The Holocaust

[mpjh]

Racism is the oppression of one group by another -- it can be changed by changing the law. Racist attitudes are not the source of the oppression. It is the acts of groups of people through government, corporations, and community that enforce the oppression that is the goal of racism. Making those acts illegal, and enforcing the law virtually eliminates racism. Attitudes will follow because most avowed racists are cowards and will cower in fear in the face of real public opposition to their sickness.

[LYR]

Racism is the oppression of one group by another

That is discrimination.

rac⋅ism
  /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm]
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

[LYR]

Racism is the oppression of one group by another

Or oppression, but,

the oppression of one group by another

is not racism. It may be the result of racism, but not racism itself.

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

Racism is the oppression of one group by another

Or oppression, but,

the oppression of one group by another

is not racism. It may be the result of racism, but not racism itself.

Oppression can be used to enrich one group against other groups. Doesn't mean racism is involved, but to profit from it. You could call it greed.

[PLAYER57832]

Racism is the oppression of one group by another -- it can be changed by changing the law.

LYR tackled part.

Racism is specific belief that people of one RACE are inferior or superior to another.

Opression may or may not be a result of racism. Opression is usually caused by various prejudicial beliefs, but racism is only one form of prejudice.

Racist attitudes are not the source of the oppression. It is the acts of groups of people through government, corporations, and community that enforce the oppression that is the goal of racism. Making those acts illegal, and enforcing the law virtually eliminates racism. Attitudes will follow because most avowed racists are cowards and will cower in fear in the face of real public opposition to their sickness.

I see, so you think people act to have the government do thing without any cause? Wrong again. Set aside that you seem to think racism and prejudice are synonyms (they are not!), the idea comes well before the act.

And no, true racists will definitly not "cower in fear" because for most it is a type of religion. Opposition just makes them feel persecuted and feeds their sense of "conspiracies" .. a backward type of superiority. (they know what no one else does). The answer is to let folks of prejudice speak freely, within limits (they may not act on the thoughts and may be limited to certain venues -- the KKK should not be marching in Watts, not matter how much they wish to do so). Then and only then, when their word face the light of day can sane people see the idiocy.

That said, its a tricky issue becuase there is always an area of overlap. Adn that is where the difference between real freedom and paper freedom really come into play ... and the difference between one person's interpretation of the law and another's.

[mpjh]

You miss it entirely. By criminalizing the acts that used racism to keep another group down, the government prevents the chief aim of racists - oppression. The same is true of prejudice against people with different sexual preferences. The end of the raids on gay bars, the end of the raids of people's bedrooms searching for contraceptives, the end of the prohibition on inter-racial marriage, the end of the refusal to sell homes in certain neighborhoods to black families, the end of the bar to voting for blacks, and many others were acts enforced by the local racist ad bigots that oppressed people. Government criminalized those act, and they have, for the most part, ended.

You grab them by the short hairs and their minds and hearts will follow.

[Qwert]

ok, from mine point of view,in WWII germans try to exterminate Jews,and these is call Holocaust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In present situation,if Palestinians attack Jews,these is call Crime,but if Jews Soldiers kill Palestinian these is call Colateral damage.These is what im learn from Nato attack on Serbia. If you are superior you are good guy,and if you are inferior,you are bad guy, and these is how things working.
Why Israel dont recognise Kosovo? If Israel people belive that Kosovo is unique example,then its no fear to recognise these so call new independent country.

[PLAYER57832]

ok, from mine point of view,in WWII germans try to exterminate Jews,and these is call Holocaust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In present situation,if Palestinians attack Jews,these is call Crime,but if Jews Soldiers kill Palestinian these is call Colateral damage.These is what im learn from Nato attack on Serbia. If you are superior you are good guy,and if you are inferior,you are bad guy, and these is how things working.
Why Israel dont recognise Kosovo? If Israel people belive that Kosovo is unique example,then its no fear to recognise these so call new independent country.

Don't know enough of the Kosovo situation to comment, but you got the others right.

[PLAYER57832]

You miss it entirely. By criminalizing the acts that used racism to keep another group down, the government prevents the chief aim of racists - oppression.

This can be true, yes. However, that is all the government can do ... regulate behavior. I thought you were saying something different.

Though I will add a subtle, but important clarification. Those who's prejudice turns them to violance and oppresion are specifically those who wish to keep others down. However, for most, it is a matter of wanting to keep themselves up. This is important because it helps us to understand why people think as they do.

A person who is comfortable with themselves usually doesn't need to look down on others or treat others badly, not matter their beliefs. The irony about many people with true prejudice is that they don't really see themselves as putting others down. That is WHY there is typically a huge backlash against many so-called affirmative action programs. People feel as if they are being punished for doing no wrong.

Then, when you enter the "PC" world, things change again. Too often "PC" is really its own, far more oppressive kind of prejudice than that put forward even by ardent racists. Why? Because those who truly believe in the whole "PC" way think they are just "inherently superior" and therefore have no need to even question their ideas. Yet, the real truth is that PC often ignores real and true differences between people and ironically winds up discriminating against just about everyone as a result. Becuase, part of having a belief ... ANY belief, is an inherent idea -- maybe up front, maybe just in the deep, dark recesses of the mind, that everyone else is just wrong. That, inherently is an idea PC tries to disguise. And, thereby limits people's abilities to express themselves.

I mentioned before living in Mississippi. Ironically, a lot of the blacks got along "better" (superficially, in a work way) quite well with some of the highly prejudiced whites, better than with some of us who did not consider ourselve prejudiced. Why? Because they each knew exactly where they stood with each other. They were fine working together, joking, playing cards. If something happened to one's family, the hat would be "passed around" and EVERYONE would contribute .. no matter the color. BUT, only the blacks would ever even think of going to the black person's house.. and of course the same in reverse for the whites. Those weren't the only "divisions", of course... there was social class, etc. However, those were the main ones. Those of us not from there too often crossed boundaries we did not know existed. And, so, we were sometimes viewed with suspicion as a result.

In a diverse society, asking everyone to think the same way, even accept what everyone else thinks, is too much to ask. Really, all we can do is ask people to "mind their manners" in public. It means that people who have horrible ideas, even, are allowed to exist and live freely, but the cost of NOT allowing that is far too great to risk. Further, I still believe the old saying "nasty things love the dark". It is when we tell people that they cannot speak, cannot say what they feel that we drive all this into the dark corners and, ironically allow it to flourish. And, sometimes, turn even well-intentioned things into something dark. (as in turning a celebration of culture into a discrimination against others)

The same is true of prejudice against people with different sexual preferences. The end of the raids on gay bars, the end of the raids of people's bedrooms searching for contraceptives, the end of the prohibition on inter-racial marriage, the end of the refusal to sell homes in certain neighborhoods to black families, the end of the bar to voting for blacks, and many others were acts enforced by the local racist ad bigots that oppressed people. Government criminalized those act, and they have, for the most part, ended.

You grab them by the short hairs and their minds and hearts will follow.

There are 2 points here. First, none of those rules came first. ALL came only after a long and hard fought battle and nation-wide change of opinions. Nor did any of it come easily. Only AFTER a large majority of people said "this is just wrong" and were not only willing to say that, but were willing to actually stand up for what they believe.. only THEN did things change.

The same is going to be true of homosexuality. If the government tries to force people before they are ready, it will result in a backlash.. one probably worse than what we saw down south. Because while most people are willing to just live and let live, some will always take it a step further. People are truly threatened by homosexuality because they truly feel it is "catching". That is, they feel it is something not caused strictly by biology, etc.

Anyway, this is getting off the topic of the Holocaust. However, there is a parallel. The Nazis succeeded because they were able to paint the Jews as the cause of the economic problems in Germany post WW I. Right now, homosexuals are not a target of that sort of belief. It is immigrants drawing people's ire and focus in that regard. However, there are 2 things that will move people to do things they won't otherwise consider. Extreme economic hardship / perceived threat of economic hardship (real or not) AND threat to one's children's morals/welfare. Homosexuality doesn't really touch the first, but it certainly touches the second.

Younger people are more and more willing to accept that homosexuality is not a threat. BUT, if you remember your history of Germany, you understand that those feelings of fear and hatred are not necessarily that far below the surface. If people, even younger people, truly feel that THEY are being threatened, that they are not allowed to think as they wish, believe as they wish in the privacy of their homes and churches and, even to a non-threatening extent, in public.. then they WILL become less tolerant.

[mpjh]

You need to read through Strunk and White "The Elements of Style," if you want to be read.

[PLAYER57832]

You need to read through Strunk and White "The Elements of Style," if you want to be read.

Funny you should say that.

I have, more than once. I also have the "little Red book", etc.

[mpjh]

Well then, read it again, slowly.

[PLAYER57832]

Well then, read it again, slowly.

No. if all you can do is attack my "style"... then you are looking for pinholes to attack, not ideas.

I did write that while on the phone, but its perfectly legible and understandable. You just don't want to hear what I have to say. So be it.

[mpjh]

Obviously, you have not read "The Elements of Style." It is all about the use of few words, the advantage of succinct clarity, and the purpose of communication.

[e_i_pi]

Yeah, I'm not so sure about the numbers quoted when it comes to the Holocaust. Let's not forget we're talking about a religion whose followers believes Noah lived to the ripe old age of 950. Mind you, I give them 500 out of 10 for effort, regardless of the truth

You are well off base there. While some Christain fundamentalists may well be members of the KKK and other hate groups, it is hardly a majority. As much as I disagree with them on many issues, hatred of that kind is generally not their calling card. Granted, I am not sure the way they feel certain issues and people should be treated is particularly "loving", but there IS a stretch from saying you don't want homosexuals to marry and think abortion should be illegal to denying the Holocaust.

Wow, you managed a reply that was 100% non-sequitar. Congratulations. I said their numbers are off, I never affiliated with the KKK, Christianity, homophobia, or denied the Holocaust.

[muvand103]

I dont believe it existed