I remember when racism meant that you believed that your race was superior to other races. After all the suffix "ism" refers to a belief in superiority like "nationalism"
You know like this definition:
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

But let's leave vital parts out, shall we?
Works well for the media.

 I know that this is long but it's presents this topic in a way that I could never articulate. If it's a dupe I apologize.

What Is Racism?

The 'racist' double standard: how Whites are made to feel guilty and "hateful" for loving their own people and culture.

by Thomas Jackson

There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.

Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?

Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.


The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.

All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of White people.

The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.

Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on Whites.

At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist.

"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.

Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.

All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.

At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is branded as racist.

Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved.

Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is, of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and schooling?

Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.

There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."

Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.

Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?

No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.

What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."

What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.

Quoted: I remember when racism meant that you believed that your race was superior to other races. After all the suffix "ism" refers to a belief in superiority like "nationalism" You know like this definition: Main Entry: rac·ism Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi- Function: noun 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race But let's leave vital parts out, shall we? Works well for the media.

So alcoholism mean drunks are superior to everyone else  So right now I am king of the world

Does this count as racism?
Source

JAY-Z VOICES SUPPORT FOR KANYE WEST JAY-Z has voiced his support for KANYE WEST in the aftermath of the latter’s anti-Bush speech during Friday’s benefit show for the victims of HURRICANE KATRINA (September 2). During a charity telethon, West declared that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” and that America is set up “to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slowly as possible”. Speaking about his Def Jam colleague, Jay-Z said: “I'm backing Kanye 100%." He told Billboard:"This is America. You should be able to say what you want to say. We have freedom of speech." The rapper admits that he shares some of West’s views about the US’ slow response to the disaster. He said: “It's really numbing. You can't believe it's happening in America. You wonder, what's going on? Why were people so slow to react? I don't understand it." Jay-Z also revealed that, despite having not "spoken to anyone about doing a concert event" to benefit Hurricane Katrina victims, he wants to speak with Diddy about setting up a fund in order to exclusively aid African-Americans in times of crisis. He explained: "Just in case anything like this happens in the future, we can do what the elder Bush and (Bill) Clinton are doing for our people specifically."

Hmmm.... the $400+ million raised for the Katrina "victims"... the ones shown on CNN, MSNBC, FNC, etc... the +/-98% black people that the media has been showing... I guess everyone donating money is just donating it with the white folks in mind and hoping it doesn't get into the black people's hands?

Stupid is as stupid does. If celebtrities could get any stupider they'd have to be class into a whole separate species, because they would no longer be considered smart enough to be called humans.

Nationally there is more white folk in prison than black folk.
Of course whitey is still the majority  ...

Ever since Katrina I have this uncontrolable urge to post

Quoted: I hate to bump this, but... A racist is someone who uses race to determine an individuals likely behavoir. It would appear that you meet that definition.

I agree with you Sylvan, when I am in Detroit or Oakland on MLK Blvd. after dark, I never make assumptions about people's conduct based on their physical appearance.  It makes me feel so wonderful inside to be so unpredujiced and look at every human being as a potential friend.  

I'm sure your husband loves that quality in you...

Quoted: Nationally there is more white folk in prison than black folk. Of course whitey is still the majority  ...

I'm gonna need to see some your sources on that statement...

Population Statistics In 2000, the number of prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Federal or State adult correctional authorities was 1,381,892 and overall, the United States incarcerated 2,071,686 persons[1]. In 1990 the total prison population numbered only 773,905, by 2002 it had risen to around 2.1 million[2]. 1 of every 143 U.S. residents is in prison in 2002, or roughly 699 out of every 100,000 Americans. The three states with the lowest ratio of imprisoned to unimprisoned population are: Minnesota (121 per 100,000), Maine (128/100,000), and North Dakota (120/100,000). The three states with the highest ratio are: Louisiana (763/100,000), Texas (704/100,000), and Oklahoma (653/100,000). In terms of federal prison, 57 percent of those incarcerated are for drug offenses. Currently, considering local jails as well, almost a million of those incarcerated are in prison for non-violent crime[3]. In 1993, roughly 2.5 percent of the U.S. population, or 4.9 million adults, were either on parole, probation, or in (local) jails or (state and federal) prisons. In 2002 roughly 88% of prisoners were male. About 12 percent of all black males in the United States between the ages of 20 and 39 were in prison, compared to 4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.6 percent of white males. source

Quoted: I agree with you Sylvan, when I am in Detroit or Oakland on MLK Blvd. after dark, I never make assumptions about people's conduct based on their physical appearance.

I'm tellin.

Quoted: I hate to bump this, but... A racist is someone who uses race to determine an individuals likely behavoir. It would appear that you meet that definition.

Why everybody knows whites act the same as blacks--
What an idiot you are...

Well, if you pre-judge a person who is black to be a street gang type individual just because he is black, then you are indeed racist.

If you interact with him and find out that he is indeed a street gang type individual and make you judgement AFTER you look past his skin, then you are not racist.

Easy as pie. And a lot of these "facts" you have are not indeed facts... Like more minorities are on welfare then white people, haha, you never met a poor white family before? Meth addicts, who are overwhelmingly poor rural whites are ALSO costing America billions of dollars in crime and medical care...

Anyway, you seem to focus overwhelmingly on the liberal overreaction to true racism. GWB himself said that this country has not overcome the habbit of racism.

"racism" is just a subset of the larger phenomenon of stereotyping, in which you make assumption about a group (could be based on political belief, hair color, intelligence, national origin, skin color, whatever) in general, and then expect that all individuals within that group generally conform to those assumptions.


In general, it's probably a useful trait for survival in the ancestral hunter-gatherer environment, but it becomes a liability when we have to interact with large numbers of strangers that are different from us (on various domensions).  Of course we need to do that in a modern world, so stereotyping is something we need to be careful of.  It has value (in that it correctly tells us that hanging out in the projects in our new Lexus after dark is NOT a good idea), but it is potentially dysfunctional if overused - like calling the police on a suspicious black man who was loitering in an upscale mall in St. Louis a number of years back  (turns out he was a professor of Shakespearean literature at WAshington University, waiting for his daughter to finish her ballet lessons).


blah blah blah ...   I'm booooooring !!  

Quoted: Well, if you pre-judge a person who is black to be a street gang type individual just because he is black, then you are indeed racist. If you interact with him and find out that he is indeed a street gang type individual and make you judgement AFTER you look past his skin, then you are not racist.

It goes beyond skin color. You can an educated black man from a black street thug by the way they dress, their body language, their spoken language, the people they surround themselves with, the environment they are in, the music they listen to, the car they drive, etc.

If that's prejudice o racist then I'm so damned prejudice I guess from now on I'll be spending my nights wearing a sheet on my head and burning crosses on front lawns...

Obviously it would be silly to say that 100% of the members of a racial group will act in a certain way.  There will always be exceptions; hence the bell-curve shape of IQ studies of racial groups for example.

But, is there a % level that we could agree on that can be claimed of a racial group without being branded a racist?

What if I say for example, on average, about 50% of Blacks, and 60% of Asians will act a certain way in certain circumstances.  Would that be racist?  What if I dropped the levels to 20% and 30% respectively?  Would I still be a racist?

I can say the majority of Blacks are more athletic than the majority of Asians right?  

"they say that animals (which people are, no matter how you try to label em) were given what nature/God/evolution gave em to help them survive"

"compared to whites, there is a disportional number of blacks/minorites in prison"

"most crime is committed during the nighttime"

"does that mean that nature/God/evolution or whatever made blacks/minorites (brown/yellow/ all of em) 'darker' in order to blend in better with thier surroundings (the night) in order to commit crimes of violence to their fellow man and get away with it--i.e.: camoflauge?"



thats what someone asked me once, i was like WTF?

Quoted: Obviously it would be silly to say that 100% of the members of a racial group will act in a certain way.  There will always be exceptions; hence the bell-curve shape of IQ studies of racial groups for example. But, is there a % level that we could agree on that can be claimed of a racial group without being branded a racist? What if I say for example, on average, about 50% of Blacks, and 60% of Asians will act a certain way in certain circumstances.  Would that be racist?  What if I dropped the levels to 20% and 30% respectively?  Would I still be a racist? I can say the majority of Blacks are more athletic than the majority of Asians right?

It's only racist when its implications are negative. When people generalize Asians as being smart or good with computers it isn't a racial generalization... it's a stereotype. Figure out the difference between stereotyping, profiling, racism, prejudice, etc.. and you might be on to something...

I'm sure if you told a black guy you were just harmlessly stereotyping while he's beating your head in he might stop and think about it and apologize...

Quoted: For the short bus. If you make determinations about an individual based upon that persons race, you are, by definition a racist. I judge based upon clothing, actions, family, background stuff like that. You tell me some guy is black the only thing I assume is that he has curly hair.  Even there I could be wrong as some Mongoloids have skin as dark as a negroid and yet their hair is perfectly straight. Oh, for the record, there are only three races, mongoloid, caucausoid and negroid.

The original posting used provable facts regarding race.  That isn't racism.

Some other posters, like the guy who said he didn't like French people, is bordering on racism but since France is a multi-racial country, it fails the test.

Quoted: i'm sorry, but i have to agree w/ this guy. [RANT ON!] Black history month, Hispanic history month.....thats neat......why isnt there a "White or Caucassion history month" hell....even an "Irish History Month" or something of that nature??  [sarcasm on]because that would be rasicst[/sarcasm off]

"even" an Irish History Month? Like, what, we're not worthy of one?? Pog mo thoin, you RACIST BASTARD

(I am, of course, kidding you).  

Quoted: Some other posters, like the guy who said he didn't like French people, is bordering on racism but since France is a multi-racial country, it fails the test.

Not to mentioned a geographical region of the world doesn't designate race... a white guy can be African, Asian, or Mexican... it's simply someones "birth nationality" or "country of origin".

Distinction of race has been so watered down ever since people started traveling outside of their "homelands" and breeding with other races. How many black people do you see that are "black"? Unless you're watching National Geographic...

Someone said in another post how come if you're 1/2 white and 1/2 black you're black.

If you all want to get technical, its just data.

On that same token you could break it down and say the same thing but insert "right-handed" in place of black or minority.

When not in the shop I crunch data using a GIS system for 3 local govt agencies. With enough data I can compare stream flow to crime rates, minority status to the average time of day people mow lawns. Its all in how you look at the data. Just stating the facts doesnt make anybody anything.

Ask yourself:
Are the people that collect this data racists just for doing so?

The point is, the data tells us these facts. Ignoring that because of subject matter is just ignorant.

CH

Quoted: Guess I am a racist, there I said it. Now close the border.

here,here.

Quoted: KILL WHITEY!

Quoted: Quoted: The same observations (save the welfare portion) could have been said about Scottish, Italians, Irish, Jews and just about every other immigrant group at one point or another (and has been said) That you observed, mostly correctly (more whites are on welfare than all other minorities combined).  That you wanted to make a point of it leads me to question the motiviation.   What, exactly, was the point of your thread? The heretofore unknown phenominom of being called a racist if you make an observation that minorities are over represented in prison? Is your point that people with dark skin are pre-disposed to crime? Thank you for your insight, we are all better educated and thankful for it. Although I only mentioned that there are more minorities in prison than whites and nothing more, lets see what you think. More minorities in prison than Whites leads you to believe: A. Minorites are pre-disposed to crime. B. Whites are pre-disposed to crime. C. Every one is the same, it means nothing. D. Minorities are victims of White racism. Or when you watch the NBA, you come to the conclusion that: A. Blacks are better at basketball than Whites. B. Whites are better at basketball than Blacks. C. Blacks and Whites are exactly equal at playing basketball. D. Minorities are victims of White racism. Looking forward to your answers.

Quoted: Quoted: The same observations (save the welfare portion) could have been said about Scottish, Italians, Irish, Jews and just about every other immigrant group at one point or another (and has been said) That you observed, mostly correctly (more whites are on welfare than all other minorities combined).  That you wanted to make a point of it leads me to question the motiviation.   What, exactly, was the point of your thread? The heretofore unknown phenominom of being called a racist if you make an observation that minorities are over represented in prison? Is your point that people with dark skin are pre-disposed to crime? Thank you for your insight, we are all better educated and thankful for it. Although I only mentioned that there are more minorities in prison than whites and nothing more, lets see what you think. More minorities in prison than Whites leads you to believe: A. Minorites are pre-disposed to crime. B. Whites are pre-disposed to crime. C. Every one is the same, it means nothing. D. Minorities are victims of White racism. Or when you watch the NBA, you come to the conclusion that: A. Blacks are better at basketball than Whites. B. Whites are better at basketball than Blacks. C. Blacks and Whites are exactly equal at playing basketball. D. Minorities are victims of White racism. Looking forward to your answers.

Every Moron knows:

"The Irish hate to drink and fight"

Quoted: Wow, what's with the recent upsurge of 88-ish shit on here recently? I know it's not a full moon, so that's not an excuse.

I've come to the point that I don't even argue with 88s on this forum...

I have lost the ability to "give a shit" about some of the crap they spout out and reply to it...

Quoted: Quoted: Some other posters, like the guy who said he didn't like French people, is bordering on racism but since France is a multi-racial country, it fails the test. Not to mentioned a geographical region of the world doesn't designate race... a white guy can be African, Asian, or Mexican... it's simply someones "birth nationality" or "country of origin". Distinction of race has been so watered down ever since people started traveling outside of their "homelands" and breeding with other races. How many black people do you see that are "black"? Unless you're watching National Geographic... Someone said in another post how come if you're 1/2 white and 1/2 black you're black.

One drop of blood

Department of Justice Criminal Statistics

here

Quoted: Quoted: For the short bus. If you make determinations about an individual based upon that persons race, you are, by definition a racist. I judge based upon clothing, actions, family, background stuff like that. You tell me some guy is black the only thing I assume is that he has curly hair.  Even there I could be wrong as some Mongoloids have skin as dark as a negroid and yet their hair is perfectly straight. Oh, for the record, there are only three races, mongoloid, caucausoid and negroid. The original posting used provable facts regarding race.  That isn't racism. Some other posters, like the guy who said he didn't like French people, is bordering on racism but since France is a multi-racial country, it fails the test.

actually its not even close to racism.   Even if all Frenchman were one race, it wouldn't be racist.   Its not even nationalism.   Its a prejudice, but its a limited form of it.

Like my prejudice against idiots who don't fucking know what words mean...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Caucasian: "More minorities are on welfare than Caucasians." (fact) Liberal type: "RACIST!" Pretty sure you're wrong on that one. Got a source for it?  I'm looking for something now I think you are correct. By porportion of population though, minorities are more likely to be on welfare. The only thing more irritating than a black guy on welfare is some balding middle aged white guy whining about it. Sigh. I guess it's easier to just blame the minorities than to fix the system.  Less work involved.  Damn lazy white people.

Well, he has a right to bitch, considering that he's one of the people paying for it and all.

Sorry you find that irritating

Quoted: Quoted: I hate to bump this, but... rac·ism   Audio pronunciation of "racism" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (rszm) n.   1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.   2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. I fucking HATE it when people make up their own definition to a word.

Finally, someone gets it right!