[Macros]

That was a depressing read, I don't know who comes up with these policies

[Mentalist]

I've wavered a long time, thinking whether I should wade into this topic. But in the end I decided that I may posess somehting of a unique perspective, that may help people like Studlock to see a bit of a different side of the argument.

I am a white male, living in a Western formerly colonial state (Canada). I have 2 post-secondary degrees (undergrad and then professional), and I am in early steps of establishing a career. See how well I fit the mold of a typical privileged type?

Here's the other part of the story: I am an immigrant from Eastern Europe. my parents came to Canada when i was 12, looking for a life of stability, because my homeland (part of the former USSR) went to shit post-Independence. I am an "invisible minority". I am treated exactly the same way any other white male might be.

...Except until I have to deal with government officials, who read my ID, see a last name with 3 consonants in a row, turn pale and ask "how do you pronounce that?". And when I answer quickly with something they can't repeat, they understand that I'm different.

...Except for the fact that EVERYONE, even closest friends and co-workers (except my family and people from the same country as me) always mispronounce my 5-letter first name, due to the fact that English has this idiotic habit of usually stressing the FIRST syllable of a first name. That, and since my name sounds Spanish or Italian, everyone assumes it should be pronounced (and often written) as something other than what it is.

...except for the fact that my parents, both with masters degrees work what are essentially sophisticated labour jobs--decently-paid, but exhausting, time-consuming and essentially dead-end. They have no "connections" I can use to advance in the capitalist society I grew up in. They've helped by paying half my undergrad tuition and my rent during undergrad. For my second degree, I had to take and repay loans myself, and I was one of the less than half-dozen people in my class of about a 100 (most of whom were, in fact, white, privileged children, for many of whom the profession was "family business" and who didn't need to worry about job placements and such BS)who worked during the school year.

...Except the fact that, as my Jamaican boss once explained to me, my typical Eastern European mentality is much more akin to that of Caribbean people, when compared to Anglo-whites--because I am far more likely to be undiplomatic and "straight-up", which will be considered "rude".

...Except for the fact that I have to remember that I need to look people in the eyes and smile during job interviews, which is something that's natural to those born here, but strange to me. I was't taught on a subconscious level from childhood the social graces and norms of a Western society. I have no idea how many job interviews I've bombed due to committing some unconscious faux pas I'm not even aware of. Nor will I ever know.

No, I'm not a poor kid from a ghetto growing up in socially destitute conditions. I a relatively smart child from a working-class family with a relatively happy childhood, who made his way as far as I have through numerous mistakes and through my own efforts. I'm not going to whine about any of the above things, because it's the harsh reality that I'm not part of the "golden youth", although my life could've been a hell of a lot worse.

But I agree with Macros' sentiment: my great-grandparents were serfs-either in Russian Empire or Austria-Hungary. Serfs were not much better off than slaves, and both grups nominally got their freedom at around the same time (1860s). I can honestly say that no one in my family had anything to do the enslavement of over half the world by Western European colonial powers. So, no, I don't see why I must feel the responsibility for what some people who happen to share my skin colour have done several hundreds of years ago, and why I must live with a feeling of collective guilt.

Yes, white people are better off on average than people of colour in the West. But there's white and then there's white. I find it much easier to find common language with other immigrants of colour that I do with "white" Anglos, despite the fact that I'm white. And in order to fit in in the system in my chosen profession, I need to act more Anglo, because being the type of "white" I am won't be good enough.

I realize this came out as a bit of a rant. But that's my view of it all: the question is more nuanced. I don't feel as part of a monolithic "white" oppressor/privileged group, and I'm not seen as one by them, but it's not something that's likely to be seen from outside.

and to end this off on a slightly different note, I'll ask a question similar to Cause's in the OP:

For 7 years I've worked as lifeguard in a busy waterpark. 5 of those I was a senior guard, responsible for guarding attractions with water deep enough so that people "were supposed to drown" (that is, over 4 feet deep-usually about 8 feet).

Every year I'd average about 40 "pull-outs" (Distressed non-swimmers i.e., people drowning, for whom I'd have to jump in and get them out before they drowned). Of these, about 1-2 would be either Asian or white--always children. The remainder, both children and adults would be either black or from the East Indies. This statistic would fairly accurate for the other 30 or so senior guards as well.

Our park was privately owned and underfunded. We didn't have loudpeakers-instead we had plactic "cones" to amplify the sound of our voices. On busy days, with music playing and many hundresd of people in the near vicinity, guards would often lose their voices yelling the same basic instruction- "If you or your child cannot swim, DO NOT CROSS THE BLACK LINE!!!"

In these conditions, given a group of teenagers of colour and a group of white teenagers approaching the deep end, where I only have time to get the attention of one group, I would pick the non-white group 10 times out of 10 to verify that they can all swim. Was I racist to do so? Or was my profiling reasonable, given my past experience?

[amphibian]

Mentalist, I view you as playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter while others have to play it with a tri-chambered gun (three bullets).

Mentalist, on 17 July 2014 - 06:16 AM, said:

and to end this off on a slightly different note, I'll ask a question similar to Cause's in the OP:

For 7 years I've worked as lifeguard in a busy waterpark. 5 of those I was a senior guard, responsible for guarding attractions with water deep enough so that people "were supposed to drown" (that is, over 4 feet deep-usually about 8 feet).

Every year I'd average about 40 "pull-outs" (Distressed non-swimmers i.e., people drowning, for whom I'd have to jump in and get them out before they drowned). Of these, about 1-2 would be either Asian or white--always children. The remainder, both children and adults would be either black or from the East Indies. This statistic would fairly accurate for the other 30 or so senior guards as well.

Our park was privately owned and underfunded. We didn't have loudpeakers-instead we had plactic "cones" to amplify the sound of our voices. On busy days, with music playing and many hundresd of people in the near vicinity, guards would often lose their voices yelling the same basic instruction- "If you or your child cannot swim, DO NOT CROSS THE BLACK LINE!!!"

In these conditions, given a group of teenagers of colour and a group of white teenagers approaching the deep end, where I only have time to get the attention of one group, I would pick the non-white group 10 times out of 10 to verify that they can all swim. Was I racist to do so? Or was my profiling reasonable, given my past experience?

You were probably creating micro-aggressions, even if some of it was justified from a safety perspective.

Were you pro-active about this safety issue? Did you make any acquaintances among regulars that weren't white? Did you ask people to point out to you which friends or family members could use a swimming class or refresher on how not to drown? Did your park offer free or low cost swimming classes? Keep the music to a low level in order to allow conservation of voice/hearing of instructions?

There is a way to ask people nicely if they're capable of doing something without targeting people of color specifically. Yes, it's probably a pain in the butt, but that's part of your job description as a lifeguard and good human being.

[Mentalist]

amphibian, on 17 July 2014 - 06:46 PM, said:

Mentalist, I view you as playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter while others have to play it with a tri-chambered gun (three bullets).

Mentalist, on 17 July 2014 - 06:16 AM, said:

and to end this off on a slightly different note, I'll ask a question similar to Cause's in the OP:

For 7 years I've worked as lifeguard in a busy waterpark. 5 of those I was a senior guard, responsible for guarding attractions with water deep enough so that people "were supposed to drown" (that is, over 4 feet deep-usually about 8 feet).

Every year I'd average about 40 "pull-outs" (Distressed non-swimmers i.e., people drowning, for whom I'd have to jump in and get them out before they drowned). Of these, about 1-2 would be either Asian or white--always children. The remainder, both children and adults would be either black or from the East Indies. This statistic would fairly accurate for the other 30 or so senior guards as well.

Our park was privately owned and underfunded. We didn't have loudpeakers-instead we had plactic "cones" to amplify the sound of our voices. On busy days, with music playing and many hundresd of people in the near vicinity, guards would often lose their voices yelling the same basic instruction- "If you or your child cannot swim, DO NOT CROSS THE BLACK LINE!!!"

In these conditions, given a group of teenagers of colour and a group of white teenagers approaching the deep end, where I only have time to get the attention of one group, I would pick the non-white group 10 times out of 10 to verify that they can all swim. Was I racist to do so? Or was my profiling reasonable, given my past experience?

You were probably creating micro-aggressions, even if some of it was justified from a safety perspective.

Were you pro-active about this safety issue? Did you make any acquaintances among regulars that weren't white? Did you ask people to point out to you which friends or family members could use a swimming class or refresher on how not to drown? Did your park offer free or low cost swimming classes? Keep the music to a low level in order to allow conservation of voice/hearing of instructions?

There is a way to ask people nicely if they're capable of doing something without targeting people of color specifically. Yes, it's probably a pain in the butt, but that's part of your job description as a lifeguard and good human being.

I'll be completely honest with you, amph: no, I was not pro-active. I had to deal with owners that were more concerned with cutting costs than they were with safety. I had 0 input in how the park was run, but it certainly wasn't run in a manner designed to make my job easier. (in fact, having done pre-season work there, I knew exactly how little concern was put into safety-just enough to pass safety inspections). They did not offer swimming classes-in fact we were the only waterpark in the province that sold alcohol on premises, and the owners were quite proud of that fact. On top of that, as the only type of employee constantly seen by the thousands of patrons, lifeguards were constantly targets of a myriad of complaints that had absolutely nothing to do with our job (which is watching the water). So the extent of my interaction with customers (regardless of their background) would usually be icily polite referral of their complaints to my supervisors, while asking them to make sure their children don't drown while they are complaining to me.

I won't be making excuses, but I will state that I stuck with the job purely out of conveninece of not having to look for another summer job, I could not care less for our customers as long as they didn't drown or injure themselves, and I've had the absolutely bare minimum individual interaction with them as required by my immediate duties (enforcing safety rules and preventing drowning). I wasn't trying particularly hard to be likeable. In fact, the one year part of the hiring was done not by my department managers, but by an "HR consultant", we've received a bunch of young kids who were great at passing interviews, but who turned out to be absolutely brainless and incapable of following simple instructions (such as memorizing a rotation consisting of 4 numbers), and majority of whom ended up being fired for repeated displays of incompetence within the first month. Because there are situations where being able to do your job is far more important than being good at PR.

Re: your Russian Roulette comparison-it's a fair assessment.

[amphibian]

You have basically described the life of most police officers in the United States.

[Cause]

/quote]
You were probably creating micro-aggressions, even if some of it was justified from a safety perspective.

Were you pro-active about this safety issue? Did you make any acquaintances among regulars that weren't white? Did you ask people to point out to you which friends or family members could use a swimming class or refresher on how not to drown? Did your park offer free or low cost swimming classes? Keep the music to a low level in order to allow conservation of voice/hearing of instructions?

There is a way to ask people nicely if they're capable of doing something without targeting people of color specifically. Yes, it's probably a pain in the butt, but that's part of your job description as a lifeguard and good human being.
[/quote]

I had not noticed this new line of discussion.

Micro aggressions?

Also is it Mentalists, or even the parks duty to ensure people can swim or do they not bare responsibility to learn to swim themselves.

Also as a Segway into racial profiling. Recently one of my Professors an Indian and a Muslim was again telling us the story of how on a trip to attend a protein science conference in America he was stopped for questioning. When they found out he was a biochemist apparently he jumped to 'High Risk'. He had proof he was a lecturer from a SA university and was attending by invitation a USA conference. He says they questioned him for hours. It strikes me as silly. Apparently my Indian and Muslim chancellor and political professor has also bee sent directly back to SA after trying to enter the USA after being invited to lecture at Harvard. Again strikes me as absurd.

Yet, I am not sure I am against racial profiling. If we have (and I think we do) reason to believe that a terrorist is likely a Muslim male from 3rd world countries in the middle east I would say it would be lax not to play closer scrutiny towards them. Of course it would be lax to not also look at women, white men, Christians etc etc since otherwise the profiling could easily be exploited nd there are of course many more extremists in this world than al-qaeda. Still if you have limited time and resources should they not be focused at the high risk category.

I also found it interesting that not fifteen minutes later when a white colleague was describing how once when driving home her neighbour thought she was following her and refused to pull into her driveway. My Indian professor sarcastically said ' hello police their is a white person following me'. The implication being that in my country its almost guaranteed that crime is committed by black men.

So is racial profiling racist? Or discriminatory in practice but not necessarily in intent.

[Studlock]

Mentalist, on 17 July 2014 - 06:16 AM, said:

I've wavered a long time, thinking whether I should wade into this topic. But in the end I decided that I may posess somehting of a unique perspective, that may help people like Studlock to see a bit of a different side of the argument.

I am a white male, living in a Western formerly colonial state (Canada). I have 2 post-secondary degrees (undergrad and then professional), and I am in early steps of establishing a career. See how well I fit the mold of a typical privileged type?

Here's the other part of the story: I am an immigrant from Eastern Europe. my parents came to Canada when i was 12, looking for a life of stability, because my homeland (part of the former USSR) went to shit post-Independence. I am an "invisible minority". I am treated exactly the same way any other white male might be.

...Except until I have to deal with government officials, who read my ID, see a last name with 3 consonants in a row, turn pale and ask "how do you pronounce that?". And when I answer quickly with something they can't repeat, they understand that I'm different.

...Except for the fact that EVERYONE, even closest friends and co-workers (except my family and people from the same country as me) always mispronounce my 5-letter first name, due to the fact that English has this idiotic habit of usually stressing the FIRST syllable of a first name. That, and since my name sounds Spanish or Italian, everyone assumes it should be pronounced (and often written) as something other than what it is.

...except for the fact that my parents, both with masters degrees work what are essentially sophisticated labour jobs--decently-paid, but exhausting, time-consuming and essentially dead-end. They have no "connections" I can use to advance in the capitalist society I grew up in. They've helped by paying half my undergrad tuition and my rent during undergrad. For my second degree, I had to take and repay loans myself, and I was one of the less than half-dozen people in my class of about a 100 (most of whom were, in fact, white, privileged children, for many of whom the profession was "family business" and who didn't need to worry about job placements and such BS)who worked during the school year.

...Except the fact that, as my Jamaican boss once explained to me, my typical Eastern European mentality is much more akin to that of Caribbean people, when compared to Anglo-whites--because I am far more likely to be undiplomatic and "straight-up", which will be considered "rude".

...Except for the fact that I have to remember that I need to look people in the eyes and smile during job interviews, which is something that's natural to those born here, but strange to me. I was't taught on a subconscious level from childhood the social graces and norms of a Western society. I have no idea how many job interviews I've bombed due to committing some unconscious faux pas I'm not even aware of. Nor will I ever know.

No, I'm not a poor kid from a ghetto growing up in socially destitute conditions. I a relatively smart child from a working-class family with a relatively happy childhood, who made his way as far as I have through numerous mistakes and through my own efforts. I'm not going to whine about any of the above things, because it's the harsh reality that I'm not part of the "golden youth", although my life could've been a hell of a lot worse.

But I agree with Macros' sentiment: my great-grandparents were serfs-either in Russian Empire or Austria-Hungary. Serfs were not much better off than slaves, and both grups nominally got their freedom at around the same time (1860s). I can honestly say that no one in my family had anything to do the enslavement of over half the world by Western European colonial powers. So, no, I don't see why I must feel the responsibility for what some people who happen to share my skin colour have done several hundreds of years ago, and why I must live with a feeling of collective guilt.

Yes, white people are better off on average than people of colour in the West. But there's white and then there's white. I find it much easier to find common language with other immigrants of colour that I do with "white" Anglos, despite the fact that I'm white. And in order to fit in in the system in my chosen profession, I need to act more Anglo, because being the type of "white" I am won't be good enough.

I realize this came out as a bit of a rant. But that's my view of it all: the question is more nuanced. I don't feel as part of a monolithic "white" oppressor/privileged group, and I'm not seen as one by them, but it's not something that's likely to be seen from outside.

I've stayed away from this conversation because all I was doing was pissing people off (*winks at Marcos*) and pissing myself off but I'll address this because I do think it's an important thing to address. Canada has a history of being a piece of shit to non-anglo white people, take for instance the way they treated settlers in the Prairies where they would give them a set amount of time, a set amount of land (which was often terrible to farm), and if they didn't tame the land in that time they'd be shipped off to where ever they came from (often to Slavic countries or Germany). They were not given any kind of support for this outside of a starter loan. It was a horrible system, one, if another Canadian resident wants to chime in here, that I've never seen the gov't apologize for. Of course you can take into account Anlgos treat Francophones today, or look at Atlantic provinces and how Newfoundlanders are treated in Alberta. White is not a skin colour, it's a concept , a concept that has often not (or still don't) accepted (most famously) Irish, Slavic peoples, Southern Europeans, the Sami peoples and various people from the Middle East. When I say white I mean settlers from Western European to places like the Americas, South Africa, Australia, the Pacific Islands, and Russians in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Serbia, and if you want to be topical: Israelis in Palestine. These distinctions are important because they are global phenomenons that effect global economies and global cultural perceptions. You think Japan, who've had little to no contact with Africans in their history became that racist toward them by accident? No it was through cultural osmosis with western countries. You think I'm saying that non-whites can't be racist (that definitely can be, and often are to each other), but what I'm saying is their no overarching global phenomenon in which personal prejudices toward white people can literally effect the global economy. That's the difference between someone calling you a cracker (which ironically might have origins in what African-Americans slaves would call their masters, you see the crack of the whip...or what other white people called lower class white people), a rude assholish thing to be said for sure, to Native American's having the highest rate of suicide, alcoholism, poverty, jailed population per captia and the lowest to quality of life and standard of living. You don't address sexism by asking men what their problems are, nor do you address classism by asking the rich how they are affected by it--why would you address racism by acting as if white (mind my definition above) people have an equal say in as POC?

This fact doesn't do these things: excuse bad policies, excuse bad acting POC, excuse assholes from being assholes...so on and so on. I honestly don't give a shit if you feel guilty or not (I'm involved in this not because I sustain myself on white guilt, an expression of racism, I think if you follow my comment history I'm pretty much solid in my narrative in any kind of discrimination is bad, including that against white gays, women, and poor people), this isn't about your fragile ego or if you feel insulted or not. I do have a problem when you try to equate a global social, economic, and cultural phenomenon and equate it to personal insults (dare I say appropriate the very tools to battle racism?), it belittles both problems. It's the difference between murder and genocide. I know plenty of white people (que some of my best friends are black people jokes) who understand this fact but don't feel guilty and I wouldn't except them to, that's making this problem about them and their feelings and not about addressing the problem. So Mentalist please don't feel guilty, because either way I could not care less if you did and I doubt many other POC do either, you feeling guilty isn't helping no one. Use your energy to act in way that doesn't add to the larger system of discrimination instead, it might be a pain in the ass (it definitely is, racism is designed to be easy, I have the same fucked up ingrained cultural biases as other Canadians) but I think you'll and the world would be a better place if you did.

Also Cause, Microaggression are usually verbal, behavioral, or environmental acts of aggression which can be conscious or unconscious which often make the environment unwelcoming to those they are being used against. I'm most familiar with them being discussed in the context of sexism in which I believe much of the original research was done in. As for the rest of your comment I am now bowing out of the conversation once again, clearly I'm not helping it or overly welcomed. Hopefully this one clears somethings up: it's not about white people feeling guilty about what Lord England did during his middle-age crisis, it's about addressing the problems of today.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 31 July 2014 - 12:31 PM

[Macros]

I must be massively mixed up here (random topic aside)
I always thought locky was English, from Hull or somewhere equally shit like that. I thought I had met him

[Studlock]

Naw mate, I was born and raised in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, which has one of the highest rates of First Nations in the country so I tend to deal with this racial interaction on a daily basis, and if I can 'blame' my temperament on this subject on anything it's definitely that.. There is another Studious Lock who I think is an English fellow, and I apologize if my actions have blacken him in anyway, I tend to be an anger fellow the other Studious Lock seems to be quiet chipper most of the time. So you might have in fact meet the other one.

[pathos]

Macros, on 31 July 2014 - 09:04 PM, said:

I must be massively mixed up here (random topic aside)
I always thought locky was English, from Hull or somewhere equally shit like that. I thought I had met him

you are thinking of Studious Lock Maccy. Different person

[Macros]

Indeed I was.
I was just trying to relate studlocks situations of experiencing racism as a first native (first national?) in Canada with the skinny little white blonde haired chap I met in London back in December and couldn't get my head around it at all.
This probably explains my confusion in various topics in the past.

Back on topic, I don't think there's much I can add to this discussion, we're going in circles now

[amphibian]

Cause, on 31 July 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

Also is it Mentalists, or even the parks duty to ensure people can swim or do they not bare responsibility to learn to swim themselves.

All three entities involved have a physical and ethical responsibility towards ensuring personal safety of water park goers.

I have seen lifeguards put on swimming classes in their own time for kids who had no idea how to operate in a body of water larger than a baby bath. They did so because a few classes now saves a ton of risky behavior, lawsuits and accidents/drownings later. Ideally, their workplaces should provide these swim classes - as it not only helps with safety records and ensuring that more people can safely swim, it also helps with community public relations and goodwill towards their company - but not every workplace is smart enough or has the funds/willpower to do things like this.

Quote

So is racial profiling racist? Or discriminatory in practice but not necessarily in intent.

The stats put up by the New York Police Department in their "stop and frisk people that look suspicious to the police" practices yield something like a >80% rate (usually in the high 80s) of the people being stopped and frisked having absolutely nothing on them. (Stats are here: http://www.nyclu.org...-and-frisk-data) The Terry stops, as they are called, are inarguably linked to racial profiling and have been at the center of controversy for a long time.

The NYPD is one of the largest, best funded and "well-trained" police forces anywhere in the world and they're still only right less than 15% of the time with their racial profiling and the stuff that they are right for are largely drug crimes that were/are targeted towards putting black men in jail over weed. This is the best that American police can do with this type of thing. The vast, vast majority of police departments are worse than the NYPD and I shudder to think of the abuses they have committed in the interest of "enforcing justice". There's been a trend of police across the South (and increasingly elsewhere) using the dubious/illegal tactic of civil forfeiture to basically commit highway robbery upon people traveling through their cities - taking cars, money and more for no reason. The New Yorker did a great piece on it: http://www.newyorker...013/08/12/taken

I think the profiling strategy that would work better in identifying terrorists wouldn't be a racial one or job-specific. It'd link to mental health, to arrests for violence, to the lack of a family/stable job and to people who openly associate with extremist groups. Those are almost all records that are freely available to sectors of the government here and wouldn't require spying on a scale that the NSA/CIA and so on have been doing. They are putting in millions of hours, billions of dollars and ruining relationships and trust to trawl through dross for very little return with the current strategies of profiling and searching.

Macros, on 01 August 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

Back on topic, I don't think there's much I can add to this discussion, we're going in circles now

I don't think so. The initial question of "forgetting what racism is" has not actually been answered. Most people can point out a Little Black Sambo caricature as racist, but picking out dog-whistle language, microaggressions, racism baked into social and legal policies and so on is more difficult and also more ignored as "someone else's problem".

[Macros]

Well the question was have we forgotten what racism is?
I think its been quite clearly stated that most certainly no, racism is still depressingly common.
if the question was have forgotten what racism IS?
then Its poorly phrased, it suggests that there was once a universally accepted set of actions/ beliefs or attitudes that constituted racism, and that we have somehow lost this magical definition.

I think what has been addressed and possibly what was being asked is has the first world (the main driver of the worlds media and so what quite a lot of us are exposed to regularly) suddenly decided that racism isn't a problem?
which is a nonsense as well

[Cause]

No my question really was 'Have we forgotten what Racism IS'.

By which I meant do we call out to readily. I have mentioned how in my fellow Jews I sense an unnecessary search for anti-Semites and the next Hitler. I understand their concern, I have met anti-Semites and encountered anti-Semitism and yet I feel if you actively search it out you will find what you seek, even perhaps when its not there. A Jewish pianist from Germany, who was born in Israel though, once hosted a concert at my university campus. It had nothing to do with Israel, except the Jewish pianist was once born there. My student council passed a referendum that boycotts Israel (it's a long story but only 20% of the campus votes for them so they don't have the authority) but the official campus policy is we don't. Their was a protest outside the concert and the singers sang 'shoot the jews' and eventually they stormed the concert, attacked peopl and damaged campus property. They were disciplined but they and the SRC which defended them truly did not seem to understand how their protest outside was legal but storming the venue crossed a line. In any event such an occurrence may indicate why Jews are sometimes fearful. THe singing in particular caused a massive outroar. Yet in truth its an old struggle song 'shoot the boer' that they simply adapted. Its been ruled hate speech by my countries supreme court and banned and yet I think in context both with the original and new version of the song their is in fact a gulf of distance between the words of the songs and what the singers really mean.

Than following on from this sometimes Jewish security measures create the very anti-Semitism and attacks they are meant to avoid. The next time a jewish event was held, a series of talks ranging from religion, to jewsih cooking to I have no idea what, they had security, with the campuses permission, at the perimeter and people were questioned if they were attending in good faith or not. The protesters were asked to stay outside the perimeter. Their was a protest Their is about 20000 jews in JHB and I won't say every Jew knows every other Jew but you would surprised, especially when the people who attend these things are usually the same people again and again as well. In any event it created the appearance that security waved through almost every white person and questioned only a few while most non-whites were questioned. Next thing you know it their were cries of Apartheid and my university had to launch an investigation and the whole thing escalated. I forget why the protesters were their, the Israeli ambassador attended I think maybe.

I would say that in both instances one side saw what it expected to see. The Jews saw Nazis calling for genocide in story one and the protesters saw apartheid when Levi nodded to his buddy Cohen and waved him through but questioned a curious stranger why he was attending the talks when in reality niether was in fact happening.

Similarly I have shown how a Black MP in my country who was paying his farm worker an illegal wage.( He was paying 28 rand vs the minimum wage of 126 rand a day) Was met with pity ad understanding when he was caught out. He was the MP of agriculture, he was a former union boss and he was breaking the law and paying less than a quarter of minimum wage! The union and the communist party for gods sake spoke out in his defence. If he had been white the whole situation would have been seen through the lense of racism I have no doubt. A white MP in the same situation would have been charged and forced to resign. It would have been seen as racist and exploitative, but if a black man exploits a black man its just a tragic mistake which the MP has now supposedly remedied.

Similairly on page 2 I think I have an example of the same comic, the original shows President Bush the photo-shopped one shows my president Jacob Zuma. The first version was considered insightful and funny. The second was deemed racist. The same message, the same artists but one president is black.

When a portrait showing the Prime minister of canada naked 'houte coutuer emperor' the prime M and his government responded with humour, and then dismissed it from mind with contempt. When a picture showing my president naked surfaced it was called racist, an attack on African culture and let my government boycotting any paper which reported on it or showed the picture. https://en.wikipedia...Spear_(painting). Their was talk of a law that would make insulting the president illegal.

So its not surprising to me that jews look for anti-semitism, that black people look for racism and that gay people look for homophobia. My question is do they always find it because it is their or do they sometimes find it because they are looking so carefully.

A final personnel anecdote if I may. I once saw the movie Sucker punch https://en.wikipedia...unch_(2011_film) with a female friend. She really enjoyed it but when the movie was over she turned to me and said she felt guilty. She was not sure if the movie was exploitive or empowering of women. I remember saying that the problem was not the movie its that she felt the need to ask the question. Like so much of my 'wisdom' I realised later that it meant very little. Did she feel the need to ask because society has made it a hot topic or does she ask because a million small things in her life make her question how society sees women and by extension her. After I saw 300 I never once asked if 300 men in leather nappies with ripped physiques exploited or empowered men. Either way the movie will not diminish my power. In any event from what I know of the feminist movement some argue that a female stripper is empowered because she uses her body to make herself feel sxy and earn money while others say it's a way for men to demean women and have them dance for singles. I would question any thought that can have two such diametrically opposed views

After hearing about micro agressions I saw this vid and Im guessing this is what amphibian meant. http://9gag.tv/p/a5Q...-blue-australia

This post has been edited by Cause: 03 August 2014 - 03:14 PM

[amphibian]

I remember going to the Tennessee River an hour outside of Nashville and seeing a bunch of Confederate flags flying proudly. That's not something I encounter regularly in New York and it was weird to see those flags displayed so openly.

The Confederacy was created due to a mass desire to keep slaves more so than anything else and those proud American Southerners need to confront that ugly truth. I'm even leery of the Civil War reenactors who roleplay the Southerners without acknowledging that component.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 10 August 2014 - 07:32 PM