist. Now the extent to which one can impose those racist views on others is a function of power and majority standing. But that is not a necessary condition for being a racist. This double standard drives a further wedge between races. This arguement is used as an excuse for holding beliefs that are otherwise unacceptable (and I agree that racism in any form is unacceptable). I just don't buy it. A racist is a racist is a racist, regardless of color.

You have to look at the true sense of the word racist. For someone to truely be racist, there has to be some systematic advantage to it. Can the black race systematically hold down the caucasian race? No, there is no advantage built into the system for it.

Someone that holds a prejudiced opinion that one race is superior to another has a racist attitude, but the only way they can be racist (and not just think like a racist) is if that person is at the top of power chain.

Blacks in America can be bigots, as can whites. However, it requires power to be racism.

klg316 Wrote:How can Bryant Gumbel be racist? He didn't say anything bad about black people.

Bingo... :iagree:

Sophandros Wrote:

TMcCarty Wrote:

Pillager Wrote:So if a member of a minority race goes on an extensive murder spree, targeting a majority race ("or those with whom more power lies") simply because of who they are; that is not leveraging racism?
Taking someones life due to there race alone?

That is a racially motivated murder spree, but since they have done nothing to gain power over another race, therefore, not true racism.

ProfessorEagle Wrote:I'm sorry but that is just bunk. Anyone can be racist. A racist is a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others. It has nothing to do with their position in the "power system." Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, et al. can all be racist. Women can be sexist. Now the extent to which one can impose those racist views on others is a function of power and majority standing. But that is not a necessary condition for being a racist. This double standard drives a further wedge between races. This arguement is used as an excuse for holding beliefs that are otherwise unacceptable (and I agree that racism in any form is unacceptable). I just don't buy it. A racist is a racist is a racist, regardless of color.

You have to look at the true sense of the word racist. For someone to truely be racist, there has to be some systematic advantage to it. Can the black race systematically hold down the caucasian race? No, there is no advantage built into the system for it.

Someone that holds a prejudiced opinion that one race is superior to another has a racist attitude, but the only way they can be racist (and not just think like a racist) is if that person is at the top of power chain.

Blacks in America can be bigots, as can whites. However, it requires power to be racism.

That was exactly my point, thanks.

{quote]

You have to look at the true sense of the word racist. For someone to truely be racist, there has to be some systematic advantage to it. Can the black race systematically hold down the caucasian race? No, there is no advantage built into the system for it.

Someone that holds a prejudiced opinion that one race is superior to another has a racist attitude, but the only way they can be racist (and not just think like a racist) is if that person is at the top of power chain.[/quote]

That may be your definition of racism, but that does not necessarily mean that it is correct. Mine came from the dictionary and was not revised to make excuses for people who want to feel ok about holding inaccurate and harmful beliefs about people of different races. I don't argue with you that racism by whites has and continues to have a larger impact on society than has racism by other races, but it doesn't change the fact that it is racism. We can just agree to disagree on this point. It's just black and white for me (no pun intended). Racism is racism regardless of who the perpetrator is.

ProfessorEagle Wrote:{quote]

You have to look at the true sense of the word racist. For someone to truely be racist, there has to be some systematic advantage to it. Can the black race systematically hold down the caucasian race? No, there is no advantage built into the system for it.

Someone that holds a prejudiced opinion that one race is superior to another has a racist attitude, but the only way they can be racist (and not just think like a racist) is if that person is at the top of power chain.

That may be your definition of racism, but that does not necessarily mean that it is correct. Mine came from the dictionary and was not revised to make excuses for people who want to feel ok about holding inaccurate and harmful beliefs about people of different races. I don't argue with you that racism by whites has and continues to have a larger impact on society than has racism by other races, but it doesn't change the fact that it is racism. We can just agree to disagree on this point. It's just black and white for me (no pun intended). Racism is racism regardless of who the perpetrator is.[/quote]

No, BIGOTRY is BIGOTRY, but racism requires power. You have Black bigots and white bigots, and some of those white bigots can't be considered racists because they lack the power to do anything about it, just as some of those Black bigots (see the people in certain areas of Africa who are killing whites and taking their land) are racists because of the power structure in which they live.

ProfessorEagle Wrote:

Quote:You have to look at the true sense of the word racist. For someone to truely be racist, there has to be some systematic advantage to it. Can the black race systematically hold down the caucasian race? No, there is no advantage built into the system for it.

Someone that holds a prejudiced opinion that one race is superior to another has a racist attitude, but the only way they can be racist (and not just think like a racist) is if that person is at the top of power chain.

That may be your definition of racism, but that does not necessarily mean that it is correct. Mine came from the dictionary and was not revised to make excuses for people who want to feel ok about holding inaccurate and harmful beliefs about people of different races. I don't argue with you that racism by whites has and continues to have a larger impact on society than has racism by other races, but it doesn't change the fact that it is racism. We can just agree to disagree on this point. It's just black and white for me (no pun intended). Racism is racism regardless of who the perpetrator is.

Have to agree with Sophandros, without power, it really is just bigotry.

However, you are missing the point of my posts. No where did I excuse any minority from making racist/sexist/ageist comments. Anyone that harbors a prejudiced attitude is a bigot. I'm merely trying to point out the difference between being a bigot and being racist/sexist/ageist. Some may call it minor or petty or just a technical difference, but that's not true. There is a very significant difference between a somone holding the power AND a prejudiced attitude and a minority that simply has a prejudiced attitude.

Was Gumbel's comment racist? Sure, he brought race into the discussion for no apparent reason and essentially said the games were good enough because there aren't enough black people. Does that make him a racist? No, just a bigot.

Sophandros Wrote:[quote="ProfessorEagle"]{quote]



No, BIGOTRY is BIGOTRY, but racism requires power. You have Black bigots and white bigots, and some of those white bigots can't be considered racists because they lack the power to do anything about it, just as some of those Black bigots (see the people in certain areas of Africa who are killing whites and taking their land) are racists because of the power structure in which they live.

Again, that may be the definition of racism that you choose, but is there any support for it other than the popular press and from individuals who want to justify or make excuses for minorities with racist views? This power factor in the racism equation doesn't seem to be supported by much else. Protecting and implicitly supporting those who hold these views is counter productive to effective race relations. That's all I hope to get across here.

Here's something to consider: Can a bi-racial person be racist? By your definition, I would assume that is impossible.

[quote="Sophandros"][quote="ultraviolet"][quote="EagleRockCafe"]His tirade on the Winter Olympics is over the top in my opinion. The following comment is just an example.

[b]''So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world

According to dictionary.com:

racism (rac

ProfessorEagle Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:[quote="ProfessorEagle"]{quote]



No, BIGOTRY is BIGOTRY, but racism requires power. You have Black bigots and white bigots, and some of those white bigots can't be considered racists because they lack the power to do anything about it, just as some of those Black bigots (see the people in certain areas of Africa who are killing whites and taking their land) are racists because of the power structure in which they live.

Again, that may be the definition of racism that you choose, but is there any support for it other than the popular press and from individuals who want to justify or make excuses for minorities with racist views? This power factor in the racism equation doesn't seem to be supported by much else. Protecting and implicitly supporting those who hold these views is counter productive to effective race relations. That's all I hope to get across here.

Here's something to consider: Can a bi-racial person be racist? By your definition, I would assume that is impossible.

Try looking up racism in a sociology text book. That way, you can actually learn about it's proper usage and context, not just a bland definition from the dictionary.

Edit: spelling.

[quote="TMcCarty"][quote="ProfessorEagle"][quote]

Have to agree with Sophandros, without power, it really is just bigotry.

However, you are missing the point of my posts. No where did I excuse any minority from making racist/sexist/ageist comments. Anyone that harbors a prejudiced attitude is a bigot. I'm merely trying to point out the difference between being a bigot and being racist/sexist/ageist. Some may call it minor or petty or just a technical difference, but that's not true. There is a very significant difference between a somone holding the power AND a prejudiced attitude and a minority that simply has a prejudiced attitude.

Was Gumbel's comment racist? Sure, he brought race into the discussion for no apparent reason and essentially said the games were good enough because there aren't enough black people. Does that make him a racist? No, just a bigot.[/quote]

I didn't mean to imply that you said that Gumbel's race excuses or precludes him from making racist statements. However, I believe that the definition of racism that you hold is an attempt to make it acceptable for minorities to be racist by asserting that they can't possibly be racist. You didn't create it, you just bought into it.

This kind of creative revisioin is par for the course in this country though. I mean President Clinton tried to twist the meaning of the words "alone", "is," and "adultry" fo make an excuse for his behavior for Pete's sake. We can't change the world on a message board anyway, but at least we talk about it. More people need to do the same.

[quote="OwlJacket"]According to dictionary.com:

racism (rac

I feel my definition of racism is just that, a definition. It should never be used to excuse or justify anything. To misuse this definition for personal gain is to lose sight of it's purpose. If someone wants to try and use it to excuse the actions by someone that is black, yellow, purple, or green, they can be my guest, but they would be wrong.

However, I would appreciate it if you did not attribute my definition to the popular press or to those that are trying to make excuses. My definition comes straight from the mouth of a *very* well-respected sociology professor at my university that I had who was hands down one of the most brilliant people I have ever had the pleasure to learn from.

TMcCarty Wrote:I feel my definition of racism is just that, a definition. It should never be used to excuse or justify anything. To misuse this definition for personal gain is to lose sight of it's purpose. If someone wants to try and use it to excuse the actions by someone that is black, yellow, purple, or green, they can be my guest, but they would be wrong.

However, I would appreciate it if you did not attribute my definition to the popular press or to those that are trying to make excuses. My definition comes straight from the mouth of a *very* well-respected sociology professor at my university that I had who was hands down one of the most brilliant people I have ever had the pleasure to learn from.

That's all well and good, but as a professor, I know that what you say in the classroom can be personal opinion and not necessarily supported by the broader academic community. Even if it is, there are normally several different "camps" concerning a particular issue or theory.

As for your comment earlier about finding a definition of racism in a sociology text...why don't you provide it, you're the one trying to justify the definition.