How racist are you?

[brianspencer66]

I agree, Mr. Spencer. Would you care to pose one?

Yes i would? Id like to ask people here what have they really done about racism or bigotry and I dont mean playing cards or going shopping with someone diffrent, see you may like that person but you may not truly like his or her race or ethnic group. Alot of people dont admit that. But what have you done to improve race relations or to make a REAL diffrence regarding racism or bigotry against any group?

Let me give you an example, I have a neighbor from Jamaica who works for a Jewish builder and he kept refering to this person as "Dat Jew". And you see he grew up like a lot of us do hearing all the same things about jewish people that most americans do that are simply not true. I felt I had to call him on it and insisted he speak of this man as a person and not some object of derision. Now does this change his outlook and make him less antisemtic perhaps not, but its a start and its givin him somthing to think about.

 

[wendynpeter]

Let me give you an example, I have a neighbor from Jamaica who works for a Jewish builder and he kept refering to this person as "Dat Jew". And you see he grew up like a lot of us do hearing all the same things about jewish people that most americans do that are simply not true. I felt I had to call him on it and insisted he speak of this man as a person and not some object of derision. Now does this change his outlook and make him less antisemtic perhaps not, but its a start and its givin him somthing to think about.

I think this response just begs the question. Is your Jamaican friend anti-semetic, really? Or does he just refer to his boss as "Dat Jew" because his boss exemplifies every negative jewish stereotype known to man? You would need to know before you make a judgement about your friend. If your friend just hates all jews, that's one thing. But to call someone "dat jew" (or, as the more popular phrase goes, "dat fucking jew") might be just focused on dat particular jew. In which case it is a slur, but is not sufficient evidence of racism. Believe me, jews will call another jew a "jew" in a New York minute. (And just as an aside, Jewish is a religion, not a race.)

Same with white people. If someone calls a white guy a "redneck," two things might be possible -- he might think that all white people are rednecks by default, which is racist, or he may be referring to the fact that a particular white person is in fact a dyed-in-the-wool redneck. As I've argued before, rednecks are a reality. They exist. And calling someone a redneck doesn't mean you are a racist. It may just mean you're observant.

 

[Deadsea7777]

I believe the definition of Ayn Rand, already quoted by Wiz is very close to the truth: "It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. "

Very few people are truly racist believers, but it is common to find racist attitudes that vary according to the society in which you were born or live in and what people fear in each society.

 

[wendynpeter]

I believe the definition of Ayn Rand, already quoted by Wiz is very close to the truth: "It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. "

Well, hey. I'm an objectivist and I like Ayn Rand, but there's a reason why she isn't seriously studied in academic philosophy - and the above passage pretty much shows you why. It makes no sense whatsoever.

First, intelligence is a genetic trait. Second, certain "characterological" (is that even a word??) traits have strong links to genetics as well. All that has almost nothing whatever to do with judging people by their character and actions, which is of course the right thing to do and is a moral goal made famous by Dr. King. My argument is that is exactly what people should do -- judge people by the content of their character. But there are people who insist that people of one race may NOT judge people of other races by the content of their character, because they may not judge them at all, because they are of another race. THAT's the current problem right there -- the insistance that we may NOT disregard race when we look at a person's character and actions. As long as that way of thinking remains pervasive, people will never be just people, rather, they will always be white people, black people,asian people, etc. And because of that, there will be animosity. But animosity is not racism, even though it is perceived as racism. Only racism is racism.

Which brings me back to the question. You either are or are not a racist. One is not "a little racist." So questions about degree make no sense at the individual level. The question isn't "How racist are you?," but simply "Are you a racist?" There will always be individuals who are racists, so there will always be an element of racism in a free society. But that sword cuts both ways. In America, racists come in all colors.

 

[brianspencer66]

I think this response just begs the question. Is your Jamaican friend anti-semetic, really? Or does he just refer to his boss as "Dat Jew" because his boss exemplifies every negative jewish stereotype known to man? You would need to know before you make a judgement about your friend. If your friend just hates all jews, that's one thing. But to call someone "dat jew" (or, as the more popular phrase goes, "dat fucking jew") might be just focused on dat particular jew. In which case it is a slur, but is not sufficient evidence of racism. Believe me, jews will call another jew a "jew" in a New York minute. (And just as an aside, Jewish is a religion, not a race.)

Same with white people. If someone calls a white guy a "redneck," two things might be possible -- he might think that all white people are rednecks by default, which is racist, or he may be referring to the fact that a particular white person is in fact a dyed-in-the-wool redneck. As I've argued before, rednecks are a reality. They exist. And calling someone a redneck doesn't mean you are a racist. It may just mean you're observant.

Lets face it Wendy most people dont like their bosses very much regardless of backround. And I see the point your making regarding the collective and the individual. I think the flaw with you again here is that your assuming that these stereotypes exsist. In your own words you said " Because his boss exemplifies every negative jewish stereotype know to man". Well dont you think that if a person(my aquaintance) has that sort of mindset to begin with that would be antisemitic from the get go?

As far as what Jewish people call each other in private well that has no barring in this conversation and as for rednecks. Well I last time I looked rednecks did not have any kind of special ethnic designation. Oh and thanks for reminding us that Jewish is not a race but I think we all know that already.

 

[Ticklerguy4u]

First of all, I didn't hear anyone say anything about "african americans" being totally a victim. I'd love to know where people get this "victim" stuff from. I don't feel like a victim at all, but at times have been victimized by racism. My children are still victimized by racist attitudes and the actions that come behind them, but they are NOT victims by any means. Let's be real folks, racism is alive and well and probably will never completely go away. But much has changed with more opportunities available now than ever; you just have to fight your way through the BS, stereotypes, and roadblocks in order to get to them.

Well I may of read too much into the post. I just don't agree that blacks are more of aware of racism than others. It could be because I grew up in New York and Ive seen fights break out because of the white vs. black past. And it isn't always the whites that instigate it.

I do believe that it still exists but not just one-side of the coin. I am part Native American (which is a PC name for "indian") and part Italian. When it comes to stereotypes I've seen my share. NA are still considered by some to be a novelty and not really human. My experience with stereotypes and racism comes with handshakes and smiles.

 

[wendynpeter]

Lets face it Wendy most people dont like their bosses very much regardless of backround. And I see the point your making regarding the collective and the individual. I think the flaw with you again here is that your assuming that these stereotypes exsist. In your own words you said " Because his boss exemplifies every negative jewish stereotype know to man". Well dont you think that if a person(my aquaintance) has that sort of mindset to begin with that would be antisemitic from the get go? ...

Absolutely not! Stereotypes do exist. There are "stereotypical" examples of every gender, race, religion, etc. How do you think stereotypes came to be in the first place? And it's perfectly OK to acknowledge that.

The problem comes when someone assumes that every single member of a sex, race, religion, etc. is an example of the stereotype, or assigning stereotypical characteristics to even one person who doesn't actually have those characteristics.

Let's take the fire out of the discussion for a second and use region as an example (which is only slightly less of a hot button). Of course there are "stereotypical" New Yorkers and "stereotypical" Southerners and "stereotypical" New Englanders. Some of the stereotypes are not negative (Southern hospitality), some are (Southern biogtry, New York rudness). Are there biggots who aren't from the South? Yes. Are there rude people not from New York? Yes. But those stereotypes have stuck for a reason, usually because of the sheer numbers of people concentrated in an area who displayed them at one time.

So, to answer your question, if someone's acting like a stereotypical anything, I don't think it's the least bit racist to call them on it. 'Racist' is a very strong word and it has a specific meaning. And unless a person really meets that definition, no one should use that word to describe him. We've gotten WAY too used to throwing that word around, and using it as a weapon.

 

[Chuck D]

Proud too say I'm not racists at all, but I bet it could be fun to use it in a tickle roleplay sometimes

 

[brianspencer66]

Absolutely not! Stereotypes do exist. There are "stereotypical" examples of every gender, race, religion, etc. How do you think stereotypes came to be in the first place? And it's perfectly OK to acknowledge that.

The problem comes when someone assumes that every single member of a sex, race, religion, etc. is an example of the stereotype, or assigning stereotypical characteristics to even one person who doesn't actually have those characteristics.

Let's take the fire out of the discussion for a second and use region as an example (which is only slightly less of a hot button). Of course there are "stereotypical" New Yorkers and "stereotypical" Southerners and "stereotypical" New Englanders. Some of the stereotypes are not negative (Southern hospitality), some are (Southern biogtry, New York rudness). Are there biggots who aren't from the South? Yes. Are there rude people not from New York? Yes. But those stereotypes have stuck for a reason, usually because of the sheer numbers of people concentrated in an area who displayed them at one time.

So, to answer your question, if someone's acting like a stereotypical anything, I don't think it's the least bit racist to call them on it. 'Racist' is a very strong word and it has a specific meaning. And unless a person really meets that definition, no one should use that word to describe him. We've gotten WAY too used to throwing that word around, and using it as a weapon.

Im a little disturbed with your last few statments about being called out on sterotypical behavior. So your saying its ok to make certain comments regarding a persons backround if they meet what you can a "stereotypical ethnic criteria" ? Well Im not sure what part of the country your from but if I did that sort of thing at work id surly loose my job. Why not throw all that crap out the window and perhaps we would not have so many problems as we do now. Im not so naive as to think sterotypes do not exisit to some point, but even if one meets this definition and one utters certain code words im sorry that is pure and simple bigotry and racism period! First of all because your matching this so called behavior to a certain ethnic group.

 

[wendynpeter]

Im a little disturbed with your last few statments about being called out on sterotypical behavior. So your saying its ok to make certain comments regarding a persons backround if they meet what you can a "stereotypical ethnic criteria" ? Well Im not sure what part of the country your from but if I did that sort of thing at work id surly loose my job. Why not throw all that crap out the window and perhaps we would not have so many problems as we do now. Im not so naive as to think sterotypes do not exisit to some point, but even if one meets this definition and one utters certain code words im sorry that is pure and simple bigotry and racism period! First of all because your matching this so called behavior to a certain ethnic group.

Well, you have your point of view and I have mine, I guess. All I'm saying is that calling a redneck a redneck (etc.) is not necessarily a racist remark. It may not be very nice, but it isn't racist. Now, there are social and professional rules agains using using certain words (however, I've noticed that in those situations, it's still fine to call someone a redneck, no matter what the situation). Where I think we get our lines crossed is in the widespread assumption that anyone who uses one of "those" words is a racist.

My argument boils down to this - most people's use of derrogatory terms is primarily culturally, not racially, grounded. Many of the terms themselves have racial significance, no doubt. And some people do use them to describe all members of a racial or religious group. Those people are racists, or bigots, or both. But other people, I would argue most people, use those words to describe individuals whose character and actions are associated with the true meaning term. If a black person goes around referring to all white people as "rednecks," that person is probably a racist. If he's using the term to describe the Grand Wizard of the KKK, he's not necessarily a racist. He is, however, exactly right, because that person exemplifies what it really means to be a redneck. Fine by me.

 

[Moses25]

Re: How racist am I?

Not racist. We're all the same goofy aliens inside.

Or clones, or humanoids...or whatever the hell we are.

So there.

Cheers.

 

[SlaverTickler]

Not racist. We're all the same goofy aliens inside.

Or clones, or humanoids...or whatever the hell we are.

So there.

Cheers.

I don't believe that. not of you ar anyone. Everyone has racial issues weather they be high priority or a minor issue. It could be something as simple as dress, and be as big as you don't look, act, or pray like me. I can't say I believe anyone who say "I'm not rasist. Walk through the wrong part of town some time after 11:00 p, and you'll find out a little discrimanation would have kept you from getting mugged. And kis I'm not just speaking of black neighbor hoods. I know there are planty of white neighbourhoods state side that a black person should stay out of after dark, and sometime in the day light. People who say they are compleatly with out prejadus, and I'm not trying to pick on you moses), are full of crap.. trust me.

 

[911]

The term "racist" is flung around far too freely. Simply noticing differences between races, or relying on stereotypes, does not necessarily make you a racist. So, just because you make a comment about someone's race, that does not make you racist.
I like the word "intolerance" better, because it is more accurate. Many people are not "racist" in the true sense of the term, they are simpy intolerant of differences between peoples.
There is also a huge double standard in this country when it comes to race. For example, have you ever noticed that the only race you can make fun of is your own? EXCEPT: if you are any race other than white, you can make fun of white people. If you are black, you can make fun of any race you want. But if you are white, you can only make fun of white people because to do otherwise would make you "racist". Isn't it funny that a black man can call a white person a "honkie" or a "cracker" and nobody gives it a second thought, but if a white person calls a black person the "n word", he is automatically a racist?
Just something to think about, hopefully I haven't offended anyone.

Well said. I think everyone is so afraid of sounding racist, no not everyone just white people. I think that minorities can tell white jokes with out being racist I also think the other way around is also true. It's sad that some people can tell jokes or even make racist comments but get upset when their race is mocked. Don't give if you can't take. Believing in sterotypes dosen't make you racist just ignorant. If I believe all Asian people eat cats that dosen't mean I hate them I'm just uneducated when it comes to Asain people.

 

[kis123]

There is also a huge double standard in this country when it comes to race. For example, have you ever noticed that the only race you can make fun of is your own? EXCEPT: if you are any race other than white, you can make fun of white people. If you are black, you can make fun of any race you want. But if you are white, you can only make fun of white people because to do otherwise would make you "racist". Isn't it funny that a black man can call a white person a "honkie" or a "cracker" and nobody gives it a second thought, but if a white person calls a black person the "n word", he is automatically a racist?
Just something to think about, hopefully I haven't offended anyone.

It is always wrong for a white person to use the "n" word because it was a derogotory term created by racist whites to humiliate and dehumanize negroes. It is NEVER right for a white person to use the word, period!

I have one better for you; I don't allow the word to be used around me by anyone of any race. My children aren't allowed to use it in my home either. They find the word offensive as well. It would do people well not to use it at all IMO.

 

[The Sean Man]

It is always wrong for a white person to use the "n" word because it was a derogotory term created by racist whites to humiliate and dehumanize negroes. It is NEVER right for a white person to use the word, period!

I have one better for you; I don't allow the word to be used around me by anyone of any race. My children aren't allowed to use it in my home either. They find the word offensive as well. It would do people well not to use it at all IMO.

I live in an area that is close to the farmlands, and there are a lot of racially ignorant people around here. There have been many close (fistfight close) encounters between me and these morons who still insist on using the "n" word

 

[kis123]

I live in an area that is close to the farmlands, and there are a lot of racially ignorant people around here. There have been many close (fistfight close) encounters between me and these morons who still insist on using the "n" word

I think anyone who uses it shows their ignorance; I will go one step further to say that it doesn't matter what race uses the term either. You want to take the sting out of a word, don't use the friggin' word! Adopting the term within your race then getting offended when someone outside the race uses it is simply ridiculous to me.

 

[wendynpeter]

It is always wrong for a white person to use the "n" word because it was a derogotory term created by racist whites to humiliate and dehumanize negroes. It is NEVER right for a white person to use the word, period!

It's never "right" for any person to use any negative racial or religious epithet. It's wrong for black people to call white people honkies and devils and crackers. It's wrong for black people to call Jews "Hymie," and it's wrong for black people to be prejudiced against gay people. But you know what? People do things and say things that aren't "right." And what makes you a racist or a bigot is not the words you use, it's the beliefs you hold. If you believe that all asian people are superior to all people of other other races, then you are a racist. If you believe that all Jews are superior to all non-Jews, you're a bigot. But calling someone a racial name because they are acting like a lowlife just does not make you a racist. Sorry, it just doesn't. Calling someone a racial name because that's what you call everyone of that race does make you a racist.

 

[mrmiguu]

Clarification....or attempts thereof (thereforthwith?!)....

One of the longest held modern, practical definitions of racism:

Racism = Prejudice + Power

If we look at this discussion through this lens, much of what has transpired on this thread has to change. Alot of the emotionality of the discussion has to drop by the wayside and we can become clearer in our understanding of the subject.

Prejudice: thought process that is based on a preconceived (fallacious or otherwise) set of socio-behavioral constructs with regard to a group of people, person (based on culture, gender, age, class, fetish or otherwise)

Power: the ability to control means of production and/or distribution of goods and services (including information, land, political influence, economic means, etc,...)

Racism: the process of action and thought that uses race (better explained as culture) as the determining factor for withholding goods, services and information from an oppressed cultural group (usually a numerical minority as in the situation of the United States, but sometimes a numerical majority, as in the situation of the Union of South Africa, more correctly known as Azania - the name the Africans gave the land) by an oppressive cultural group. That system of racist thought and action still exists in this country with regard to education, legal justice, economic opportunity, personal liberty and housing, amongst other social dynamics.

Calling someone a name does not make them a racist unless they have the ability to control that person's access to necessary means and processes of life....utilizing power to validate their prejudices. Calling someone a name is using racist terms to express their prejudices, their prejudgements about that person or group. Prejudice doesn't even hurt anyone (else) unless those values are expressed (prejudice though cheapens the humanity of the person who believes that way as it limits the expression of humanity in all people, including the one that thinks in a prejudicial way) in a way that can be heard or felt (gestures, looks). To believe that African people are incapable of managing their own affairs is prejudiced thought. To indirectly or directly block their access to a suburban neighborhood to "protect" property values is racist action (prejudice + power). Using the "n" word is not racist in itself, it is prejudiced and borne out of the racist system of chattel slavery perfected by European people in North, Central and South America over hundreds of years, a system whose effects are STILL being felt very keenly here in the United States of America.

Since racism clearly exists in this country and world, we must ask ourselves if we participate in and support racist structures and processes. Whether a majority of "us" have benefitted from the racist systems historically in place in this country or not is not under debate, but whether we can look ourselves squarely and honestly in the mirror of human behavior and say whether we are adding fuel to the fire or whether we are part of the social solutions toward positive human social development, for many of us, remains to be seen.

...and by the way, did ANYbody read Wiz's post?! (#6)....thank you, Wiz.

Peace to all who tickle here,

 

[kis123]

It's never "right" for any person to use any negative racial or religious epithet. It's wrong for black people to call white people honkies and devils and crackers. It's wrong for black people to call Jews "Hymie," and it's wrong for black people to be prejudiced against gay people. But you know what? People do things and say things that aren't "right." And what makes you a racist or a bigot is not the words you use, it's the beliefs you hold. If you believe that all asian people are superior to all people of other other races, then you are a racist. If you believe that all Jews are superior to all non-Jews, you're a bigot. But calling someone a racial name because they are acting like a lowlife just does not make you a racist. Sorry, it just doesn't. Calling someone a racial name because that's what you call everyone of that race does make you a racist.

Why bother taking the risk by name calling at all? If you name-call then say you're not racist it's like my grandmother and mom used to say about "throwing the rock, then hiding your hand!" You committed the deed but don't want the consequences of your actions (you and your being hypothetical). It doesn't go that way, ask Micheal Richards and Mel Gibson-they are clear examples of it. All the public backpeddling in the world won't change what they said to get them in trouble in the first place. Once you verbalize your thoughts (or type them) they're in the atmosphere and you can apologize for them all you want, but you can never take them back and you can never reverse the pain those words caused. Be smart, control your temper, and keep your mouth shut and said person would not have to deal with being labeled a racist. That is unless they are a racist and simply can't help themselves.

When a person uses racial ephithets (sp), they're only giving themselves away and deserve the accusation of being labeled a racist. If lowlife white folks of the past didn't create and use the "n" word, then maybe the other words wouldn't have been created to defend and fight back against the insults. Ever considered that? Probably not.

 

[wendynpeter]

Why bother taking the risk by name calling at all? If you name-call then say you're not racist it's like my grandmother and mom used to say about "throwing the rock, then hiding your hand!" You committed the deed but don't want the consequences of your actions (you and your being hypothetical). It doesn't go that way, ask Micheal Richards and Mel Gibson-they are clear examples of it. All the public backpeddling in the world won't change what they said to get them in trouble in the first place. Once you verbalize your thoughts (or type them) they're in the atmosphere and you can apologize for them all you want, but you can never take them back and you can never reverse the pain those words caused. Be smart, control your temper, and keep your mouth shut and said person would not have to deal with being labeled a racist. That is unless they are a racist and simply can't help themselves.

When a person uses racial ephithets (sp), they're only giving themselves away and deserve the accusation of being labeled a racist. If lowlife white folks of the past didn't create and use the "n" word, then maybe the other words wouldn't have been created to defend and fight back against the insults. Ever considered that? Probably not.

All of that begs the question of my argument. Which is -- no need for backpeddling. Well, maybe in the case of Mel Gibson, who probably is a racist. It's interesting that you make no distinction between Michael Richards and Mel Gibson. But if you know the definition of 'racist' and you are not a racist, then there absolutely no need to hide anything. Look, let's just be up front here. If you call David Duke a white trash redneck, are you a racist? No. That's exactly what he is. Pick other examples across races as you will. I'm not about to allow anyone to define me, and Michael Richards shouldn't be either, because I don't think Michael Richards is a racist, and Michael Richards says he knows he's not a racist. I think he's sorry that he lost his temper and called some rude black guy a nigger. Should he be sorry? Only if he feels he was more rude to that black guy than that black guy was to him. Obviously he thinks that's the case, and he apologized. Next. But I'll be damned if I would have sought forgiveness from Jesse Jackson, who's in the business of creating racism where there is none.

A person who is not a racist but allows others to define him as one is a huge pussy. Michael Richards should have known that people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would parade him around and brand him with the scarlet letter, but he would never, ever get absolution. Maybe he just like like being flogged. Michael Richards may not be a racist, but he is a huge pussy.

 

[wendynpeter]

One of the longest held modern, practical definitions of racism:

Racism = Prejudice + Power

Yeah, the key word there is 'modern.' That's a ridiculous, self-serving definition, designed to exclude minorities form the very possiblity that they could be defined as racists. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

A racist is anyone who believes one race is inferior to another. Black people who go around talking about "Europeans" and how they are the scurge of the Earth are just as racist as anyone else who would dismiss an entire race of people.

 

[Scinsor]

Originally posted by Kis123
It is always wrong for a white person to use the "n" word because it was a derogotory term created by racist whites to humiliate and dehumanize negroes. It is NEVER right for a white person to use the word, period!

You are correct, no one should use the word.
However, the term "cracker" is also offensive. Why is it that most people don't have a problem with that word being used? Is it any less humiliating than the "n" word? Why is it that I can say "cracker" here, but I cannot use the "n" word? Because if I use it, I am automatically a racist. But you can humiliate and offend white people all you want, go ahead, its okay.
All I'm trying to say here is that there is a huge double standard.

 

[Ticklerguy4u]

You are correct, no one should use the word.
However, the term "cracker" is also offensive. Why is it that most people don't have a problem with that word being used? Is it any less humiliating than the "n" word? Why is it that I can say "cracker" here, but I cannot use the "n" word? Because if I use it, I am automatically a racist. But you can humiliate and offend white people all you want, go ahead, its okay.
All I'm trying to say here is that there is a huge double standard.

Ive noticed that a black comedian can make fun of white people and their short commings but a white comedian can't do the same...otherwise its considered racist.

 

[jaba]

how do you know?

All of that begs the question of my argument. Which is -- no need for backpeddling. Well, maybe in the case of Mel Gibson, who probably is a racist. It's interesting that you make no distinction between Michael Richards and Mel Gibson. But if you know the definition of 'racist' and you are not a racist, then there absolutely no need to hide anything. Look, let's just be up front here. If you call David Duke a white trash redneck, are you a racist? No. That's exactly what he is. Pick other examples across races as you will. I'm not about to allow anyone to define me, and Michael Richards shouldn't be either, because I don't think Michael Richards is a racist, and Michael Richards says he knows he's not a racist. I think he's sorry that he lost his temper and called some rude black guy a nigger.

A person who is not a racist but allows others to define him as one is a huge pussy. Michael Richards may not be a racist, but he is a huge pussy.

I agree with you that David Duke is a racist.

I dont know if Mel Gibson or Michael Richards are racists.

I am curious as to what independent information you have that leads you to say, "I don't think Michael Richards is a racist", as you state....

Richards may not be racist, but what information leads YOU to believe that he is not?

 

[kis123]

All of that begs the question of my argument. Which is -- no need for backpeddling. Well, maybe in the case of Mel Gibson, who probably is a racist. It's interesting that you make no distinction between Michael Richards and Mel Gibson. But if you know the definition of 'racist' and you are not a racist, then there absolutely no need to hide anything. Look, let's just be up front here. If you call David Duke a white trash redneck, are you a racist? No. That's exactly what he is. Pick other examples across races as you will. I'm not about to allow anyone to define me, and Michael Richards shouldn't be either, because I don't think Michael Richards is a racist, and Michael Richards says he knows he's not a racist. I think he's sorry that he lost his temper and called some rude black guy a nigger. Should he be sorry? Only if he feels he was more rude to that black guy than that black guy was to him. Obviously he thinks that's the case, and he apologized. Next. But I'll be damned if I would have sought forgiveness from Jesse Jackson, who's in the business of creating racism where there is none.

A person who is not a racist but allows others to define him as one is a huge pussy. Michael Richards should have known that people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would parade him around and brand him with the scarlet letter, but he would never, ever get absolution. Maybe he just like like being flogged. Michael Richards may not be a racist, but he is a huge pussy.

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make here.

I never said either of these men were racists, but they made stupid comments that were racist and anti-semitic. All the so-called apologies and public backpeddling will never take away their statements. That's what I said wendy; once a person puts their words in the atmosphere, they can apologize all they want; it can be forgiven but it will never be completely forgotten. Hell, they have Richards on tape; there is no dispute to what he said and the enraged tirade it came from. It really doesn't matter who started it, in the end, he's the one who looks bad.

Although you may disagree, Jesse and Al do NOT represent the ENTIRE black race any more than David Duke represents the ENTIRE white race. I don't understand why you and so many others think blacks need mouthpieces. We have thoughts of our own and don't need representation to express them. I am about the business of making a better life for myself and my family-maybe touch a few lives along the way. I pay little attention to the rantings of those who use controversy in order to keep their job.

Believe it or not, many blacks (if not most) are free-thinkers who can divide the truth from the lie. Stop watching so much television and learn for yourselves; the media picks the battles and controversies in order to keep people divided. How do you think Gibson and Richards were exposed in the first place? When is the last time the media produced anything positive? It just feeds negativity to the masses and if you're not smart enough to see it coming, you'll fall right in line with it. Oh, "you" and "your" are hypothetical.

No one defines a person as a racist; people do that to themselves with the stupid and disrespectful things that they say and do. I'll say it again; if a person doesn't want the label, keep the commentary to themselves. If not, whatever happens next is on them.