Our Free Speech Under Attack.

[cloudy]

I love the South.

I don't, but that doesn't mean I subscribe to the theory that everyone here quit school in the third grade, lives in a trailer with old cars rusting in the yard, and walks around with a chew in their mouths.

My family is very old south, and probably 75% of my extended family are college-educated, and there's a few doctors (the medical kind) thrown in there for seasoning. So, it's very easy to see why I get so damn tired of the glee people take in bashing southerners.

I'd be willing to bet that you can find just as many ignorant people wherever you're willing to look, it's just not nearly as much fun to bash them, though, is it?

 

[shereads]

Another problem with this proposed law is that it's de facto discriminatory. He wants to stop the state from spending money on books written by homosexuals, which amounts to discrimination based on sexual orientation. I believe that's unconstitutional.

What's to keep them from not buying books written by black or Jewish or Catholic authors then?

Despite what this yahoo wants to dom the law still has to pass judicial review. They don't own all the judges down there, do they? Not yet, anyway.

This is the cue for someone to accuse you of wanting activist judges to give special protection to homosexuals. Meanwhile, someone else is nodding at your post and saying, "Good point about the blacks, the Jews and the Catholics. Add them to the list."

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think we should get them to try to buy Huysmans. He writes about fetishistic sex, gay sex, and the black mass - then joined a monastery and became a devout follower. He's listed in the Catholic Encylopedia, although I notice that they try to gloss over his early works

Maybe, if we're lucky, his head will explode as he tries to figure it out.

 

[shereads]

I think we should get them to try to buy Huysmans. He writes about fetishistic sex, gay sex, and the black mass - then joined a monastery and became a devout follower. He's listed in the Catholic Encylopedia, although I notice that they try to gloss over his early works

Maybe, if we're lucky, his head will explode as he tries to figure it out.

I'm willing to donate some Maplethorpe male nudes to my local public library to get the ball rolling.

 

[hazel43]

You'd think the Alabama legislature would have something more compelling to worry about, like these public school issues:


Public School Revenue Raised Is Among the Worst In Nation: Alabama ranks near the bottom of all states--36th out of 50--in the per pupil revenue raised for public education. ESR

and

Now we know how this loon got elected. A society with a poor education system can't support a democracy.

It almost seems like a majority of the people in our government have completely turned their backs on the idea of an educated public. They know that their power grows stronger as the level of education of the general public grows weaker. A multitude of changes in legislation are underway that will soon begin to seriously erode the quality of life for most of us. And most people have no idea what is happening.
Any legislation based on the values of a particular religion is clearly unconstitutional. The constitution states this clearly in no uncertain terms. But where is the public outrage?
Maybe they have never read the constitution. Or they have not considered what religious tyranny was like during historical times.
A science fiction writer during the '60's (whose name I can't remember how to spell right now) explored the possibility that The Church of England used religion to keep the people under their control. They even had the Bible rewritten for this purpose.

 

[Kassiana]

The Lawrence ruling struck down the Texas law, but it did not effect the Georgia law.
--To my knowledge, it struck down all state laws that made sodomy a CRIMINAL offense. Now, if the Georgia law does not make sodomy a CRIMINAL offense (i.e. police can arrest you for it), then it remains; if it does, it was struck.

The Georgia stautes are quite different, making sodomy illegal no matter who is perfoming the act
--Doesn't matter. If the cops can arrest you for it in your bedroom, it was struck down by Lawrence. If they can't, it wasn't. However, every summary I read of Lawrence said it struck four state statutes that criminalized gay-only sodomy and NINE that prohibited it for everyone. I wouldn't doubt that Georgia was one of those.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The Lawrence ruling struck down the Texas law, but it did not effect the Georgia law.
--To my knowledge, it struck down all state laws that made sodomy a CRIMINAL offense. Now, if the Georgia law does not make sodomy a CRIMINAL offense (i.e. police can arrest you for it), then it remains; if it does, it was struck.

The Georgia stautes are quite different, making sodomy illegal no matter who is perfoming the act
--Doesn't matter. If the cops can arrest you for it in your bedroom, it was struck down by Lawrence. If they can't, it wasn't. However, every summary I read of Lawrence said it struck four state statutes that criminalized gay-only sodomy and NINE that prohibited it for everyone. I wouldn't doubt that Georgia was one of those.

Did you read the opinions?

The GA law was upheld, some 17 years prior to Lawrence. It is my understanding the Texas statute was struck down because it did not provide equal protection under the law. I have been further lead to believe, there was some dissent among the majority and they intentionally rendered a very narrow verdict.

At no point was sodomy, or the right to commit it given favored status as a basic right, I.e. one that is iviolable. Nor at any point was the right of the states to legislate moral standards of conduct stricken.

I'm not a lawyer of course, but I think very narrow verdicts by the USSC, tend not to have far reaching application. It seems in lawrence, they did not address the case broadly and that the message sent by this case, and people who claim it invalidates all sodomy laws are exercising some playing fast and loose with the rules. Surely, by their interpretation it does, but by the interpretation of those opposed to homosexuality, it dosen't. Because the ruling seems narrow, it's a good bet that the laws in other states will have to be heard individually, beofre they can be struck down. Unless the court addresses one on it's broad merits, rather than on the narrow basis the Lawrence opinon seems to have been rendered on.

 

[elsol]

Did you read the opinions?

Uh... Colleen.

O'Connor was the one in her lone concurring opinion is the one that used the 'equal protection' clause.

The majority decision used the Due Process Of Law.

Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered petitioner Lawrence’s apartment and saw him and another adult man, petitioner Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Petitioners were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court considered Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, controlling on that point.

Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3—18.

(a) Resolution of this case depends on whether petitioners were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers Court’s initial substantive statement–“The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy … ,” 478 U.S., at 190–discloses the Court’s failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. Pp. 3—6.

(b) Having misapprehended the liberty claim presented to it, the Bowers Court stated that proscriptions against sodomy have ancient roots. 478 U.S., at 192. It should be noted, however, that there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter. Early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally, whether between men and women or men and men. Moreover, early sodomy laws seem not to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private. Instead, sodomy prosecutions often involved predatory acts against those who could not or did not consent: relations between men and minor girls or boys, between adults involving force, between adults implicating disparity in status, or between men and animals. The longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy upon which Bowers placed such reliance is as consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting acts because of their homosexual character. Far from possessing “ancient roots,” ibid., American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century. Even now, only nine States have singled out same-sex relations for criminal prosecution. Thus, the historical grounds relied upon in Bowers are more complex than the majority opinion and the concurring opinion by Chief Justice Burger there indicated. They are not without doubt and, at the very least, are overstated. The Bowers Court was, of course, making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850. The Nation’s laws and traditions in the past half century are most relevant here. They show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 857. Pp. 6—12.

(c) Bowers’ deficiencies became even more apparent in the years following its announcement. The 25 States with laws prohibiting the conduct referenced in Bowers are reduced now to 13, of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct. In those States, including Texas, that still proscribe sodomy (whether for same-sex or heterosexual conduct), there is a pattern of nonenforcement with respect to consenting adults acting in private. Casey, supra, at 851–which confirmed that the Due Process Clause protects personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education–and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 624–which struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals–cast Bowers’ holding into even more doubt. The stigma the Texas criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not trivial. Although the offense is but a minor misdemeanor, it remains a criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged, including notation of convictions on their records and on job application forms, and registration as sex offenders under state law. Where a case’s foundations have sustained serious erosion, criticism from other sources is of greater significance. In the United States, criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapproving of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions. And, to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case’s reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828. Bowers’ holding has not induced detrimental reliance of the sort that could counsel against overturning it once there are compelling reasons to do so. Casey, supra, at 855—856. Bowers causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after it contradict its central holding. Pp. 12—17.

(d) Bowers’ rationale does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens concluded that (1) the fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by due process. That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled. This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. Pp. 17—18.

I'm not a lawyer either... just a lot of these fucking Supreme Court classes... but I'm reading that closer to Kassiana's view.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Obviously, I am mistaken.

My apologies to all for spreading disinformation.

Particular apology to Kassianna for gainsaying her when she was correct.

 

[elsol]

Obviously, I am mistaken.

My apologies to all for spreading disinformation.

Particular apology to Kassianna for gainsaying her when she was correct.

I was SURE you were right, until I read the decision. I'm almost shocked by it considering the present climate.

I just haven't met an SC opinion I wouldn't take any excuse to read so thanks for giving me a reason
Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[BlackShanglan]

Obviously, I am mistaken.

My apologies to all for spreading disinformation.

Particular apology to Kassianna for gainsaying her when she was correct.

Request permission to lavish Ms. Thomas with tongue-stroking for being wonderfully decent about it.

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

Request permission to lavish Ms. Thomas with tongue-stroking for being wonderfully decent about it.

Shanglan

Hey!

I did all the work... how come I don't get to finish the job!

Freaking horses!

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[sweetnpetite]

I don't, but that doesn't mean I subscribe to the theory that everyone here quit school in the third grade, lives in a trailer with old cars rusting in the yard, and walks around with a chew in their mouths.

My family is very old south, and probably 75% of my extended family are college-educated, and there's a few doctors (the medical kind) thrown in there for seasoning. So, it's very easy to see why I get so damn tired of the glee people take in bashing southerners.

I'd be willing to bet that you can find just as many ignorant people wherever you're willing to look, it's just not nearly as much fun to bash them, though, is it?

I agree. But I also don't subscribe to the 'racism is just ignorance' theory. Many racists are very well educated, particularly on the subject of discussion. Some so much it's frightening. The idea that racists, bigots, book-burners ect are all inbred, eneducated hicks [or whatever] makes them cartoon characters and not real people. You're right, I don't think I read those particular posts, but there is an awful lot of silly stereotyping in this thread (I hope I didn't contribut to that). People need to realize that educated, litterate, articulate people (from every part of the country) can be racist and bigoted too- so that they can recognize it for what it is when it comes out souding so lovely and rational and 'fair-minded' and whatnot. Some bigots don't even chew tabacco!!!

[And I don't mean to say that the doctors in your family are bigoted. Far from it, I don't know them so I can't make those kind of judgements. Just that the whole bigotry=ignorance thing gets taken way to far, and taken way to seriously.]

So there's my buga-boo, on top of yours.

Sweet.

 

[shereads]

Hey!

I did all the work... how come I don't get to finish the job!

I think you should take that orca away from your dog. Even if he has a license to keep marine mammals, carrying one around by the crotch is illegal in 14 states.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Good point, Sweet, on racism and education. I agree entirely. It's always horrifying and depressing when one hears it, but I have indeed heard it from intelligent and educated people often enough that I accept that it happens. You'd like to think that anyone with a half-decent brain and a little experience of the world would have grown beyond that stage, but it's buried somewhere deep in the reptilian under-brain and snaps out at the most unexpected times.

I've noticed, too, that some groups seem to have been accepted by otherwise intelligent and educated people as permissable to mock publically: males, especially white males, people from the South of the United States, and of course persons of any political party opposite to the speaker. Eventually, I suppose, people will realize how intolerant, ignorant, and closed-minded they appear when they do this; until then, we must simply sigh and allow them to continue to believe that it is somehow others, and not themselves, who are made to look bad by this behavior.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Good point, Sweet, on racism and education. I agree entirely. It's always horrifying and depressing when one hears it, but I have indeed heard it from intelligent and educated people often enough that I accept that it happens. You'd like to think that anyone with a half-decent brain and a little experience of the world would have grown beyond that stage, but it's buried somewhere deep in the reptilian under-brain and snaps out at the most unexpected times.

I've noticed, too, that some groups seem to have been accepted by otherwise intelligent and educated people as permissable to mock publically: males, especially white males, people from the South of the United States, and of course persons of any political party opposite to the speaker. Eventually, I suppose, people will realize how intolerant, ignorant, and closed-minded they appear when they do this; until then, we must simply sigh and allow them to continue to believe that it is somehow others, and not themselves, who are made to look bad by this behavior.

Shanglan

I think, if you take a close look Shang, you will realize that bigotry is more prevalent among the uneducated, but that bigotry is usually of a more benign, personal kind. The organized bigorty, the mass marketing of hate, is almost always accomplished by well educated and sometimes even frighteningly intelligent people. And that's the kind that is dangerous, because it plays to the less militant personal bigotry of less educated people.

I always think of a man like Pierce when the prevelence of intelligence among racists comes up. One book and he sparked a wave of hate motivated violence and networks of commited racists. Or a man like Rosenberg, who can be said to have provided the structural framework for Nazi Germany's anti semitic crimes.

All people carry prejudices. And among many those prejudices are a personal brand of racism that is evidenced in small ways, but is not inherently militant or nasty. It's the thinkers, the men with intelligence and charisma, who play on that and turn it into something much uglier and more dangerous.

I suppose I am trying to say, your rank and file racist may be lower on the intelligence scale than average. But if it weren't for organizations trying to promote and play off that he would most likely be no more awful than the guy who dosen't want a gay couple moving into his neighborhood and grouses to the wife and freinds or the woman who won't date a man from a different race simply because of his race. It's when the really inteligent ones band together and provide the latent racist with a focus that they are most dangerous.

 

[Liar]

I think, if you take a close look Shang, you will realize that bigotry is more prevalent among the uneducated, but that bigotry is usually of a more benign, personal kind. The organized bigorty, the mass marketing of hate, is almost always accomplished by well educated and sometimes even frighteningly intelligent people. And that's the kind that is dangerous, because it plays to the less militant personal bigotry of less educated people.

Have nothing to add. Just felt that this needed to be repeated. It's sometimes easy to patronize those people because they appear to be ignorant, just because they base their reasonings on core values we can't comprehend. Thus the haters have the upper hand in leading the truly ignorant, because they can base their argumentation of simplification in a way that those promoting openness and tolerance can not do.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Colly -

Hmmm. Food for thought. On the one hand, I do agree that organized racism is its most frightening face, and capable of a great deal of harm. On the other hand, people don't always need the leadership of more educated or intelligent people to motivate them. Groups have a sort of critical mass of their own; sometimes all you need is enough people who think the same way, and then you've got a lynch mob. I'd argue that we tend to see organized racism more clearly because it's larger and more open. On the other hand, individual personal acts of racism are much more common and have a powerful aggregate effect. We just don't see it as clearly because it's more diffuse and often less open.

I think what troubles me in your post are two points. First, while I know that you meant it in a specific way, it bothers me to describe any sort of bigotry as "benign." I don't believe that there is such a thing. It's not merely a question of whether one physically acts in a violent or destructive way; to me, it's also a dangerous way of thinking, an inherent "othering" in which we allow ourselves to perceive others as less human than we are. This is very dangerous; if nothing else, it's what allows the clever to at times whip up a frenzy amongst the masses. It's that latent belief that, while not acted upon energetically, still colors all perceptions and all interactions, and can easily be led to condone or even enact horrors. It can also slowly, day by day, lead to preferences, slights, and acts of injustice so minor that the perpetrator does not even notice them - but the recipient feels them, and suffers the results. I believe that a great of "institutional racism" comes simply through this - not from the CEO issuing a missive saying "Don't hire black people," but from managers and hirers at all levels never questioning their gut instinct that they feel more "comfortable" with one applicant than another.

That brings me to the other point. Yes, I agree that there are times when people have deliberately stirred up racial or ethnic tensions in order to further their own goals. However, I feel that we both neglect a serious threat and also excuse ourselves of our own failings if we allow our perception of the "real" racist threat to take the face of an institutionalized, deliberate manipulation of prejudices. These prejudices are quite dangerous enough on their own, and they are capable of terrible deeds without a guiding force. One has only to look at the history of the treatment of African Americans and Native Americans to recognize that much of the terror and horror that they endured was not driven by organized institutions, but rather was the result of individual people or groups of people, relatively uneducated and without any grand plan, who found it profitable or simply amusing to torment them. This sort of behavior is much more common, and I think in many ways much more dangerous.

Or, to put it another way - the casual, relatively uneducated racist is still quite capable of terrible actions. Jasper, Texas comes to mind. There are many of them, and their actions are manifold. If, however, we accept your premise that the educated bigot is a less common creature, then we realize that the only way s/he can have a wide-scale effect is by motivating this mass of "lower level" racist persons. Without the leader, the masses are still quite capable of horrors. Without the masses, the leader can't do much - and indeed, one might argue that the leader is unlikely even to develop, as there is no supporting group of people to encourage those views to develop in the first place. It's that core of inherent believers, the "masses" if you will, that's the real problem.

Shanglan

 

[sweetnpetite]

Good point, Sweet, on racism and education. I agree entirely. It's always horrifying and depressing when one hears it, but I have indeed heard it from intelligent and educated people often enough that I accept that it happens. You'd like to think that anyone with a half-decent brain and a little experience of the world would have grown beyond that stage, but it's buried somewhere deep in the reptilian under-brain and snaps out at the most unexpected times.

I've noticed, too, that some groups seem to have been accepted by otherwise intelligent and educated people as permissable to mock publically: males, especially white males, people from the South of the United States, and of course persons of any political party opposite to the speaker. Eventually, I suppose, people will realize how intolerant, ignorant, and closed-minded they appear when they do this; until then, we must simply sigh and allow them to continue to believe that it is somehow others, and not themselves, who are made to look bad by this behavior.

Shanglan

Well we hear over and over again how bigotry is (or is a result of) ignorance, and its just accepted as fact. It doesn't occure to question it, and in fact- you're really not *allowed* too. Cuz *everybody knows it* so if you disagree, you're just *ignorant* too.

Same goes for the old saw "Rape isn't about sex, it's about power (control, violence or whatever). Sure, it's about that, but if it wasn't at least partially about sex, then sex wouldn't be the weapon. Of course it's about sex. Just not the good, loving kind. Anyway, I'm off on a tangent, so I'll end here.

 

[sweetnpetite]

All people carry prejudices. And among many those prejudices are a personal brand of racism that is evidenced in small ways, but is not inherently militant or nasty. It's the thinkers, the men with intelligence and charisma, who play on that and turn it into something much uglier and more dangerous.

Not sure if I agree with your overall argument, but I do agree that we all carry prejudices. Sometimes it is our blindness to that fact that makes us truly bigoted.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Or, to put it another way - the casual, relatively uneducated racist is still quite capable of terrible actions. Jasper, Texas comes to mind. There are many of them, and their actions are manifold. If, however, we accept your premise that the educated bigot is a less common creature, then we realize that the only way s/he can have a wide-scale effect is by motivating this mass of "lower level" racist persons. Without the leader, the masses are still quite capable of horrors. Without the masses, the leader can't do much - and indeed, one might argue that the leader is unlikely even to develop, as there is no supporting group of people to encourage those views to develop in the first place. It's that core of inherent believers, the "masses" if you will, that's the real problem.

Shanglan

I also think that well educated people are quite capable of being your 'common bigot.' People who may not drive the masses into a frenzy but don't want their daughter bringing a person of color into their home for dinner. Or even people of color who don't want their children bringing home somebody darker/lighter than the infamous paper sack. Business owners who more carefully scrutinize the young black shopper than the rest. Country club snobs who allow the Mexicans to serve their drinks, but not to be members, or accepted into 'high-society.' The list goes on. Lot's of people who would never drag a black man behind a truck, or incite others to do so. Who think they are intellegent and cultured and liberal and fair, but nonetheles are nothing more than garden variety bigots.

 

[SeaCat]

Okay, in reading over this thread, and being absolutely disgusted with the ideas of a said senator, i have come to realize something. (Thank you Cloudy for bringing this to my attention. )

We often classify people who are bigoted either racialy or sexualy as ignorant. According to your definitions as well as Websters this is wrong. We also sometimes classify them as stupid which is wrong as well. How should we classify these people? It isn't that they can't learn the truth about racism and sexism, it is because they refuse to learn.

Cat

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly -

Hmmm. Food for thought. On the one hand, I do agree that organized racism is its most frightening face, and capable of a great deal of harm. On the other hand, people don't always need the leadership of more educated or intelligent people to motivate them. Groups have a sort of critical mass of their own; sometimes all you need is enough people who think the same way, and then you've got a lynch mob. I'd argue that we tend to see organized racism more clearly because it's larger and more open. On the other hand, individual personal acts of racism are much more common and have a powerful aggregate effect. We just don't see it as clearly because it's more diffuse and often less open.

I think what troubles me in your post are two points. First, while I know that you meant it in a specific way, it bothers me to describe any sort of bigotry as "benign." I don't believe that there is such a thing. It's not merely a question of whether one physically acts in a violent or destructive way; to me, it's also a dangerous way of thinking, an inherent "othering" in which we allow ourselves to perceive others as less human than we are. This is very dangerous; if nothing else, it's what allows the clever to at times whip up a frenzy amongst the masses. It's that latent belief that, while not acted upon energetically, still colors all perceptions and all interactions, and can easily be led to condone or even enact horrors. It can also slowly, day by day, lead to preferences, slights, and acts of injustice so minor that the perpetrator does not even notice them - but the recipient feels them, and suffers the results. I believe that a great of "institutional racism" comes simply through this - not from the CEO issuing a missive saying "Don't hire black people," but from managers and hirers at all levels never questioning their gut instinct that they feel more "comfortable" with one applicant than another.

That brings me to the other point. Yes, I agree that there are times when people have deliberately stirred up racial or ethnic tensions in order to further their own goals. However, I feel that we both neglect a serious threat and also excuse ourselves of our own failings if we allow our perception of the "real" racist threat to take the face of an institutionalized, deliberate manipulation of prejudices. These prejudices are quite dangerous enough on their own, and they are capable of terrible deeds without a guiding force. One has only to look at the history of the treatment of African Americans and Native Americans to recognize that much of the terror and horror that they endured was not driven by organized institutions, but rather was the result of individual people or groups of people, relatively uneducated and without any grand plan, who found it profitable or simply amusing to torment them. This sort of behavior is much more common, and I think in many ways much more dangerous.

Or, to put it another way - the casual, relatively uneducated racist is still quite capable of terrible actions. Jasper, Texas comes to mind. There are many of them, and their actions are manifold. If, however, we accept your premise that the educated bigot is a less common creature, then we realize that the only way s/he can have a wide-scale effect is by motivating this mass of "lower level" racist persons. Without the leader, the masses are still quite capable of horrors. Without the masses, the leader can't do much - and indeed, one might argue that the leader is unlikely even to develop, as there is no supporting group of people to encourage those views to develop in the first place. It's that core of inherent believers, the "masses" if you will, that's the real problem.

Shanglan

Hi Shang

I can't take credit for the use of benign to describe it. I lifted it from a doctor who is also a historian. He treats racism like a pathology. Benign racism being that kind that people have that isn't dangerous, while Malignat described the kind of violent racism of a Hitler or Pierce.

Granted it isn't the best way to describe it, but I know of no other that makes the point. Sowwry if it offended

 

[cloudy]

Okay, in reading over this thread, and being absolutely disgusted with the ideas of a said senator, i have come to realize something. (Thank you Cloudy for bringing this to my attention. )

We often classify people who are bigoted either racialy or sexualy as ignorant. According to your definitions as well as Websters this is wrong. We also sometimes classify them as stupid which is wrong as well. How should we classify these people? It isn't that they can't learn the truth about racism and sexism, it is because they refuse to learn.

Cat

A friend and I were talking about this subject the other day....sort of.

The very people who take such pleasure here in making fun of us "backwards, no-reading, cousin-marrying, ignorant" southern folk are the exact same ones that would pitch a hissy fit (and rightfully so) if someone was to start slinging racial slurs around.

Now, I can already hear the protests.....but, it's the exact same thing. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot, whether its against black people, gay people, or southern people. The sad thing is that those guilty of it just refuse to see it.

It's selective bigotry, but it's still bringing negative stereotypes to bear against people that most of those doing the mud-slinging don't know fuck-all about.

Time to grow up, people.

And, yep....I just called those doing it bigots, because it's bigotry, plain and simple, whether you realize it or not.

 

[Kassiana]

"Deliberate blindness" worketh for me. None are so blind as they who will not see.