• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's worse: using the race card or dismissing legitimate racism?

What's worse: using the race card or dismissing legitimate racism?

  • Society should mention race other than the human race because its proably a use of the race card.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • If racism exists in 2013, expose it in order to correct it seeking to make society better.

    Votes: 16 80.0%
  • Sorry, I don't have a dog in that fight. No position either way.

    Votes: 4 20.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Institutional racism is an assumption that any black person who achieves something in life probably got it through racial preferences unless unlike his white counterparts has figured out how to do his job 1000 times better than anybody else leaving no question in anybody's mind he's not just good, he's the best ever. Institutional racism is assuming anybody who looks Hispanic should be suspected of illegal immigration and unlike other Americans should give himself an extra 30 minutes travel time in case he's spotted and interrogated to make sure he's legit and maybe carry his birth certificate and a utility bill along with his driver's license at all times.

Are those examples of racism or just two things that happen to revolve around specific races?

There is a big difference and the reality is being able to check off "African American" is a major advantage in applying to colleges, getting a civil servant job, etc. and the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic. It seems to me someone making that sort of claim is doing so less because of race and more because of actual behavior. Contrary to what many people seem to believe today, "racism" doesn't mean saying something negative about a protected demographic.
 
Last edited:
So you have two factions - one of folks who view any incident where a member of their race is victimized as racism, and one of folks who only view the most extreme situations as racism. That sets up a situation where neither side budges as to what is and isn't racism.

Agree, and I think both extremes definitely perpetuate the other.

By delcaring every incident as factually racism, you make it harder and harder for people to acknowledge the degree in which things have improved and to judge things based on an accurate perception of race relations today rather than the past. On the flip side, by constantly throwing out accusations of using the "race card", you provide potential cover for legitimate instances which causes animosity and distrust with regards to race relations.

The problem is people in this country, and just in generla, typically aren't big fans of nuance. Bold statements, declarations of certainty, and answers to the questions within our reality are things people want. As such, looking at a situation and attempting to both recognize the potential of the existance/abscense of racist motivations while fairly recognizing other motivations in play and seeking further definite information and supporting facts before making a judgement call is not the norm.

Every black person in College is not there because of AA and every black person arrested by a police officer isn't being targetted because of their skin, and people on both extremes would likely acknowledge that. But when individual instances get brought up, that's essentially the mindset behind the arguments those extreme ends typically jump to immedietely. And neither are doing race relations much help.
 
So you have two factions - one of folks who view any incident where a member of their race is victimized as racism, and one of folks who only view the most extreme situations as racism. That sets up a situation where neither side budges as to what is and isn't racism.

I disagree.

The left just uses racism as a cheap political weapon. I think most everyone would oppose legitimate racism if they saw it but what gets passed around as racism today is disagreeing with a black President of the United States. You can't watch 5 minutes of CNN without seeing Robert Redford blame the shutdown on Republican anger over a black man in the oval office who isn't taking drink orders. Never mind that neither party's views on healthcare and the size of government have changed drastically over the past few decades and a shut down happened the last time Democrats controlled the White House and pushed through similar policies only with a white POTUS.

This is what "racism" is today.
 
I think most everyone would oppose legitimate racism if they saw it

Who determines what is and isn't "legitimate" racism? You? Is that like "legitimate" and "illegitimate" rape?
 
Last edited:
Who determines what is and isn't "legitimate" racism? You? Is that like "legitimate" and "illegitimate" rape?

And this is exactly what I was talking about.

Rather than having an intelligent conversation about the left's use of the race card, you decide to up the ante and insinuate I must hate women and want to see them raped. This is what racism, genderism, sexism, etc. is in today's United States and you're living proof why we can't have an intelligent conversation about things like racism.
 
Last edited:
Who determines what is and isn't "legitimate" racism? You? Is that like "legitimate" and "illegitimate" rape?

Sadly, that's the big problem. Who really determines it? I think the "big" instances are things that, generally across the board, you have wide agreement in terms of racism save for those on the far end of the extreme. The issue is of course those instances that aren't as blatant. While I don't think every instance of "discreet" racism that is claimed is legitimate, I also think it's foolish for some who act like almost none of them are. There are undoubtably many situations that exist in this country every day where there's grey area and where a determination either direction could be made. The problem is that some see it and despite the greyness decide that its definitively "legitimate" and others who see it and think its definitively "illegitimate"; whereas often it's almost impossible to say. For those situations I wish I had a good answer on how, as a society, we should be able to tackle it in a reasonable way but sadly I don't. In part becuase the two extremes will always be the loudest, and their battle will always bleed into the minds of others in some fashion and to some degree.
 
Who determines what is and isn't "legitimate" racism? You? Is that like "legitimate" and "illegitimate" rape?

I suppose it can be subjective but in my thinking a real race problem is something that causes a tangible adverse affect on someone's life caused by institutional conditions, systemic conditions or deliberate and malicious treatment because of the race of the person affected. I know some people have a different view but unless its blatant and intentionally calloused, I have to see real harm before I'm willing make a big deal out of it. If the cause for the harm is institutional or systemic, I also try to be careful to make sure I'm clear no person is at fault but rather a condition needs to be addressed.
 
Last edited:
1. In the USA we often over-emphasize the role of race in examining issues and ignore class issues. We have even more of a taboo against discussing class issues than we do for discussing race issues.

2. Racists and other bigots tend to lack awareness of their prejudices and think that they are based in reality.

3. Many outsiders are incapable of understanding why a statement or action is offensive to a certain group. That may be understandable, but out of common courtesy and respect we should be considerate of the group's complaints and accommodate them unless they are completely outrageous or impractical (which is rarely the case).
 
Last edited:
And this is exactly what I was talking about.

Rather than having an intelligent conversation about the left's use of the race card, you decide to up the ante and insinuate I must hate women and want to see them raped. This is what racism, genderism, sexism, etc. is in today's United States and you're living proof why we can't have an intelligent conversation about things like racism.

Two posters perfectly understood what I was getting at. It's not my problem the point went so far over your head you may as well be Gary Coleman. Please pretend to be a victim to somebody who cares. As long as it's obvious you did not understand what was said, your feigned outrage goes nowhere.
 
Sadly, that's the big problem. Who really determines it? I think the "big" instances are things that, generally across the board, you have wide agreement in terms of racism save for those on the far end of the extreme. The issue is of course those instances that aren't as blatant. While I don't think every instance of "discreet" racism that is claimed is legitimate, I also think it's foolish for some who act like almost none of them are. There are undoubtably many situations that exist in this country every day where there's grey area and where a determination either direction could be made. The problem is that some see it and despite the greyness decide that its definitively "legitimate" and others who see it and think its definitively "illegitimate"; whereas often it's almost impossible to say. For those situations I wish I had a good answer on how, as a society, we should be able to tackle it in a reasonable way but sadly I don't. In part becuase the two extremes will always be the loudest, and their battle will always bleed into the minds of others in some fashion and to some degree.

I suppose it can be subjective but in my thinking a real race problem is something that causes a tangible adverse affect on someone's life caused by institutional conditions, systemic conditions or deliberate and malicious treatment because of the race of the person affected. I know some people have a different view but unless its blatant and intentionally calloused, I have to see real harm before I'm willing make a big deal out of it. If the cause for the harm is institutional or systemic, I also try to be careful to make sure I'm clear no person is at fault but rather a condition needs to be addressed.

I don't think the situation is grey or subjective at all.

You're either being treated in a way because of your race or you're not. That's what racism is and there isn't any in between.
 
Sadly, that's the big problem. Who really determines it? I think the "big" instances are things that, generally across the board, you have wide agreement in terms of racism save for those on the far end of the extreme. The issue is of course those instances that aren't as blatant. While I don't think every instance of "discreet" racism that is claimed is legitimate, I also think it's foolish for some who act like almost none of them are. There are undoubtably many situations that exist in this country every day where there's grey area and where a determination either direction could be made. The problem is that some see it and despite the greyness decide that its definitively "legitimate" and others who see it and think its definitively "illegitimate"; whereas often it's almost impossible to say. For those situations I wish I had a good answer on how, as a society, we should be able to tackle it in a reasonable way but sadly I don't. In part becuase the two extremes will always be the loudest, and their battle will always bleed into the minds of others in some fashion and to some degree.

I tend to leave it up to the sociologists and statistics. For example:

Black prisoners are given longer sentences than whites, study says

According to the report, sentences for black males were 19.5 percent longer than those for similarly situated white males between December 2007 and September 2011, the most recent period covered in the report. The commission also found that black males were 25 percent less likely than whites to receive a sentence below the sentencing guidelines.

Wide Racial Divide in Sentencing - WSJ.com

The analysis also found that black males were 25% less likely than whites in the same period to receive a sentence below the guidelines' range.

[...]he then broke it down to 21 cases - including that of Buck's - which were most similar in circumstances.

He found that seven out of the ten men sent for capital trial were black African American.

This compares with just one of the five white defendant.

In his report he writes: 'The probability that the district attorney will advance a case to a [death] penalty trial is more than three times as high when the defendant is African American than for white defendants.'

In Texas the jury decides whether those convicted will face execution. Of those facing trial Harris County juries sent four of the seven black defendants to execution and also the white defendant.

He said this slightly redressed the balance as 100 per cent of the white capital defendants in the sample were given death penalty compared with 57 per cent of the African American sample.

But of the original group of 21 cases, the black defendants were more than twice as likely to be sentenced to death than their white counterparts, he said.

Read more: Black people are three times more likely to face the death sentence in Houston than whites, study finds | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Men lie, women lie, numbers don't.
 
The phrase "race card" exists only for the purpose of covering up legitimate examples of racism. It is the cry to pretend that issues with racial implications don't matter unless they come from overt racist intentions. It is the wishful fantasy that racial problems in this country went away in the 1960s and that white people are now immune to criticism for the racial consequences of their actions. There is no reason to have a blanket term for "unfounded assertion that race is a factor in this issue", because only a tiny fraction of such assertions are unfounded. That there is even such a tactic as "playing the race card" exists only the minds of people who want to pretend that the choices they make and the policies they support do not prop white people up over black people.
 
The phrase "race card" exists only for the purpose of covering up legitimate examples of racism. It is the cry to pretend that issues with racial implications don't matter unless they come from overt racist intentions. It is the wishful fantasy that racial problems in this country went away in the 1960s and that white people are now immune to criticism for the racial consequences of their actions. There is no reason to have a blanket term for "unfounded assertion that race is a factor in this issue", because only a tiny fraction of such assertions are unfounded. That there is even such a tactic as "playing the race card" exists only the minds of people who want to pretend that the choices they make and the policies they support do not prop white people up over black people.

Here is the origin and first usage of the term. And I challenge your assertion that "only a tiny fraction of such assertions are unfounded". Playing the race card by all the names it's been known is a time honored distraction technique. Pretty much comes down to the equivilent of, "Heh everybody, look over there!".
 
I've been black my whole life. For almost my entire adult life I'm been a registered republican, drawn to the GOP because of a perception I had of the Republicans being the party that stood for doing the right things; God, family and country. I have almost always voted Republican in every election with a handful of exceptions prior to 2012 where I saw my role as making a statement of protest over things like holding the President to ridiculous double standards, voter suppression and other troubling problems I see with the current GOP culture. Up until recently I've thought of myself as a conservative in good standing. I say all that to lay a foundation on who I am and where I stand.

One thing that's like fingernails on a chalkboard for me is when I hear people, almost always conservative in my experience, complain that someone is "using the race car." I happen to believe America does have a racist history and holdovers from that unfortunate aspect of history still occasionally can be seen today. But I think I'm fair about it. I defended and supported President Bush when he was accused of having less concern for Katrina victims because of race, which was a complete untruth. I stood up for Don Imus, realizing all he did was tell a joke that hurt no one but himself. I stood up for Paula Deen reasoning she has quite an imagination, wanted to create an early south ambiance at an event then apologized once she realized she'd offended people she loves.

That all said I do think racism exists today and think it needs to be called out as such, especially what I call institutional racism so that it can be discussed and hopefully corrected. Institutional racism isn't some guy making a joke somebody got offended by or a 5 second sound bite from a speech that's magnified to try to define a person's entire life or the characters of his friends. Institutional racism is an assumption that any black person who achieves something in life probably got it through racial preferences unless unlike his white counterparts has figured out how to do his job 1000 times better than anybody else leaving no question in anybody's mind he's not just good, he's the best ever. Institutional racism is assuming anybody who looks Hispanic should be suspected of illegal immigration and unlike other Americans should give himself an extra 30 minutes travel time in case he's spotted and interrogated to make sure he's legit and maybe carry his birth certificate and a utility bill along with his driver's license at all times.

I take exception to the politically correct culture that some seek to create by immediately demonizing any complaint of possible racism often even before investigating the facts. It seems they'll acknowledge racism if its blatantly obvious...sometimes... but then probably define it as an isolated case. However, less severe cases of racism should never be spoken of or the speaker will be vilified as "using the race card." The net result is since only major cases of racism end up being addressed while less serious cases are overlooked under political correctness pressures, then society is perpetually slightly racist because is non-PC to talk about the "slightly racist" stuff.

My question is what's worse: running the risk of someone using the race card where in essence false assertions of racism are made or creating a culture where all assertions of racism are dismissed including legitimate racism?

The first poll option should be "Society should NOT mention race..." Sorry.

I think what gets me, that causes the term racist to become watered down to mean almost nothing is when someone differs in their point of view or is against a policy of President Obama, one of the first things that appears is calling him/her a racist. The same can be said on the immigration issue, if you don't believe in amnesty and a road to citizenship for illegal aliens then you labeled a racist. I once asked the question can you be against the Dream Act, against amnesty and not be a racist. Most of the replies I received were no, you're a racist becasue you oppose that.

Another question along the same lines, is one automatically a bigot if they do not believe in same sex marriages? I do think the words racist and bigot are tossed around too much today that they have lost much of their original meaning. Being from Georgia, I know what a racist is/was and they were all inhumane beings deserving of the every meaning of the word. But a policy disagreement with the president? Perhaps those who throw those terms around have not yet met a real live true racist or a bigot? There still around.
 
Why is it either-or?
Shouldn't we both reject cynical "race card" manipulations and resist racism whenever it rears its ugly head?

I like this answer, but it assumes we know one form the other. However, some call it the race card whenever the subject is broached. This is problematic.
 
Here is the origin and first usage of the term. And I challenge your assertion that "only a tiny fraction of such assertions are unfounded". Playing the race card by all the names it's been known is a time honored distraction technique. Pretty much comes down to the equivilent of, "Heh everybody, look over there!".

From what I have seen on this site and another I use to belong to, I would say you are correct.
 
And what is behind THE RACE CARD that gives it power?
 
I don't think the situation is grey or subjective at all.

I agree with you in terms of a broader, univeresal type stance. The grey I speak with is with individual situations and based around our perception.

A man goes "I hate this president! He's not like me!".

It COULD be because he's Black. it could be because he's a Democrat. It could be because he thinks he's muslim. It could be because he holds different views on abortoin and gay marriage. It could be because he smokes for all we know.

Or hell, for a more relevant case...and god forgive me for bringing this up...but take the Trayvon Martin case. There should at LEAST have been enough conflicting views and opinions across the board to suggest that, at the very least, it would be inaccurate to claim with 100% factual certainty whether or not he acted the way he did specifically because of Race. Yet there are people on both sides who will declare, with absolute certainty, one way or the other...when in reality it's not fully possible for any of us to truly know for sure what role it played and HOW it played that role.

That's why I say that often some of the things that are declared racism are subjective in nature; I mean that from a human sense, that given the information we have, and not utilizing assumptions and guesses, there is no objective truth in many of these situations. There's enough evidence that a case could be made either way in a reasonable or rational way.
 
Men lie, women lie, numbers don't.

First, I'm going to point out that any honest statitician that you ever say that line to will likely give you a wonderful belly laugh. Numbers absolutely can, and do, lie.

Second, despite that I do generally agree that when you have large sample sizes such as that showing such disproportionate situations that it bares a closer look. Where I'm guessing we'll depart however is an automatic assumption regarding the legitimacy of declaring "racism" within the legal system as the overwhelming or primary contributor in and of itself. I believe a variety of factors, and yes that includes legal system racism, play into it and it's far to nuanced to just write off as "racist" and call it a day. But I think it would be foolish to say that race, and racial views, do not play into that number in some fashion OR that such numbers aren't problematic.

Third, I think there is also a large difference between declaring an institutional issue and using that institutional issue to declare every individual situation in line with that. In the post I was speaking of, in terms of those things that hover in "the middle", my mind was more on INDIVIDUAL instances where there's significant reasonable disagreement regarding whether racism is present or not. Even if one was to conceed that, in general, the legal system is biased against a race...an individual situation of someone of that race still needs to be viewed on it's own merits. One can use the knowledge regarding the system to butress ones thoughts or as the basis for an argument, but the issue with the system itself is not a defacto indication that an individual situation was influenced by racism.
 
And what is behind THE RACE CARD that gives it power?

It gets it's power because the vast majority of people think racism is bad, think being racist is bad, and think racist actions should be avoided and/or stopped. Thus an accusation of an action/comment/person/system being "racist", or a variation there of, bestows upon that entity a negative connotatoin.

In a more micro comparison, it is similar to a "Bias Card" when talking about political news. In general, people believe Bias is a bad thing...thus, accusing something of "bias" instantly connotates a negative notion towards that entity.

This basic thought process is actually the basis behind "Godwin's Law". Hitler and Nazi's have a negative connotation, and thus attempting to compare Nazi's or Hitler to something you're arguing against is an attempt to impart to others that said thing is also negative.
 
Why is it either-or?
Shouldn't we both reject cynical "race card" manipulations and resist racism whenever it rears its ugly head?

Yes, but some people automatically jump to the "playing the race card" so as to dismiss it.
 
I think they pretty much go hand in hand.
 
It gets it's power because the vast majority of people think racism is bad, think being racist is bad, and think racist actions should be avoided and/or stopped. Thus an accusation of an action/comment/person/system being "racist", or a variation there of, bestows upon that entity a negative connotatoin.

In a more micro comparison, it is similar to a "Bias Card" when talking about political news. In general, people believe Bias is a bad thing...thus, accusing something of "bias" instantly connotates a negative notion towards that entity.

This basic thought process is actually the basis behind "Godwin's Law". Hitler and Nazi's have a negative connotation, and thus attempting to compare Nazi's or Hitler to something you're arguing against is an attempt to impart to others that said thing is also negative.

You have to go back even further than that explaination. Charges of racism would have no power if not for the institution and practice of racism in this country in the first place.

One cannot start a public discussion about the gangs of Japanese American youth in the suburbs who are responsible for dealing dopes and most street crime. Without truth behind it that is recognized and accepted as truth, there is no power in such an absurdity.

The race card was not invented by Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. It was invented and empowered by the racists who practiced it through slavery, Jim Crow, separate but equal and continuing discrimination against minorities.
 
Back
Top Bottom