From a discussion group I participate in:<\/p>\n
I think the true definition of a “racist” is one who believes there are fundamental differences among the races. According to this definition, many of our presidents and founding fathers have been “racists”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A “racist” also believes that one “race” is inferior to another. A “racialist” believes that all “races” are biologically different but equal.<\/p>\n
When has it become a “thoughtcrime” to think that maybe their are more differences between races than skin color and that maybe the races are not equal?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I would have to ask for scientific proof of these different “races.” I would also have to ask how “thoughtcrimes” are detected and prosecuted.<\/p>\n
These days, the word “racist” comes with an emotional stigma. We associate it with church burnings, the assasination of Black Civil Rights leaders, etc. According to the definition I gave as the true meaning, does a “racist” necessarily resort to violence because of their beliefs? Aren’t we all entitled to our own beliefs? Hasn’t there been as much if not more violence in the name of racial equality?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
No a “racist” doesn’t necessarily resort to violence. That would be the tactics of a violent “racist.” There are, of course, non-violent “racists.” Yes, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. The right to your own beliefs, however, does not mean that immunity from dissection and public discussion of said beliefs is automatically attached.<\/p>\n