Define racism in legal terms and prove it.

[MaryL]

This is a simple question, Allege somebody is racist isn't good enough. Proof.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I don't get the question what's on your mind mary?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is a simple question, Allege somebody is racist isn't good enough. Proof.

Racism is whatever communists decide it is. it is a tool of revolution.

That is why we need to execute anyone making racism claims. We also need to execute any Marxists. A Marxist does not have a right to life.

 

[Agit8r]

When you tell others to Back the Blue, but then your actions prove that it was only ever about oppressing people of other races. Like with all of these people:


,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is a simple question, Allege somebody is racist isn't good enough. Proof.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Unfortunately there’s more.

 

[MaryL]

I have to hand it to liberals, and how they question everything to little bitty pieces. But Never, EVER do they apply that level of critical thinking to them selves or their politics...ever.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is a simple question, Allege somebody is racist isn't good enough. Proof.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Unfortunately there’s more.

And those are actual examples. What we see today is pure BULLSHIT!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is a simple question, Allege somebody is racist isn't good enough. Proof.

And here’s the definition of bigotry in legal terms with proof:

Hernandez v. Texas (1954)

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

(a lot of bigotry in Texas…)

And yes, unfortunately there’s more of that as well.

 

[MaryL]

its odd, I type in "false claims of white racism" on google. No mention of Jesse Smolets or the MAGA hat kid, Nick Sandman,. nope. We all agree racism is bad. But false allegations without legal proof? Worse.

 

[Street Juice]

When you tell others to Back the Blue, but then your actions prove that it was only ever about oppressing people of other races. Like with all of these people:


,

First of all, what does that video have to do with "oppressing people of other races" and second of all, these are obviously Antifa provocateurs

 

[Agit8r]

When you tell others to Back the Blue, but then your actions prove that it was only ever about oppressing people of other races. Like with all of these people:


,

First of all, what does that video have to do with "oppressing people of other races" and second of all, these are obviously Antifa provocateurs

Don't look like Antifa. Don't sound like Antifa

Seems like the Fa all around them would be able to tell the difference

 

[BluesLegend]

Racism: the #1 deflection of a failed Democratic party platform.

 

[BluesLegend]

I have to hand it to liberals, and how they question everything to little bitty pieces. But Never, EVER do they apply that level of critical thinking to them selves or their politics...ever.

There are a few things that do not exist in the liberal world, accountability, consequences, any notion that they must live by the same rules they force upon others.

 

[BertramN]

Racism, also called racialism, the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others. The term is also applied to political, economic, or legal institutions and systems that engage in or perpetuate discrimination on the basis of race or otherwise reinforce racial inequalities in wealth and income, education, health care, civil rights, and other areas. Such institutional, structural, or systemic racism became a particular focus of scholarly investigation in the 1980s with the emergence of critical race theory, an offshoot of the critical legal studies movement. Since the late 20th century the notion of biological race has been recognized as a cultural invention, entirely without scientific basis.

Following Germany’s defeat in World War I, that country’s deeply ingrained anti-Semitism was successfully exploited by the Nazi Party, which seized power in 1933 and implemented policies of systematic discrimination, persecution, and eventual mass murder of Jews in Germany and in the territories occupied by the country during World War II (see Holocaust).

In North America and apartheid-era South Africa, racism dictated that different races (chiefly blacks and whites) should be segregated from one another; that they should have their own distinct communities and develop their own institutions such as churches, schools, and hospitals; and that it was unnatural for members of different races to marry.

Historically, those who openly professed or practiced racism held that members of low-status races should be limited to low-status jobs and that members of the dominant race should have exclusive access to political power, economic resources, high-status jobs, and unrestricted civil rights. The lived experience of racism for members of low-status races includes acts of physical violence, daily insults, and frequent acts and verbal expressions of contempt and disrespect, all of which have profound effects on self-esteem and social relationships.

Racism was at the heart of North American slavery and the colonization and empire-building activities of western Europeans, especially in the 18th century. The idea of race was invented to magnify the differences between people of European origin and those of African descent whose ancestors had been involuntarily enslaved and transported to the Americas. By characterizing Africans and their African American descendants as lesser human beings, the proponents of slavery attempted to justify and maintain the system of exploitation while portraying the United States as a bastion and champion of human freedom, with human rights, democratic institutions, unlimited opportunities, and equality. The contradiction between slavery and the ideology of human equality, accompanying a philosophy of human freedom and dignity, seemed to demand the dehumanization of those enslaved.

By the 19th century, racism had matured and spread around the world. In many countries, leaders began to think of the ethnic components of their own societies, usually religious or language groups, in racial terms and to designate “higher” and “lower” races. Those seen as the low-status races, especially in colonized areas, were exploited for their labour, and discrimination against them became a common pattern in many areas of the world. The expressions and feelings of racial superiority that accompanied colonialism generated resentment and hostility from those who were colonized and exploited, feelings that continued even after independence.

Since the mid-20th century many conflicts around the world have been interpreted in racial terms even though their origins were in the ethnic hostilities that have long characterized many human societies (e.g., Arabs and Jews, English and Irish). Racism reflects an acceptance of the deepest forms and degrees of divisiveness and carries the implication that differences between groups are so great that they cannot be transcended.

Racism elicits hatred and distrust and precludes any attempt to understand its victims. For that reason, most human societies have concluded that racism is wrong, at least in principle, and social trends have moved away from racism. Many societies have begun to combat racism by raising awareness of racist beliefs and practices and by promoting human understanding in public policies, as does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, set forth by theUnited Nations in 1948.

In the United States, racism came under increasing attack during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s, and laws and social policies that enforced racial segregation and permitted racial discrimination against African Americans were gradually eliminated. Laws aimed at limiting the voting power of racial minorities were invalidated by the Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964) to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibited poll taxes, and by the federal Voting Rights Act (1965), which required jurisdictions with a history of voter suppression to obtain federal approval (“preclearance”) of any proposed changes to their voting laws (the preclearance requirement was effectively removed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 [see Shelby County v. Holder]). By 2020 nearly three-quarters of the states had adopted varying forms of voter ID law, by which would-be voters were required or requested to present certain forms of identification before casting a ballot. Critics of the laws, some of which were successfully challenged in the courts, contended that they effectively suppressed voting among African Americans and other demographic groups. Other measures that tended to limit voting by African Americans were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, partisan gerrymanders aimed at limiting the number of Democratic representatives in state legislatures and Congress, the closing of polling stations in African American or Democratic-leaning neighbourhoods, restrictions on the use of mail-in and absentee ballots, limits on early voting, and purges of voter rolls.

Despite constitutional and legal measures aimed at protecting the rights of racial minorities in the United States, the private beliefs and practices of many Americans remained racist, and some group of assumed lower status was often made a scapegoat. That tendency has persisted well into the 21st century.

Because, in the popular mind, “race” is linked to physical differences among peoples, and such features as dark skin colour have been seen as markers of low status, some experts believe that racism may be difficult to eradicate. Indeed, minds cannot be changed by laws, but beliefs about human differences can and do change, as do all cultural elements.

 

[MadDog]

I have to hand it to liberals, and how they question everything to little bitty pieces. But Never, EVER do they apply that level of critical thinking to them selves or their politics...ever.

What about independents like me. What am I guilty of? LOL

 

[MadDog]

This is a simple question, Allege somebody is racist isn't good enough. Proof.

There’s hardly a single word in the English that doesn’t have more than one meaning. Your question SOUNDS simple enough but I don’t really think it is.

 

[Mac1958]

its odd, I type in "false claims of white racism" on google. No mention of Jesse Smolets or the MAGA hat kid, Nick Sandman,. nope. We all agree racism is bad. But false allegations without legal proof? Worse.

In reality, both ends of the argument feed the other.

The Right refuses to admit that racism is still a problem. The Left over-does the accusations, often to a ridiculous degree.

The two ends of this need each other. This doesn't improve unless and until both ends honestly hold their own side accountable.

 

[TheParser]

This is 2021.

"Racism" as traditionally defined NO LONGER exists.

When so-called "liberals" accuse other people of being "racists," they are referring to people who are wary of certain folks who commit crime far beyond their percentage of the general population and to people who find as infelicitous the general cultural attitudes of certain folks.

In 2021, here in the United States, almost EVERYONE supports equal rights in employment, public accommodations, etc.

In short, so-called "liberals" use the term "racist" to refer to anyone who is more comfortable living and working and playing with people who share their cultural values.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

MaryL one of the last times you put up a thread with this same theme - "alleged racism by blacks is BS", "one shouldn't be allowed to claim racism without proof", "no one ever provides any proof, only accusations", etc. I asked you if you believe that someone calling a black person by the n-word is proof that they are racist. I never got a response, so I will ask again and take it one step further. Do you believe that having someone on video or audio tape referring to a black person as the n-word is PROOF that they are a racist?

An analyst of your posting history indicates that you obviously do not understand how our legal system works, particularly the laws surrounding race based civil rights violation and/or because you don't think the way our system works is "fair", you then use that as an excuse to claim that no one ever provides proof of racism, only accusations and I suspect you believe most of those accusation are false.

Our courts recognize that in most racial discrimination cases hard evidence (direct evidence) of racism in action is extremely difficult to come by therefore they allow circumstantial evidence in many cases.

In Postal Service v. Aikens, the Supreme Court made clear that victims of race discrimination need not submit direct evidence of discriminatory intent. Rather, in acknowledging that such cases rarely involve “smoking gun” evidence, the Supreme Court held that circumstantial evidence can be used to prove the existence of unlawful motive in race discrimination cases:​

However you've demonstrated, repeatedly, that no matter how much evidence is provided to you to, even evidence from cases that are settled in favor of the plaintiff, you will continue to hold the position that none of it is "real" racism

May 19, 1987 ​

The United States Supreme Court has taken a bold stance against any kind of racial or ethnic discrimination. And in so doing, the justices significantly broadened civil rights protections for all minority groups.​

​

In a pair of unanimous rulings Monday dealing with racial discrimination against Jews and Arabs, the high court said that 19th-century federal antibias laws, interpreted up to now as applying mainly to blacks, also protect others.​

While addressing specific cases, the justices also noted that antidiscrimination statutes refer to Scandinavians, Chinese, and Hispanics as members of distinct ``races.''​

​

Observers say these these rulings have broad implications because they go to the heart of legal perceptions about race and discrimination.​

​

Arabic, Jewish, and black groups had urged the court to extend protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to all races and ethnic groups. And the justices did so - ruling that the post-Civil War guarantee that ``all citizens shall have the same rights enjoyed by white citizens'' is a universal mandate and not just limited to non-Caucasians.​

​

Writing for the court, Associate Justice Byron R. White stressed that the 100-year-old federal statute was designed primarily to protect blacks - but was also intended to help other ethnic groups.​

​

``We have little trouble in concluding that Congress intended to protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethic characteristics,'' Justice White explained. He added: ``Such discrimination is racial discrimination that Congress intended to forbid, whether or not it would be classified as racial in terms of modern scientific theory.''
​

White said that an Arab or a Jew may be subject to discrimination even if he or she does not have a distinct ethnic appearance.​

``A distinctive physiognomy is not essential to qualify'' for protection under the civil rights laws, he held.​

​

The court further explained that while Arabs and Jews now are considered to be Caucasians, they were seen as members of distinct races at the time the federal legislation was enacted.​

One of the cases, Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, involved the desecration of a Maryland synagogue. Vandals had painted swastikas and Ku Klux Klan symbols on the edifice and marked it with other anti-Semitic graffiti.​

Eight perpetrators were caught and admitted that they believed that Jews were members of a distinct and inferior race. The congregation then sued them for violation of its members' civil liberties.​

​

The US District Court for Maryland and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, rejected this contention. These courts reasoned that the 1866 act was not intended to apply to Jews as a separate race. The US Supreme Court disagreed.​

​

In the Arab case, St. Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, Majid Ghaidan Al-Khazraji, an associate professor of sociology at a Pennsylvania college, sued the school for alleged civil rights violations when he was denied tenure. A native of Iraq and a US citizen, he claimed the school improperly considered his ethnic background and his Muslim religion in deciding whether or not to promote him.​

​

A federal trial judge dismissed the suit, holding that an Arab cannot sue for racial discrimination under US civil rights laws. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed the lower court.​

The appellate panel said that federal antidiscrimination statutes were intended to ensure that all persons were treated equally without regard to race or color. The US Supreme Court agreed.​

https://www.csmonitor.com/1987/0519/arul.html​