Zimbabwe inflation rate now 136%

But how can we fight to end racism if we just choose to ignore it? Do you think if they didn't report it, it would just go away?
 
You got it. The word report is what I was getting at. 99 times out of 100, when race is mentioned in a crime, take a look at the perpetrators and the victims. Then tell me how that reporting is fighting racism. Racism is a totally seperate issue than the crime anyway...
 
It's fighting racism by making it an issue. I'm sorry, but I don't get your point here. Take a look at the victims and perpetrators?
 
Yep. Go through you local newspaper, and read. When you get to the race of the victim or the perpetrator, mark it down, and see how many times race is listed.

Then look at the crime. Then ask yourself if listing the race in said crime is relevant.

Now that you've done that, ask yourself this...Why is the race listed at all?
 
Ok, there probably are times that race is not relevant to the crime, I agree if the paper says "Two black men robbed a convenience store on Monday night", or "A White man was convicted of forgery today" the race is not relevant. However, when the nature of the crime includes targeting one race or another, such as the texas dragging or the killing of the white farmers, it is relevant, and should be reported.
 
There is no relevance in the targeting. Race-be-damned, the target is still a human being, and should be treated as such. Just because the perpetrator is an idiot, it doesn't make the crime any more, or less, abhorrent. If the media wouldn't play the race card every single time, then people wouldn't be as sensitized to it, and it wouldn't occur as often. (Yes, I'm serious about that) In fact, some things reported as racism aren't racism at all...the word 'niggardly' comes to mind. Anyway...racism and racial targeting are not a crime unto themselves, and shouldn't be treated as a crime. Murder, rape, robbery, etc are crimes, and no amount of talking race is going to change that. Adding a persons race to the perpetrator or victim only seeks to divide based upon the race listed.
 
I see your point, I really do. But don't you think that when the crime is racially motivated, that they press has a duty to report it as such? I'm not saying anything about whether it is legal or illegal, or if they should be punished more or less for it, just that the press has the responsibility to report the facts, and the facts are that the crime was racially motivated.
 
Yes, using race is generally unimportant to the final results. But it does allow the reader of the story to understand the motivating factor. He's not killing black farmers. So it has bearing on the story. It's wrong, undeniably. Would it help if the story said "British" famers instead? The adjective needs to be in the story at some point to clarify the issue. Race, for those of us who see past it, doesn't matter. But if the story read:

Mugabe's dictatorial government is killing farmers for their land. The farmers are told to evacualte within 24 hours, with all the possessions they can carry, or face jail time & sometimes even death. Upon leaving the land, it's turned over to the locals, allowing the land to be returned to locals.

seems to be missing an important reasoning doesn't it? who is being dislocated & why?


When the "two blacks guys robbed a liquor store" type of headline gets out I get as pissed as you. That is nothing but baiting.
 
Gonz said:
Yes, using race is generally unimportant to the final results. But it does allow the reader of the story to understand the motivating factor. He's not killing black farmers. So it has bearing on the story. It's wrong, undeniably. Would it help if the story said "British" famers instead? The adjective needs to be in the story at some point to clarify the issue. Race, for those of us who see past it, doesn't matter. But if the story read:

Mugabe's dictatorial government is killing farmers for their land. The farmers are told to evacualte within 24 hours, with all the possessions they can carry, or face jail time & sometimes even death. Upon leaving the land, it's turned over to the locals, allowing the land to be returned to locals.

seems to be missing an important reasoning doesn't it? who is being dislocated & why?


When the "two blacks guys robbed a liquor store" type of headline gets out I get as pissed as you. That is nothing but baiting.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point. There is no real reasoning behind what he's doing. But...just because the farmers are white, does that make them less human? That's the point I was trying to get at. They deserve to live their lives on the property they bought just as I deserve to live my life on any property I buy. Race isn't a factor in that. I believe that both Mugabe and the press made race a factor, but once you shit on the dining room table, you can't clean it off and pretend it wasn't there...
 
Gato_Solo said:
Gonz said:
Yes, using race is generally unimportant to the final results. But it does allow the reader of the story to understand the motivating factor. He's not killing black farmers. So it has bearing on the story. It's wrong, undeniably. Would it help if the story said "British" famers instead? The adjective needs to be in the story at some point to clarify the issue. Race, for those of us who see past it, doesn't matter. But if the story read:

Mugabe's dictatorial government is killing farmers for their land. The farmers are told to evacualte within 24 hours, with all the possessions they can carry, or face jail time & sometimes even death. Upon leaving the land, it's turned over to the locals, allowing the land to be returned to locals.

seems to be missing an important reasoning doesn't it? who is being dislocated & why?


When the "two blacks guys robbed a liquor store" type of headline gets out I get as pissed as you. That is nothing but baiting.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point. There is no real reasoning behind what he's doing. But...just because the farmers are white, does that make them less human? That's the point I was trying to get at. They deserve to live their lives on the property they bought just as I deserve to live my life on any property I buy. Race isn't a factor in that. I believe that both Mugabe and the press made race a factor, but once you shit on the dining room table, you can't clean it off and pretend it wasn't there...
Click to expand...

But you see, that is my point exactly, altbeit a fucked up reason, he does have a point in what he is doing, and it is at least in part racially motivated.
 
The reason is this...He didn't want descendents of the colonial powers owning the farmland. He wanted his 'friends' to own the land. He decided to evict the descendents of the colonial powers, and they just happen to be white. Now the press comes in...Page 1...White Farmers threatened with eviction and/or death in Africa...Much better story, eh? Reads like a nightmare to some folks and revenge to others. To me, it stinks of yellow journalism and racial baiting.
 
Gato_Solo said:
The reason is this...He didn't want descendents of the colonial powers owning the farmland. He wanted his 'friends' to own the land. He decided to evict the descendents of the colonial powers, and they just happen to be white. Now the press comes in...Page 1...White Farmers threatened with eviction and/or death in Africa...Much better story, eh? Reads like a nightmare to some folks and revenge to others. To me, it stinks of yellow journalism and racial baiting.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's interesting. Perhaps you have a point there. But, if the farmers would have been black, would he have still done it? Or, has he killed any black farmers to take away their land? If so, I will concede to you, and the word white should have never been used in this situation.

However, backing up to a story you brought up, the black man in Texas who was drug behind a truck. That guy was attacked and killed because he was black, no other reason, so they did the right thing there in reporting the facts.
 
They reported he was black just to cause an uproar. The color of the victim was not important. I stand by that statement 100%. In fact the victim of any crime is targeted for some reason. Are we going to add that into the mix, too?

As for the farmers in Zimbabwe...yes. Some of them WERE black. I stand by that statement, too. I also stand by the statement I made about 'Colonial powers'. This crime is motivated by revenge, pure and simple. The descendents of the colonial powers and their perceived collaborators are being killed. Period. Any mention of race is purely for shock value, and is not needed in the story.
 
Here's another view on the topic that you should read.

Here's another...

And another

And yet another

Now I'm not saying Mugabe is a good man. Far from it, but the racism that is described in this is nothing more than old-fashioned revenge. White has nothing to do with the crime.
 
I hadn't read or seen anything about black farmers being victims. If that is so, (I don't have time for the links right now) then race is irrelevent. All I've seen was Bristish colonialists being booted & murderd.
 
Gonz said:
I hadn't read or seen anything about black farmers being victims. If that is so, (I don't have time for the links right now) then race is irrelevent. All I've seen was Bristish colonialists being booted & murderd.
Click to expand...
Blacks are not being booted off and murdered. Not on farms anyway. And it isn't British colonialists really, because those people were born there and so was their fathers and their fathers' fathers.

A second part of the equation is the murder of people who does not agree with the current government. Now there race is irrelevant. BUT, on the farms, its WHITES being murdered by BLACKS, just like the WHITES repressed the BLACKS in South Africa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top