Thread: Ron Paul on Racism

RACISM

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government “benevolenceâ€

I can't keep up with your posts zeezil. Just when I finish reading one news story, you've posted two others

I know!

C'mon Z, even Santa takes a work break once in a while.

:P

I like Ron Paul more and more everyday. I have to say that he is a fine gentleman and a good head on his shoulders.

Red and yellow black and white we are all just numbers in the goverments sight.
Any body know who said that, and when ...


"Economic democracy" is the system whereby two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner.


The essence of democratic socialism is this re-written version of God's commandment: "Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote."

Mr. Paul spoke out on this topic during a debate. Honestly i have said and felt the same since my early high school years at a nearly all-white rural school. I had gone from an integrated high school to this mostly all-white (we had one black guy named matt) school. When I returned to visit at a homecoming a few years later all of my mexican friends had split off into a group, all the black kids in another etc..

As I have mentioned to others this is rampant in the school system thanks to groups like "Black student union" etc.... Do I think we should keep people of one race from gathering? NO! but in schools these groups seem to be what administrators tout as 'diversity', when in reality it is the anti-thesis of it.

These groups also perpetuate negative stereotypes and strip members of their individuality by imposing unwritten membership rules. For example, a black girl who is completely into Jazz and not hip-hop may not be fully accepted as a member. A half-white latino girl from Kansas who moves to a Texas school and joins a group for mexican decendants will be looked down upon due to her background (ahem... Obama was called 'not black enough' when his campaign began)

I look at it like this. Humans desire to group, to cluster, to gather with those that share common traits. Chess club, sports, activities clubs, computer clubs and groups based on a common interest invite people from all backgrounds due to their 'identity depth'. This means that all members share a common interest, but it is not their most common. The members of these groups share various other traits that will attract them to one another. Most often this is based on ideals, hobbies and taste.

For example a group of football players. The group as a whole shared the love of the game and being on the team. Together they practice and most likely live and go to class. Inside the group you have members with different interest, hobbies and taste. A group of friends might form based on this or a common background (geolocation is most common). This group has 'identity depth' because it takes numerous steps to reach their most shared common trait. Also this common trait is flexible. For example if a group of friends forms over their love of a TV show, but one member gets bored of it and decides that they want to do something else it would be easy for that member to find a new cluster of closer friends that shares the new trait without losing the connection with other members.

Finally this group is based on variable traits, things that you can change. All members in this group are in a group that looks like this: Students > Athletes > Football Players > Common Trait > Friends. A member who changes their focus and say goes into theatre might lose many of their connections with the other members, but they can easily create new ones based on this change.


You look like me, you should act like me:
Members in a collective based on race, ethnicity or nation of origin can not change their most common trait, at least for the most part. A man who is black cannot suddenly be Asian, a man who is White cannot suddenly become black.

Also members of this group tend to not have identity depth. The groups tend to be shallow due to the fact that the most common trait is extremely apparent. In the Athletes example you have an extra one or two layers that would be non-existent in a race based group. For example: Students > Indian > Friends (groups are often too small for a 'common interest' layer and are based on the 'common interest of their racial or ethnic background; heritage)

Finally race based groups tend to intimidate members not of the same racial, ethnic or geographic origin. A white girl may not be welcome in the "latin girls sorority" but a latin girl must be welcome in a mostly white normal "sorority". A black guy may not be easily accepted in the "Asain mens club"

Our high schools and universities are basically teaching students to separate by the most common visual trait. This lesson carries onto the real world where racial collectives begin fighting turf wars and claiming superiority. (ethnic fighting in L.A., ethnic redistricting of Omaha school districts, claiming anti-illegal immigration is racist etc...)

This phenomenon has also been dubbed 'self segregation'

Sorry for the reply to my reply.

I thought I needed to explain a little more. What do I mean by the most common trait? What I mean is the most common apparent trait. If I were toe wear a shroud and walk down a hallway with only my face showing you could not tell that I am a marketing student, that I have an interest in entertainment or that I develop websites and play videos games.

What you could tell is that I am a young white male. That is what I mean. When you look for a mate you have taste. Do you like how an asian, african-american, latino, arabic, indian, polynesian or white male/female looks? Do you base you decision first on this, then decide down on a mate? If you do then this is a micro form of racial collectivism, although I would assume one that is acceptable and not very harmful to society as a whole.

But now lets say that you choose a group of friends first based on skin color, then based on traits. Now lets assume those friends only have friends who share the same skin color and so and so forth. Now you have gone from reinforcing your value of that skin color only between you and your mate to between you and a few hundred possibly thousand people. Now you are a collective and an unhealthy one at that. You are restricting yours and subsequently others interaction with people who do not look like them, no matter if the underlying taste and preferences are the same. This will force members to try and be more like each other rather than anger the collective and be exiled from all of those friends. The strongest and most common trait will remain, the weak less apparent ones can be changed (variable).

But lets look at it a bit differently and say that you choose your friends based first on say personality then a few shared common taste and preferences. Now you have a diverse set of friends with a wide open door for many more to join, no matter what they look like or where they come from. Now your friends can change who they want to be friends with based on these common taste and preferences (the strong trait here) and not based on the uniform trait (the weak one here).

So in racial collective members change their taste and preferences (variable traits) to become more uniform to the collective in accordance with the groups strongest trait which is invariable. This drastically reduces freedom of expression and individuality. To leave this collective members would go through ridicule and be ashamed to many of the members for not supporting people like them.

In a health collective members change their taste and preferences because they want to, the collective can choose to accept the change or not. Members can also LEAVE this collective without feeling like they are letting down people similar to them. In fact members of these collectives can move in and out of them with relative easy and little consequence.

Originally Posted by dragons5

A man who is black cannot suddenly be Asian,

You know Asians come in all colors, from black to white. You probably mean east Asian.

In my town a guy from India runs the Subway restruant. One day we were talking about race etc, and first I say you are Caucasian like me even though you have darker skin. He said heck yes, the Caucasians started in India, later some moved to Europe and got whiter. Then he said he tells people he is Asian, since India is in Asia. That throws Americans for a loop.

I totally agree with Ron Paul, get Government out of the race business!

The government uses race as a way to control people and to keep them divided.

They have used race to tell people who they can hire and fire. They have used it to tell people to whom they can rent or sell. They have used it to decide children can't go to school in their own communites, but must be bussed to achieve some kind of racial equation.

Then, of course, politicians have used it to effectively keep a certain group voting for them for years on end.

The so called leaders of all groups have either searched diligently or invented racists problems in order to keep money coming into their coffers - either contributions or taxpayer money.

It has absolutely nothing to do with bettering people's lives.

I find it entertaining how the straight forwardness of this definition confounds and confuses the media and "business as usual" folk. I don't think that the issue can be explained more completely than that, I am going to repeat this to my co-workers and see what their response is.