Terrorism is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
The criteria of unlawfulness would generally rule out the prospect of terrorism being practiced by a government as it is the government that makes the laws. It may be practiced by individuals or groups within the government, if their actions are unlawful. Likewise you may believe that the laws enacted by your government are immoral or "evil"; however it does not fit the definition of terrorism. A government's actions may fit the definition of state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism which as stated by the OP are separate concepts.
Perhaps you want to define terrorism differently; in any case if you want to have a dialogue about something, you first have to clearly agree on the definitions of the words you're going to use, and use the correct words to describe what you're talking about.
Man, I hate when capitalism gets a bad rap like this, just because we've fucked it up. What we have in this country isn't really capitalism anymore (realistically, it probably never was in the first place). Any time the government involves itself directly in the economy that is a step towards socialism. If that's what we want our system to be, fine, but I wish people would use the right word for it.
However, I would say that in some sense, we (humans) ceased to be "natural" when we acquired the ability to divorce ourselves (and other species) from the process of evolution. Other species, generally speaking, stand or fall on their strengths and their weaknesses. If unable to adapt to changing circumstances, they die. We have the ability to prevent that process from working on us. Instead of adapting ourselves, we create new technologies to mitigate changing circumstances. You could argue that this is not a "natural" process.
I don't have any newspaper account of such things, but if you're interested, I can share a personal account with you instead.
A friend of mine was up for a promotion at her workplace (incidentally not in the IT industry). She was told by her manager that there weren't any other realistic candidates for the position and she was sure to get it. However, the person named ended up being another woman, who not only worked in a different department, but did not even have a college degree (stated as one of the minimum requirements for the position). My friend was shocked and confused.
Eventually, she learned from her manager that the other woman was black, and had threatened to sue under the Equal Opportunity Act if not given the job. She probably would not have won, but the company did not have the resources to defend itself against such a lawsuit, so they gave in to her demands.
As many people have already stated, discrimination is discrimination regardless of who is practicing it, or whom they are practicing it against. The sad fact is, you cannot legislate racism out of existence. The EOCC levels the playing field only in the sense that it facilitates racism for everybody, instead of just the majority.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3ATerrorismn sored+Terrorism
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3AState+Spo
Terrorism is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
The criteria of unlawfulness would generally rule out the prospect of terrorism being practiced by a government as it is the government that makes the laws. It may be practiced by individuals or groups within the government, if their actions are unlawful. Likewise you may believe that the laws enacted by your government are immoral or "evil"; however it does not fit the definition of terrorism. A government's actions may fit the definition of state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism which as stated by the OP are separate concepts.
Perhaps you want to define terrorism differently; in any case if you want to have a dialogue about something, you first have to clearly agree on the definitions of the words you're going to use, and use the correct words to describe what you're talking about.
Man, I hate when capitalism gets a bad rap like this, just because we've fucked it up. What we have in this country isn't really capitalism anymore (realistically, it probably never was in the first place). Any time the government involves itself directly in the economy that is a step towards socialism. If that's what we want our system to be, fine, but I wish people would use the right word for it.
*DISCLAIMER* I do agree with your sentiment.
However, I would say that in some sense, we (humans) ceased to be "natural" when we acquired the ability to divorce ourselves (and other species) from the process of evolution. Other species, generally speaking, stand or fall on their strengths and their weaknesses. If unable to adapt to changing circumstances, they die. We have the ability to prevent that process from working on us. Instead of adapting ourselves, we create new technologies to mitigate changing circumstances. You could argue that this is not a "natural" process.
I don't have any newspaper account of such things, but if you're interested, I can share a personal account with you instead.
A friend of mine was up for a promotion at her workplace (incidentally not in the IT industry). She was told by her manager that there weren't any other realistic candidates for the position and she was sure to get it. However, the person named ended up being another woman, who not only worked in a different department, but did not even have a college degree (stated as one of the minimum requirements for the position). My friend was shocked and confused.
Eventually, she learned from her manager that the other woman was black, and had threatened to sue under the Equal Opportunity Act if not given the job. She probably would not have won, but the company did not have the resources to defend itself against such a lawsuit, so they gave in to her demands.
As many people have already stated, discrimination is discrimination regardless of who is practicing it, or whom they are practicing it against. The sad fact is, you cannot legislate racism out of existence. The EOCC levels the playing field only in the sense that it facilitates racism for everybody, instead of just the majority.