| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
Racism (Free verse) by Dovina When a tiger's ripped your arm off
and six have opened your belly
head and heart
all wounds now old and scarred
then anything looking like a tiger
makes you wary to say the least
I am not a tiger as you suspect
but only look that way
an appearance I cannot change
and you could know it too
if you'd let me have some time
But you cannot allow the risk
and I will not pursue
So warily we eye each other
til someone makes a move
Up the ladder:
The Devil Made Her Do It
Down the ladder:
The Third Fall Of Jesus
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 5.6363635
Posted: April 29, 2005 11:41 AM PDT; Last modified: April 29, 2005 11:41 AM PDTWeighted score: 5.318182 Overall Rank: 3507 Comments:
Good use of racism, Dovina.
Kind of confusing about "the six" and I think the possessive "tiger's" in line 1 doesn't work, however, I am attracted to the feeling of eyeing up the competition, and I want this to be longer.
"Six" is arbitrary, maybe three to match belly, head and heart. "Tiger's" means "tiger has." Maybe I'll change it to "When a tiger rips your arm off." Thanks.
-or are we all tigers who dreamt we were people?
I like this poem.
Boring in the extreme. And what on earth are all these garbage comments about? People should get a life and grow up.
all this furor about a little tiger and a stand-off in the street. this must read better than i thought... but i always score high for rabble-rousing. must be the rebel in me.
452 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
When somebody says "I hate Negroes", do you reply "Well, you probably only hate crack dealers, the unemployed, and consumerist wanna-bes" or do you just kick them swiftly in the ear?
Other than that, by any meatheaded standard typically used to identify race (ie, skin color, phrenology, origin, language, creed, customs, geographical concentration, and genetic traits,) both Jews and Muslims are distinct races - even distinct from each other. To not think so is, in fact, racist against Negroes.
Or how about this: If I accept that there are races, I still say the specifics of division are totally social. African Americans (ie, Dovina thinks they're a race) are as a whole much less purely genetically black/African than Arabs and Jews (Dovina thinks they're not a race) are purely genetically Arab or Jew. I'll give Dovina her distinction between the religious group Muslim (ie, mostly Pacifican and not Arab) and Arab, but can't give her Jew as a merely religious grouping.
I'll also still say cockneys are a race, if only by the non-meathead standard "most people think they're a race."
So, sticking with the dictioinary, Missourians, Muslims, converts and cockneys are not races. When our dark friend said he is racist against cockneys, I made the arguement that he is really racist against the predominant race of cockneys - his own race, no doubt.
And his slander of negroes, the most different race from his, is projection of deep feelings of inadequacy in his race, and mine too I could add. He projects he guilt onto the most different race from his own, like a woman sometimes blames all men for her faults.
PS-Ian F. Haney Lopez, The Social Construction of Race: Some Observations on Illusion, Fabrication, and Choice, 29 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 1-62, 6-7, 11-17 (Winter, 1994)
It is clear that even though race does not have a biological meaning, it does have a social meaning which has been legally constructed.
PPS-Why don't you use a dictionary?
racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [syn: antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite(a)] n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racialist]
Racism is discrimination based on race, not on religion.
PS-Do your fucking research. The genetic differences between, say, Pacific Islanders and whites are far greater than the genetic differences between blacks and whites. Dectuple that if you're talking about African- or Anglo-Americans, or any blacks in a former white colony. Dim, dim, dim, dim, dim, dim.
PPS-The definitions I've posted are from the EXACT SAME DEFINTION you used above. Learn to fucking scroll down, honey. The definition of racism is from dictionary.com too.
Race is distinguished only by physical characteristics in the traditional definition.
Besides, by your definition, there are only three races. Are you really only saying 'the difference between the white and black races is wider than between the black and asian races or the white and asian races'? Or have you already forgotten your own defintion?
Your traditional definition goes on to say that the traditional definition is completely flawed and widely disregarded by most people. Ace!!!
So let's get on the same page. This one: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q
Some highlights:
"2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race."
"The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists."
CONCLUSIONS: You basically have no leg to stand on saying Cockney, Muslim, and Jew aren't races except a traditional definition long ago superseded.
Other mainstream thinking until radical politics got mixed in it includes (1) the white race is superior other races, (2) other races are subhuman animals, especially Jews (cf. the Aryan movement). I suppose you'll want to defend those traditional definitions now, too?
My point (and -=Dark_Angel=-'s) from the beginning has been that defining races is useless. You're the only one caught with your pants down now.
1) People who worry about defining race or whether definitions of race are "any good" are racist;
2) Even you can agree a perfectly good definition of race is "something racists are racist against". -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I.: "I'm racist against Cockneys". Do the math.
3) What the fuck is ANY definition of race "good" for? YOU: to make it easier for people to categorize things. ZODIAC: Any arbitrary category (ie, Things That Hurt When You Bite Them; Things That Rhyme With Poo) makes it easier for people to categorize things. The real question is, So the fuck what?
4) All of this is moot because you haven't retracted 'the black race is the most different from the white race.'
1) defining race and being racist are not related - absurd!
2) No I don't agree with that.
3) A definition of race is necessary for discussion about it - simple.
4) The white and black races are widely different, I will not retract that, and that is all I said. Besides it's not connected to the original subject.
Look, there are basically five characteristics defined by a person's race:
(1) Smell
(2) How brown they are
(3) Whether or not they eat disgusting foreign food
(4) Stupidity
(5) Physical and moral excellence (or lack thereof)
"Genetically poor" is an interesting term, possibly even true.
Discrimination on the basis of race is naughty, in my opinion. Genetic makeup is a distinguishing feature of race and of other attributes of a human. Discrimination on the basis of genetics is naughty or not, depending on how it is used. It is sensible to discriminate on the basis of genetics in the case of a retard should not be allowed to fly a plane. (Btw, a spastic may be very intelligent, but lacks control of his muscles. He might fly a plane just fine if it could be controlled by voice commands.) But if you say that the genetics of a race, such as negro, are inferior, then that is racism. If you show some study where negroes were found "inferior" in some particualr attribute, then counter studies show caucasians inferior in particulars too.
If you call this answer a dodge, you are right. I prefer to call it stepping out of a trap.
The appalling thing is that even if I *was* trying to say something about spastics in particular, your 'point' would merely constitute a short diversion from the argument, because for every intelligent spastic you can find, I can find a dozen, cosmically stupid mega-disableds, who definitely would fly into the nearest mountain. So my point about genetic inferiority stands, and yours ends up in the nearest spastics home.
As for the main thrust of your response, suppose:
(1) On average, Negroes are inferior to Normals at X, Y, and Z.
(2) On average Normals are inferior to Negroes at A, B, and C.
Then in the field of X, is it not sensible to favour Normals over Negroes given no other information? And is that not a DISCRIMINATION on the basis of RACE?
http://www.lyricskeeper.com/david_alan_c
There is an African tribe who's genes are closer to the original genes of modern man than any other group of people on earth. The rest of us are just mutts. By the way. the more diverse you're genes are the more genetically superior you are.
So the philosophy of race has no validity but is still present and will be for a great long time because it makes people easier to catagorize.
Sorry, You left yourself open on that one.
Agreed. Most things are made more complicated by it. But most of mankind is lazy and stupid like that.
"race n.
Citing this and other points - such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another - many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact."
Maybe so your Mum would have a thrown to sit her fat ass on.
"Behind the esplanade of the East India Company lay the great maidan, a grassy parade ground almost two miles long and a mile deep where the colony's furbelowed gentry, jodhpured regulars from the cantonment, and even the scantily-drawered Phowdar, the roy royan and Nawab of Bengal themselves, descended by carriage and palanquin for the nightly ritual known as 'the airings'."
Tell me, where were the mass airings in London's parks and squares, when the vapours rising from an unbathed chimneysweep's woolens in Cheapside could could be smelt as far as Grosvenor Square? Why weren't they mandatory?