What's new

Racist, or just careful?

Counterexamples:
Great Britain
India
China
Switzerland
Canada

India, Canada, China and Britain all curently have, and have had in the past, a history of unrest with a minority population.
 
A) The ALLEGED victim. All we have is an unsubstantiated story told from her point of view. She might be telling the truth, a biased version of the truth or she might be a liar.

Stories like this get told every day about things that happen every day. They aren't all liars. I don't assume that people relaying ordinary occurrences are liars. Do you do that to everything you hear, or just when you don't like the consequences of belief?

How do you know the three women in Cleveland didn't willing go into that house ten years ago, and are making that story up? Did you ever once doubt them?

E) Because it is a loaded question. Heaven forbid she just be an *** and was treated like one. Nope, since she didn't get her way racism must, I repeat MUST, be involved.

Loaded solely to make you think about how a person can act in a racist fashion without having a racist intent? How terrible of me to try to get someone to consider this.

If you are disappointed with the replies perhaps it is becasue we are disappointed with the orginal post.

I'm sure you are. I only wish I was disappointed in the replies.
 
India, Canada, China and Britain all curently have, and have had in the past, a history of unrest with a minority population.

Not to the point of coming close to explosion and separation, at least, not in the past five hundred years or so.
 
I really wish this thread had not met my expectations.

A) Blaming the victim, by claiming she was trying to use her influence, even thought that occurred well after she was treated differently.
B) Noting that whe might be upset at not getting her keys, while ignoring the huge numbers of women that were allowed to go down for whatever reason
C) Diverting the conversation from this particular situation to discuss whether the label "racism" is over-used, as opposed to whether it applies in this one instance
D) Mischaracterization of human history on multiculturalism
E) No one bothered to answer the actual questions I asked.

To repeat:

Do you think those guards think of themselves as racists? Does that matter to the doctor?

The king of tangents and splitting hairs doesn't like that we didn't stay on topic.
 
Stories like this get told every day about things that happen every day. They aren't all liars. I don't assume that people relaying ordinary occurrences are liars. Do you do that to everything you hear, or just when you don't like the consequences of belief?

How do you know the three women in Cleveland didn't willing go into that house ten years ago, and are making that story up? Did you ever once doubt them?



Loaded solely to make you think about how a person can act in a racist fashion without having a racist intent? How terrible of me to try to get someone to consider this.



I'm sure you are. I only wish I was disappointed in the replies.

Yes stories like this do get told. However, unlike you, I am not willing to level charges of racism based on a story.

As for the three women, there is physical proof of at least being held against their will. There is history and evidence to support their claim but the man will get his day in court and we will see if it is true or not. Also since you want to stay on topic so bad please do so.

Your question was worded that way to make us assume that the only way they could not let her in was racism. false premise.

You are only disappointed in the replies becasue we are not willing to jump on the wagon you so obviously have. Must suck when your usual supporters, not that there is anything wrong with that, disagree with you.

Is it possible she was a victim of racism? Of course it's possible. But I am not willing to simply level that charge based on her unsubstantiated story.
 
I understand that some people will diverge from a topic. It's more relevant when no one will address it.

Considering that all the first responses presented a third option that you did not provide for is quite telling.
 
I understand that some people will diverge from a topic. It's more relevant when no one will address it.

Maybe no one cares to answer your "questions" because everyone knows you have no genuine interest in learning anything from said questions. Your intent is to wait for someone to answer them "incorrectly" so that you can tell them that they're wrong and/or prove a point which you have already tried to make 100 times on the board.

Kudos for your persistence.
 
In all honesty, depending on the embellishment by the story-teller, the guards were either A) racist, B) jackasses.

If she embellished, they were probably just jackasses. Maybe even responding that way to someone they perceived as a jackass.

But I guess I do lean towards racist, simply because I can think of no other distinguishing feature between this lady kept out, and the others let in. Do they view themselves as racist? Probably something different since the author described them as smug. That doesn't sound like they perceived themselves as racist, maybe just power-hungry or superior.
 
In all honesty, depending on the embellishment by the story-teller, the guards were either A) racist, B) jackasses.

I guess I do lean towards racist however simply because I can think of no other distinguishing feature between this lady kept out, and the others let in.

Perhaps they had tickets while she did not, perhaps they were white house staff with IDs, perhaps she was an *** while they were not, perhaps the guards were racist, perhaps she is, perhaps she fee sentitled and when the guards showed indifference she got offended, perhaps the guard was having a bad day and found a woman that he could take it out on...
 
It is very possible that author of this article is blowing it out of proportion. It is very possible guards were racists as well. Not really sure what threat they saw in small tiny woman, they could have escorted her to find husband if they did not want to let her go alone. In anyway situation could have been resolved without this article crying about racism.
In general I am very pessimistic about multiculturalism ever working. People are just not meant to be the same. All countries which were made from different nations/races/religions and forced to live under one flag eventually explode and separate ( see USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc). Violence outbursts by muslim youth in France recently was just another example. Communists in Russia had this idea that eventually there will be no borders, no nationalities and no different languages - everybody will be living happily in one world and speak one language ( they probably were hoping it will be Russian, lol). It is ticking time bomb waiting to explode and will never last long.

That's a strangely narrow view to have. Any human organization bigger than a few isolated tribes in a remote location is formed by groups that differ from one another. If what you say is even minimally true, not a single nation can exist. After all, a "race" is just something you arbitrary define depending on the breadth of your experience with other groups. To the Ancient Greeks, the bordering Turks were a completely separate race. As people got to know each other better, the definition of a race expanded to include all Europeans (if we're talking about the so-called white race), justified through a vague sense of shared history. And nowadays, the idea of one human race is becoming more and more common, since we are becoming more familiar with one another.
 
Perhaps they had tickets while she did not, perhaps they were white house staff with IDs, perhaps she was an *** while they were not, perhaps the guards were racist, perhaps she is, perhaps she fee sentitled and when the guards showed indifference she got offended, perhaps the guard was having a bad day and found a woman that he could take it out on...

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I actually found her writing to be overly dramatic, made it feel embellished.
 
Back
Top