Someone sent me a snippet of a Neil Boortz segment where callers react to racial statements he made. It made me think about how several of us have been called a racist here, and it occurred to me that much of what liberals would have us believe is a "racist" way of thinking is really not at all racism. A racist statement would be as follows " All people of Middle Eastern descent are, by virtue of their race, are violent" which is obviously false and wrong. However the statement "the vast majority of Islamic leaders are violent" or "a current problem facing the Mideastern culture is radical Islamic mind thought" which is not racist, but an observation of a cultural, not a racial character flaw. I'm trying to give an example, so when discussing Arab/Islamic issues I would have a major problem saying Arabs are inferior to me, but I don't have a problem saying any culture that permits the exploitation of women and promotes violence is inferior to my culture.
What does everyone think?

__________________

Neil Boortz?

enough said

__________________

Although I do agree that there is a difference between a cultural and racist remarks, I think your example is hilarious. I would imagine that an Iraqi may have a very different view as to which "culture" promotes violence. And has 100,000 gravestones to prove the point.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

__________________
[

Is racism really defined by the "Liberals?"



I would agree with that.



I would agree that the last statement you made is not racist, but the first one could be considered racist.

In order for it to not be racist, you need to first define what is considered "violent." By violent do you mean they spank their kids, abuse their wives, execute drug dealers, invade other countries and torture the prisoners, finance known terrorist groups, etc.

Second, you need to demonstrate how each Islamic leader fits the definition of "violent" as you have defined it.

Third, for the statement to be valid and lack a racist component, you need to show that "the vast majority" are violent, which to me suggests you need to show that at least 75% to 90% of all Islamic leaders fit the criteria.

If you can't support the initial statement or even know IF the statement is supported by real data, then the statement is racist. But if you have the evidence backing the statement, then it's not racist, but 'fact.'

Racism is emotionally-driven and racists don't care about what the data show.



Even disregarding the negative connotation of the word, "inferior" presupposes and ignores many points and therefore should really not be used, in my opinion. Superiority of anything is relative and strongly dependent on many variables, most of which can't be quantified and directly compared.

But I understand the problem. How do you compare two cultures that are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum without coming off sounding like an arrogant or racist a$$? I suppose just be honest and be able to support your assertions. And keep emotion out of it.

Do I think my Western Culture is better for women? Of course. But is it better in dealing with tribal mentality that has been the way of life for millenia in the Mideast? Probably not.

It's all relative.

__________________

great post, rox...i wanted to post a response but was just too tired and lazy and i'm glad to see that you said a lot of the same things i would have said.

i think the danger in any of those statements is the generalization...that dips it in the realm of being racist/culturalist.

__________________
Michele (30)
DH David (33)

Tandem nursing, co-sleeping, and babywearing mama to DS Rowan (3/24/03) & DD Ava (12/13/05)

Oh puhlease...pre-emptive war my a$$. Let's talk terrorism, shall we. Hardly a day goes by without there being something in the news about Islam, it wouldn't be so bad if this news was about humanitarian projects being done by Muslims in the name of Islam, or was about something that was for the benefit of mankind, or that Islam and Muslims are striving to end poverty and starvation in Africa, or some other thing that you could say that’s nice of them. No, it is none of these, all I see and hear is one long litany of violence here, violence there, Jihad this Jihad that, Fatwa the other, followed up by death to this that and the other and anything else that Muslims may have forgotten. Oh, but that's right, it was US who started it back on 9/11

aaaaand we're back to 9/11.

__________________
Michele (30)
DH David (33)

Tandem nursing, co-sleeping, and babywearing mama to DS Rowan (3/24/03) & DD Ava (12/13/05)

Ya know, you're right, and before these islamic terrorists, it was the irsh terrorists reeking havoc, but we , the US, didn't give a flying fruck about them. Terrorism was acceptable then. We also had many American Terrorists who wer out to harm fellow American, and while it wasn't "acceptable" we really didn''t do much to stiop them either. Give me a fruckin' break.

__________________

oh, and ps., the US started this(interfered) long before 9/11.

__________________

I'm still shocked (not sure why, but I am) that people can use 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. Either way, I didn't think this was a discussion about Iraq, 9-11, terrorists, etc. I thought it was about what is and isn't 'racist.'

But I'm starting to see a pattern here. Apparently, since the terrorists are Muslim and we all know how evil terrorists are, it's okay to use racist language to refer to all Muslims. Poor logic.

__________________

yeah, that rox. i agree.

__________________
Michele (30)
DH David (33)

Tandem nursing, co-sleeping, and babywearing mama to DS Rowan (3/24/03) & DD Ava (12/13/05)