Systemic racism applies to different cultures in different ways, places, circumstances, and extents. To suggest that the same solutions apply to the racism that is leveled against all cultures, races,and minorities is simply a different kind of bigotry, but bigotry all the same.>> ^Velocity5:

>> ^Trancecoach:
It's a question of systemic racism and in equality

Surely that would apply to Latinos as well? If not, why not?

>> ^Trancecoach:

It's a question of systemic racism and in equality


Surely that would apply to Latinos as well? If not, why not?

>> ^Trancecoach:

racism is the cause, not the effect.>> ^EMPIRE:
so...many...huh......racial...stereotypes.... must..huh......resist... urge... to.... make....racist...... joke.



Hmm... but Latinos are subject to racism (even codified into law, such as in Arizona), have greater linguistic challenges as ESL speakers, and haven't yet closed the US gaps in academic performance, but you never see Latino flash mob robberies, and the average Latino crime rate is actually (contrary to stereotypes) almost as low as the mainstream US crime rate.

At some point it becomes useful to talk about cultural differences and personal accountability, and how we can help kids get out of self-destructive cultures and improve their lives.

>> ^jqpublick:

Being a Canadian, I stand 100% behind her. We don't know for sure who made these calls (choke, cough cough, hack hack) but when we do find out (at least one riding is now going to have a re-election due to these calls) and when enough of the affected ridings get their fair shots at casting their votes, I for one hope the guilty parties go to jail for a long long time.
I live in one of the ridings that got these calls, and both my roommate and I received calls telling us to go to another polling station. I called Elections Canada and was informed that they do not make phone calls but that they had received an unusual number of complaints.


This happens every election cycle here in the US, though predominantly to the young, the poor and the minorities. There are over 120 new laws on the books here in the States restricting the voting rights of those folks, sending out mail saying you have to vote on x day. It happens every election year in this country and it's only going to get worse for one reason... The republican voting block is shrinking. Younger people, blacks, and especially Latinos, these groups are growing rapidly and vote democrat predominantly, so instead of trying to actually get these groups on board by supporting them, republicans do their best to restrict their ability to vote. It's why a number of states (mostly southern states) make it so you need a state ID to vote and make it extremely hard to get new IDs, especially in the inner cities. In some states you cant vote with a student ID, but you can with a gun license. Florida has a new state law that makes it illegal for groups to help people register to vote. How preposterous is that? This is all in the name of 'voter fraud'. Funny thing is, in the last several years there have been a total of five.. yes.. five.. cases of this that actually went to court in the entire United States. Whats really funny is that two of them were republicans who held an office. One was a secretary of state! (The person in each state tasked with making sure voting and elections go smoothly in essence.)

I feel bad for Canadians. Their government has essentially been paid off by the oil industry. They are making out like bandits up there and their beautiful country is being torn apart (both physically and socially) because of it.

It's a bold move that may well cost him votes. On this score, Obama has more to fear from 'centrist' white independent voters than African Americans or Latino voters.

Ultimately though, this issue will not drive his election or Romney's. The economy and some foreign issues are too important.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Sudden 180° turn on a highly contentious issue..?
Say anything. Do anything. To get elected.

It's the American way!


Actually, Obama was pro-same-sex-equality before his presidency.

Biden's unplanned statement on Meet the Press, plus the NC amendment pushed him to make this (also unplanned) statement that the White House said was haphazardly put together, and may actually endanger his standing with some African American and Latino constituents.

@longde

Right, it's worth noting that the range of violence displayed by sub-cultures is the same, but are you saying that the averages are the same as well?

This came up in another thread as well, so let's look at the averages (as opposed to anecdotes).


In the US, people might guess that, per capita, a black person is 50% or 100% more likely to kill a white or latino person than the other way around. But the actual number appears to be much higher at 1200%.

According to the FBI's most recent statistics, where available, twice as many whites/latinos are killed by blacks, numerically, as blacks by whites/latinos in the U.S. In 2010 (where reported), the murder numbers were 447 vs 218. This means, statistically, that a black person is over 100% more likely to kill a white/latino person than the other way around.

To get per capita statistics (murders per race as percentage of population ratio), we take into account the differences sizes of the populations:
• 447 murders / 12.6 of US pop. = 35.5 per capita black on white/latino murders.
• 218 murders / 72.4 of US pop. = 3.0 per capita white/latino on black murders.
That means that an individual member of the black community is 1200% (35.5 / 3) more likely to murder a white/latino person than the other way around.

@longde

A study arguing that jury composition is sometimes unbalanced doesn't excuse us from needing to know whether or not THIS jury was unbalanced. Or we might need to awkwardly explain why a jury like this would be racist against her.

Even if the jury was all White and Latino, it should be curious to us that they'd take the side of a violent African American male with 5 baby mommas. That's who they're supposed to be biased against, not for, particularly when it comes to firearms used for self-defense.

More details are needed, and journalists are only conveying one narrow side.

You get it.

The only disagreement I have is that darker skinned europeans and latinos are still a rung above black people, with some white skin privilege.>> ^legacy0100:

^I think Zimmerman's identification does have some significance in this story because it can be interpreted differently in two different contexts.
1. If Zimmerman is comes from a 'white' (cultural) background, this story may be seen not only as one man's racism but also a symbol of empowered majority's oppression of the minority in US society, which is what everyone initially thought at first and the reason why the word 'white' was repeated over and over in the media.
2. If Zimmerman comes from a 'Hispanic' (cultural) background, this story is about a racist man hating on black people, but NOT as empowered majority suppressing the minority. So the story only includes a racist asshole killing an innocent black kid. Even though Hispanics are light skinned, they do not represent empowered majority in the United States. Many cleaning ladies and construction workers you see are light skinned Ecuadorians and Mexicans, and same goes for Russians and east Europeans who often work in bars, night clubs, and restaurants as waiters/waitresses.
Both contexts does not change the fact that Zimmerman is racist, that much is concrete. But it's what he represents that adds meanings to this ugly situation. Americans recognize that there is an invisible class society we have in our society, and would love to find a story that they can point to and claim it as proof. That may have been the case for Zimmerman/Martin murder case had Zimmerman been from an empowered majority group. I think the need to have evidence to prove the existence racial class society here in America is the reason why people are deliberately classifying the word 'white' in a very vague definition.
I would love to know what Zimmerman's occupation / dayjob was before the incident. This could give us an insight to whether he was being racist out of empowered majority or as just one racist a-hole.

I think he could be both white and hispanic/latino.

I know darker skinned white people from latin america and southern europe who are darker than Zimmerman.

Now that he's in a bind, his pop wants to claim he's hispanic. It's like some white people I know claiming they're 1/4 indian, when they pass as white 100% of the time.

>> ^legacy0100:

>> ^longde:
Doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman was white. Yeah, anyone can be racist, but the dynamics in this case aren't colorblind. Zimmerman's racial status in his own eyes and in the eyes of the local police had no small role in his actions and the (lack of) police response.

Eh..... I dunno dude. Could you define what you would consider as 'White'? Because for me, this dude would be considered Latino. Their skin may be 'light', but they ain't white.


In the US census, hispanic is considered an ethnicity, not a race. You can be a black hispanic, a white hispanic, or an american indian hispanic.

>> ^longde:

Doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman was white. Yeah, anyone can be racist, but the dynamics in this case aren't colorblind. Zimmerman's racial status in his own eyes and in the eyes of the local police had no small role in his actions and the (lack of) police response.


Eh..... I dunno dude. Could you define what you would consider as 'White'? Because for me, this dude would be considered Latino. Their skin may be 'light', but they ain't white.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Would You Longde support a company if you could NOT eat lunch with your: Gay, Black, Norwegian, Blind, Tourettes, Pregnant, Pastafarian friends there?

I'll let longde respond on his own to your full post, but I see this one a lot. What exactly is the overall point you're trying to get across? Are you saying that you think no such business would ever come into existence or persist?

I think if it were legal, you'd see all manner of anti-gay, anti-black, anti-latino, and anti-muslim businesses pop up, and persist. After all, a certain segment of the population would be willing to pay a premium to know they're supporting a bigoted operation.

Furthermore, once those places pop up, suppose a gay person goes into a "no gays allowed" store. What then? If the gay person won't leave, and shop owner calls the police, are they obligated to arrest the gay person for trespassing?

How is that world "more free" than the one we live in now?

>> ^longde:

I agree the guy isn't racist. He just has a callous, almost criminal disregard for his latino constituents. I don't know how that's better than him being a racist.

I find it rather fascinating how shy people have gotten about using the word racist.

What does one have to say or do these days to "be a racist?"

Does one have to be a full-on white supremacist?

IMO, a "callous, almost criminal disregard for latino constituents" is what racism is usually about. You don't have to go that last mile and actively hate minorities to be a racist; treating minorities like they're not real human beings is good enough to qualify you for the label.

It only makes it worse if someone's response to being told that what they said was insensitive is to launch into a tirade about how oppressed they are by the PC police. It makes me think they're mostly pissed off that they bit back the racial slurs they wanted to use in the first place, and still got crap anyways.

Add in the fuller context (he's being interviewed about the police being investigated for using racial profiling!) and it's hard for me not to call him much worse than "racist."

I'd be horrified if I ever said something like what this guy did, and would get very contrite very quickly in response to the "don't you think that's insensitive?" question, especially in a situation like that.