Foamy wrote:
Maybe your definition of racism differs from mine, but I don't think a person who hates black people simply because they are black would speak out against the police who beat up on a BLACK person.
You keep missing my statements that racism isn't limited to hate, so yes, I think we're operating on different definitions. To illustrate what I'm talking about, let me offer some hypothetical scenarios. In each one, imagine that the person in question genuinely has no hatred whatsoever for black people and fully believes that many, many black people are perfectly good, honest, hard-working individuals. Nevertheless, the person in question does the following things:
1. He's a cab driver, and he refuses to pick up black people, because they're statistically more likely to rob him.
2. He's a cop, and he deliberately targets black people for stop-and-frisks, traffic stops, etc., because they're statistically more likely to have drugs in their possession.
3. He's a landlord, and he does his best to avoid renting to black people, because they're statistically more likely to damage the apartment and/or fail to pay rent.
4. He's an employer, and he takes extra security precautions with black employees, because they're statistically more likely to steal things.
5. He's a father, and he forbids his daughter from dating black guys, because they're statistically more likely to cheat on her.
6. He's a city-dweller, and he gets nervous/suspicious whenever he sees black people walking on his street, because they're statistically more likely to be criminals.
Would you consider any or all of the above "racist"? If not, is there a different term you think is better? They're all motivated purely by statistical risk analysis, not hatred, but surely you agree that doesn't make them hunky-dory.