RACISM, PREJUDICE, BIGOTRY, DISCRIMINATION, OPPRESSION

Racist-:a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
Having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. 
Racism-: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Racism depends on the ability to give or withhold social benefits, facilities, services, opportunities etc., from someone who is entitled to them, and is denied on the basis of race, color or national origin. The source of power can be formal or informal, legal or illegal, and is not limited to traditional concepts of power. Intent is irrelevant; the focus is on the result of the behavior.

Prejudice-: discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Bigotry-:  a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
A bigot is someone who doesn't tolerate people of different races or religions.

Oppression is the systematic subjugation of a social group by another social group with access to social power. Power is the ability to control access to resources, the ability to influence others, and access to decision makers. 

Institutional racism is any system of inequality based on race. It can occur in institutions such as public government bodies, private business corporations (such as media outlets), and universities (public and private). The term was introduced by Black Power activists Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in the late 1960s.^[1] 

Discrimination is behavior, intentional or not, which negatively treats a person or a group of people based on their racial origins. In the context of racism, power is a necessary precondition for discrimination.

Racism is both overt and covert, and it takes three closely related forms: individual, institutional, and systemic. 

Based on the above dictionary definitions it can be clearly seen, that the term racist, as used by the media, is in effect another way of hiding and obfuscating the actual definition of the word racist and its individual and institutional expression in society. 

The use of a word, an expression of thought, an implementation of an act of violence, stems from the systems philosophical foundation.

Racism is institutional. It is embedded, in all the institutions that uphold the system. 

Institutions are the pillars that maintain a society.

The philosophy upon which that society is built, permeates its institutions. 

Education, Religion, Economy, Media, Politics.

Inherent in all those institutions, is the permeating thought process of superiority and inferiority.

All the institutions teach or express racist philosophies. Each tailored to the means of the institution.

Education teaches the glories of western civilization past and present.

Religion teaches the Chosen and the sacrifice of a white image to save humanity.

Economics and Politics are dominated by one group.

The media, expresses and reinforces those concepts that serves the purpose of the system.
In totality the system teaches its superiority and its chosen right to be.

All else pales before that philosophy, and all else is a result, an effect, of that cause. 
The philosophy of superiority and chosen, has given terms such as "the white man's burden" and the "indispensable nations" as modern day expressions of that superiority complex.

Racism is the expression of an act that by definition upholds the superiority of one ethnic group over another through the control of power and the means to exercise that power through the systems institutions.
The system cannot exist without it.

Prejudice, Bigotry, Discrimination, Intolerance, and Oppression are the effects of the same root cause. Racism. 

Any of the above terms, are more fitting expressions of the day to day acts that take place in the society.

Using the term racist as all inclusive, only hides the inherent and permeating racism that resides in all the systems institutions.

Oppressed People can do all of the above, except be racist. 

Racism implies and act applied or implemented from a position of power, through the systems institutions to insure the superiority and continuity of the the ethnic group.

Racism is now and has been from inception an integral part of the system.
It was written into the system and integrated into the systems institutions.
Words, names, expression of ideas, symbols, acts of violence.
None of the above is racism.
Removing a symbol (flag) wont solve the problem.
Berating officials or anyone else for saying certain words, wont solve the problem.
Prayer meetings, vigils, forgiveness for acts, condemnation of the perpetrator, may create a social feel good moment, but that too wont solve the problem.
Bigots, exist in every nook and cranny in and out of the system.
Institutional racism,so deeply ingrained in the system, gives them the power to preform their actions.
On a regular cyclical basis, these acts become the face of a nation and within each cycle, if enough condemnation is aired, the nation concedes some superficial external expression.
The continuity of the system, is dependent upon maintaining its form.
Superficial concessions have no impact on it.
Racism is one of the cornerstones of the foundation upon which the system was built.
It is an expression of the philosophy of supremacy.
The philosophy of superior and inferior.
The philosophy of chosen and the philosophy of indispensable.
No matter what words or actions are said and done to placate,
the system continues to implement policy that insures its continuity.
The society continues to support that system to insure their comfort.
To maintain that supremacy, it cannot be removed.
Removing racism from the system, is asking for the removal of a major cog in 
a complex machine.
Remove it, and the systems raison d"etre no longer exists.
So it is in the medias interest, to obfuscate its true meaning.
Ethnic Slavery, was the grossest expression of the systems racism.
Colonialism, the name and replacement for slavery was slavery's daughter.
Colonialism enslaved entire nations.
So the system morphed from enslaving individuals to enslaving nations.
It morphed from free labour to minimum wage labour.
It morphed from plantations to industrialized metropolis.
The system grows, develops and advances in the same manner that the society grows, develops and advances.
As the society grows and adapts to new inventions, so does the system.
It morphs whenever necessity demands. However, its root raison d'etre never changes.
Whatever new name change is involved, whatever new system is put in place, whatever superficial concessions are given, the system remains intact and its foundation remains unchanged.
Its philosophy, established some 2000 years ago continues to insure that Western Civilization remains supreme.

              A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS.
Its interaction on the local and International arena and its connection to the UK's agenda on the international and UN front.
Montserrat one of the last remaining Colonies of the faded "empire" on which the Sun never sets.

The last time I posted here some few years ago, the overview for political progress and constitutional reform was still on the table.

The UK government with its agenda based on its 1999 White Paper, which was quite explicit about their world view and where they saw themselves, was still at the forefront of the internal discussions.
From 2002 until 2006 the UK and its local lackeys and gatekeepers, did their utmost to document events to fit their agenda.
The Constitutional Review, the first phase, designed to fulfill the UK's agenda still had many huge footprints in it that reflected the underlying desire of the People of Montserrat.
The government of the day made a momentous decision to include the entire Legislative Council for the second phase of the exercise.
The UK's position was made clear by its negotiators.  Certain areas of the existing "constitution" were not open to discussion or change.  Specifically, the extraordinary powers of the Governor. Certain topics would not be introduced because from the UK's perspective, they were no longer relevant. Specifically the Right to Self Determination through the avenue of Free Association.
At this point in the negotiations the Government of the day understood what was taking place.
The UK needed a finished document. One that was vetted by the government of the day and passed in the House of Parliament. Their target date 2010. The end of the second phase of the Committee of 24 (Decolonisation Committee) mandate in the United Nations.
Keeping the process in Council with a Constitutional Committee responsible for periodic reports to the House kept the process alive, and the UK negotiators in check. 
A preamble that reflected past, present and future. 
The constitutional authority for a Minister to run a Ministry.
The Right to be  Self Governing as a basic Human Right.
The right to Self Determination as a  way forward.
The establishment of an economic program to remove the subsidising of the recurrent budget.
The removal of the onerous Grant-in-Aid regime controlling government finances.
The excessive powers of the governor deemed untouchable.
These and many more topics kept the negotiators in check.
Over those four years the UK's negotiating team made many reluctant concessions as they attempted to forge a final document for government to vet.
However, no document was finalised, and the 2006 elections took place.
In that election, the government of Montserrat, unfortunately lost its way in the constitutional process, as its chief internal negotiator was not returned to Parliament.

The 2006 elections brought into office one of the strangest coalitions in the devolving process that is called "politics" and "elections" in Montserrat.

Of the nine seats contested, the incumbents won 3 seats. One opposition party won 4 seats. One opposition party won 1 seat and an independent candidate won 1 seat.

With no power base, the opposition candidate that won the one seat was allowed to form a coalition with the incumbents and the independent candidate. 

With no power base, the member that won only one seat became Montserrat's Chief Minister.

Needless to say it did not take long for this marriage of convenience to self destruct.

Not satisfied, he dismissed his Ministers and invited the opposition to cross the floor.

This they happily did, and a second coalition government was formed.

This too , did not take long to self destruct. Serving only 3 years of a 5 year term the Chief Minister dissolved Parliament and elections were called.

During those erratic 3 years, the constitutional process went into limbo, and all the concessions and documented agreements disappeared. With time still on their side to implement their agenda the UK negotiators had no problems suspending the negotiations waiting for a more opportune moment and a more malleable Council.
The 2009 election returned an old UK ally to power. 
It appeared to be overwhelming. In reality, the fault was the inability of the opposing party to field a viable team. The 2009 elections were won in effect by default.
Regardless they held 6 seats, and independent candidates with divergent and often opposing views held the other 3.
Immediately, the constitutional process was revived. The watered down Preamble with only a few small footprints left in it after its torturous journey through Council still irked the UK.
Its removal and rewriting signaled the end of any benefit for Montserrat in the process.
With no continuity, from 2002-2006 period to negotiate for Montserrat, the UK  negotiators wiped the slate clean, and began the process anew.
The Government of the day willingly collaborated. 
From that point on the government of the day and the UK negotiators were in lockstep on the constitutional issue.
Whatever the negotiators wanted they received with no resistance.
The majority of the elected members of the parliament were clueless on the issues involved.
The opposition in the House showed little interest or awareness.
The government of the day did as it pleased irregardless of the impact of its decisions on Montserrat's future.
2010 the UK's original deadline passed and the final document was still not complete.
With the end of the second phase of the United Nations mandate on decolonisation approaching, the Chief Minister attended an annual Decolonisation Committee meeting, and 
unilaterally announced Montserrat's desire to opt out of the Decolonisation process.
Naturally, the reaction was extremely strong when he returned home.
With no mandate from the people on the issue the Chief Minister demonstrated his willingness, to satisfy the UK's agenda irrespective of the historical and documented position that Montserrat recorded over the years at these meetings.
In 2010, The United Nations, recognising that its Deolonisation Mandate was still not fullfilled extended the Mandate once again.
The gambit to close the book on Montserrat's colonial position vis a vis its Administrating Power at the UN was not finalised.
However, the final finished signed sealed and delivered document was still on the table and very much within the UK's grasp.
In 2010 September, the Government of the day passed through the House the final watered down version of the new "constitution" for Montserrat.
Once again the People reacted to no avail.
From this writers perspective, changes were superficial. The UK got all that it wanted, the People of Montserrat got nothing.
None the less, in the international arena, and at the UN, the Administering Power can claim that the document was the end result of a long process of negotiation.
In effect, it was a brief 3 years with a total capitulation by the government of the day to the wishes of the UK.