IMO, our militaristic foreign policy requires both greed for money and power in the "leaders" [authority figures]; AND racism [which I think of as fear which inspires hate] in the followers [dependents].

Children are easily frightened by the “bogey man” stories told by a parent [authority] whom they must then depend on for protection.

“[…] in many cases [the Bogeyman] simply has no set appearance in the mind of a child, but is just an amorphous embodiment of terror. […]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogey_man

The leaders take advantage of their power over the followers in order to increase their own wealth and power.

The Bogeyman seems to be a near universal myth around the world, which parents use “in an effort to make [the children] behave.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogey_man

I never mix up my muslims - I just thought it would be a good idea for a muslim to wear green if he meets an American - because we saw on TV that good muslims wear green! --

And about the Nuclear Arms reductions - I'm all with you (and Obama) - Ohne Scheiss!!

[...]

The communist authorities who built the so-called Great Firewall of China raced to stamp out video, images and words posted by Internet users about the unrest on Sunday which, officials said, left at least 140 people dead.

Twitter and YouTube appeared to be blocked in China late on Monday afternoon, while leading Chinese search engines would not give results for "Urumqi", the city in Xinjiang where the riots occurred.

Urumqi residents also said the Internet had been cut off in the city, while some mobile phone services were curbed, making it difficult for people to relay information on the unrest and crackdown.

Traditional press also carried only the official version of events, which blamed the unrest on ethnic Muslim Uighurs.

But similar to the phenomenon seen last month during Iran's political turmoil, pictures, videos and updates from Urumqi poured onto social networking and image sharing websites such as Twitter, YouTube and Flickr.

In many cases, items were reposted by other Internet users on sites outside China to preserve the content, while Twitter helped link people around the globe to images Chinese authorities did not want seen....

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jlMPMzVRIgHQFdLL_ShBYw_af3Vw

It isn't that much different. In the U.S. the Iranian-American population far outsizes the Uighur-American population, so we aren't likely to see as many sites. And one crucial difference is that Google has a contract with the Chinese government, but not with the government of Iran, so we are likely to see big differences there (no sudden addition of Uighur to their language tools, I would bet).

And no weirdo editorials from Charles Krauthammer, most likely. And HuffPo probably doesn't have an ethnic Uighur editor.

Racism and bigotry is a result of IGNORANCE!

Ignorance is a factor in a lot of undesirable aspects of human behavior, but there have been plenty of racists who are not ignorant people. It is just not that simple.

The link in Update II to "a new website" took me to a web design page.

Rocky Balboa once again shows that too many blows to the head is simply not good for a person. In a discussion about racism and ugnorance, no less.

Give that man the Amity Award.

A Racist is a person who the believes that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

A Bigots on the other hand is a person who strongly partial to ones' own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.(ie. pro-lifers)

People who are racist or act on their racism through bigotry can be intelligent but are still ignorant.

Its sound as if you are defending both racism and bigotry. Are you?

Much of what you just made clear in you 3 pint statment was in the NYT article if one did not read the NYT article it with rose colored glasses.

You are the one of the few posters here who see the gray zones in issues,not just the black and white of issues.

Thank you for saying that. The quote had information that was not in the article Edward Wong put up originally, the one that ended up in print this morning. He is updating his article online, the one Glenn linked to, as facts come in.

He got burned pretty bad trying to cover the Tibet uprising from Beijing. He was stuck with all his phone contacts in Lhasa initially all Han Chinese, and all foreign journalists forbidden to travel to Tibet Autonomous Region or any of the surrounding Tibetan areas, which makes it hard to accurately cover an ethnic disturbance. And he found out how tight the news clamps were when he snuck in and got arrested later. So on Urumqi, his first contact in was someone teaching English there (a foreigner, in other words). Now there is some more information flowing, but there are complaints of internet blackouts and phone interruptions from Urumqi.

You and I part company with your last reply.

Greed, by and large is a personal position, where as racism is a cultural one.

To begin with, I think you may have these reversed.

But no matter. You're now analyzing the topic exclusively from the point of view of politics and foreign policy, where, I agree, changing needs may mean changing alliances, where yesterday's best friend may become tomorrow's worst enemy. And vice-versa.

However, I think you're missing my point. I'll endeavor to cast it within the framework you insist on building -- it's not possible to embrace and reject racism, as you describe (you make it sound like changing clothes...) without a callous disregard for the fundamental humanity of those so easily embraced or tossed aside, as your needs dictate.

That callous disregard (call it what you will) is a prerequisite for treating people based on what advantage(s) it provides to you...rather than to them. One simply cannot have a foreign policy that takes such chances with the lives of others without it being founded on a callous disregard for those lives.

You either start with the "golden rule" or you don't.

What you're describing is exploitation, which always has, at its heart, a callous disregard for the exploited, whether you happen to be embracing them or rejecting them.