From: RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET (RICK GEORGE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Spike Lee and Racism
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:30:57 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>I'd have to disagree with your (their, our) definition of Racism. I think that
>no useful purpose is served by separating "Idiscriminates on the basis of
>raceI" and being a "racist". If you are "purposely discriminating on the basis
>of race for any reason" you are a racist.

Add dictionaries of the English language to the list of your definitional
disagreement.  Random House has racism defined as "the idea that one's
own race is superior."  Webster's defines it as "a belief that race is
the primary determinent of human traits and capacities and that racial
differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

Neither dictionary's definition of "discriminate" refers to superiority,
but speaks to distinguishing between things or differentiating between
things.  Thus, racial discrimination may be a manifestation of racism,
but the words are not synonyms.

>I BELIEVE, IMHO, that the secret to eradicating "Racism" from society is by
>demonstrating, by example, that "Racism" is not a "Good Thing". When we
>"change" the meaning of racism by definition, or any other "noble" method, we
>are providing people with "excuses" to discriminate. Discrimination(Racism)
>should not be tolerated in any form. Murder is not tolerated for any "excuse".
>I BELIEVE , that methods such as equivocation are the MOST PREVALENT FORM OF
>RACISM in the US today.

I'm not sure that I'd call it a "secret" but I agree that we need to
convince people that racism is not a good thing.  But I disagree that
all discrimination is bad.  Many colleges admit students because they
have a certain level of intelligence.  Are they discriminating against
less intelligent students?  Yes.  Is it bad?  No.  So I can't agree
with the statement that discrimination should not be tolerated in any
form.  Take "racism" out of the parenthesis and cross out discrimination
and we're in agreement.  And I don't follow your final statement, so I
don't know if I can agree with it or not.

>We are dealing with children here, small minds that need simple concepts. One
>simple concept is "one cannot justify treating someone differently because of
>their race."<---Notice the period, no buts, no excepts! IMHO, purposely (or
>possibly otherwise) treating someone differently because of their race is
>discrimination AND racism, again PERIOD! We can deal with the few exceptions
>that "pop up" much more easily than trying to define when someone can react to
>someone differently because of race.

I can justify treating someone differently because of their race:  If
there is a disease that is prevalent in Native Americans but is virtually
unheard of in blacks, it would be prudent for a doctor to test his or her
Native American patients for the disease more frequently than his or her
black patients.  So much for "no buts, no excepts."  Rather than teaching
children that you can't treat "someone diffrently because of their (sic)
race," I'd rather teach them to get along with people who look different
than they do.  Simpler concept for small minds.

>I must wholeheartedly agree, Spike Lee, IMHO is a racist of the worse kind (one
>that society justifies the behavior of rather than being repelled by it).
>
>
>Can we define "Color Blind"<----notice the blind part.

If, in your world, Spike Lee is a racist of the worst kind, I think that
the list cannot help but notice the blind part.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU