I hate racism, I hate racist people, I think the Civil War was over slavery. I've seen this country embrace the self evident truth that all men are created equal, and the doctrine of Martin Luther King, until now.
People get fired from their jobs and shunned from society (rightfully so) for spouting out racial epithets, except when it's against white people. So how is it that the New York times allows this double standard to prevail when they hire a known racist Sarah Jeong.
Liberals shouldn't get a free pass on racism. You are either for it or against it.
As liberals well know , you scream " RACISM " as a political tool for dividing , which is essentially the only viable entity of racism presently alive and well in America . Calling whites as racists and the mileage it can attain for the party advancement .
Thank You Pres. Obama administration .
The word gets overused until it looses it's meaning, and you can be as racist as you want, as long as you are an expert in the art of virtue signaling.
Well , of course we all have to realize that we are talking about THE party where" identity politics " has become the biggest "trigger" to political dialog of any kind ?
Meaning , If democrats didn't signal " race " in order to include themselves into any political discussion ,They would never have a political point TO make .
There is a stark difference between putting white people down and racism against people of color. When white people are attacked on the grounds that they are white, it may arguably cause problem with divisiveness, but it is not racism because, ultimately, white people will not lose their power and privilege over it. It may make you feel hurt, which is still a problem, but it is most likely not going to systematically hurt you. Racism is a series of microaggressions as well as actual agressions that leave people of color powerless and impoverished at the feet of white people. The average twitter tirade against white people will not leave you impoverished at the foot of Sarah Jeong or any other person of color. It will probably just hurt your feelings, which is a totally separate issue from racism.
I cannot speak for Sarah Jeong in particular, but white people are not usually attacked simply because they have white skin. White people are usually attacked because of a terrible colonialist history and because of a minimum effort at trying to rectify that history. I am not necessarily saying these attacks of proactive or productive. However, I would not put it in the same category as racism because racism usually requires hate, aggression, or attacks simply on the basis that someone comes from a different race. Most attacks against white people are usually based in frustration at how white people have left others powerless, in anger at how white people seem too anxious to engage in meaningful conversations about race, in disdain at how many white people do not even realize their privilege, or in sheer desperation at how people of color feel totally left behind.
This is absolutely the most outrageous statement ever made ! Well No ! But close to it . Anyone of any color can be racist and if you don't think it's the same kind of hateful racism displayed against whites as has ever been displayed against blacks , reds, browns or yellow skins , then you do NOT know of what you speak. Time to go back to detention kiddies , get out your homework and reread that chapter.
Boredstudent, you offered an opinion, so I will offer one too.
I think you are wrong because I don't think racism requires hate at all. And for you to say so indicates a specific perspective - one which is not as portrayed in your response as a rational explanation.
Well I think your frustration stems out of the fact that white privilege is a myth, and only liberals buy into it.
This idea of social justice which excuses bad behavior on the part of one group and not another is antithetical to the precept that we should be judged not by the color of our skin but the context of our character. Racist is racist no matter the color of your skin.
This is the exact opposite of what Dr. King and the civil rights movement of the 1960s' was about, and quite literally favors segregation and subservience of races. To simply swing the gauntlet over to the favor of minorities nullifies the higher goal of equal rights for all.
It's not the 1960s anymore. Racism has changed since then. I do want everyone to be judged based on their character, I also recognize that we are not there yet. If you can't see a power imbalance between white people and people of color, then I am not sure where you are looking.
Racism means different things to different people and I am going by the sociological definition. To be sure, by other definitions, it can flow both ways, but the sociological definition can be used to defend certain types of behaviors, which is what I was doing.
Also, I am curious to know why you think privilege is a myth. As a white person, I have experienced it and I recognize it.
Yes, there is a power imbalance based on economic numbers and other ways of measuring it objectively, although those numbers are steadily improving.
But do you think that imbalance is strictly the result of white racism? Or do other factors count?
It's hard to measure things like unconscious bias, but plenty of studies seem to suggest that many white people are socialized to harbor bias that can, in theory, be playing a bigger role in power imbalances than we might think. I cannot discount these studies when trying to determine all the factors that play a role in racial disparities.
People have argued that black culture is a part of the problem because black people see education, money, and success as something that is too white. I am not sure if this situation is strictly true, but I will admit that this type of attitude is definitely not helpful. However, I cannot help but recognize that this desire to distance oneself from whiteness only stems from years of developing a culture in a seriously racist environment. If black culture is part of the problem, then it is only because white people essentially created a monster by instituting things like slavery and Jim Crow.
While, racism is probably not the only thing at play, I cannot deny that it is somewhat at play.
I have to say that you can't blame "slavery and Jim Crow" without also crediting the purpose of the Civil War, thousands of laws including the Civil Rights Act, trillions of dollars in social programs and many other attempts to correct the problem.
By saying it's almost an entirely white problem, which your post above seems to indicate, you open yourself to the kind of angry backlash we see elsewhere in this thread and that I mentioned in another post. It's resentment by people who believe they aren't racist but think they are being accused of causing the problem.
I can tell you are thoughtful and intelligent. But with all due respect, the post above does sound like reverse bias from a "guilty white liberal".
I assume you want me to hold back on the grounds that it will beneficial in the fight against racism? I'm not yet sure how willing I am to be apologetic. On the one hand, I don't want to alienate anyone from the movements I stand behind. On the other hand, I don't really want anyone to think they are exempt from this fight simply because they could be doing worse, simply because of "thousands of laws...and many other attempts to correct the problem". It has not yet been enough and everyone has to step up until it is.
I am happy to admit that there are good points in our history too, but you asked if racism was a major factor in racial disparities and I was simply giving examples as to why it is.
I'm not asking you to hold back. I assume you don't me to do so either. I recognize you were replying to my questions.
I'm trying to say that your answer comes across as blaming whites for the entire problem, even to the point of blaming black cultural issues on whites.
The most racist people and most loving people I have ever met are not white. Your answers and my long life experiences don't agree with each other.
My apologies. To be clear, I am not blaming whites alone for black cultural issues. I am holding whites partially accountable for the historical role they played it in. I am sorry that I didn't mention any of the historical roles they played in trying to change it, but I just didn't see it as relevant.
You're holding people (of any color or race) responsible for what other people did hundreds of years ago? Why?
We have to wonder why racial disparity still exists today, even though slavery does not. I have already admitted that there are multiple factors at play, but racism is undoubtedly one of those factors. While it is hard to measure what the biggest factor is, I would argue that racism is the biggest factor, but I am open to the notion that my analysis could be incorrect. However, racism has a role is racial disparities, so I am holding white people accountable for generally not doing enough to combat racism. If white people had done enough, then I contend that racial disparities would not be as extreme as they are today.
It is difficult to say what would be considered enough because, as I already acknowledged, progress has been made. However, I believe that an effort has to be made every single day to make a difference. Find a politician of color that you support and advocate to them. Donate the causes that help people of color if you can. Call out racism when you see it. Use social media as a platform to raise awareness. There are plenty of things you can do in order to encourage a society that looks better than it does today. Otherwise, you are not a true ally to the movement to fight oppression and racism. If you are not making that effort every day, then you are not doing enough and I am holding you responsible for failing to rectify the mistakes made by people hundreds of years ago.
Hopefully, by speaking up enough, certain policies will eventually be in place to fully fix the situation. We can argue about the details of what those policies should look like, but those policies will not ever be in place until enough people are speaking up.
Can you then list for us all some of these oppressions , policies and racial disparities that point to general racism ?
You've probably heard all of them. I'll start with police shootings of unarmed or innocent black men because that's a hot button topic. I'd also like to mention all the studies on implicit and unconscious bias because this type of bias is what racism has evolved into today. Harvard ran a test called Project Implicit that showed how white people tend to accidentally stereotype without realizing it. There was also a study about how "black-sounding" and "Latinx-sounding" names on resumes make people less likely to get a job. These examples are examples of "general racism" and "oppressions" manifested in the form of unconscious bias.
In terms of actual policies, I think I can point to housing policies that keep black people away from parks and nicer neighborhoods. The practice is known as redlining or environmental racism. It has been outlawed, but the practice has seemed to emerge in parts of the northeast. It has a big impact on access to health, clean water, and clean air as well. Just look at Flint Michigan. It still does not have clean water. Flint is just one huge example, but Flint is not an isolated incident. Less extreme examples of similar problems have occurred in New York, Baltimore, LA, and other heavily black/POC neighborhoods. My guess it also occurs in the south in places like Atlanta, but most governments in the south will not run nonpartisan investigations the way governments will in California, so there is no way to know.
I can direct you to the Wikipedia page on institutional racism if you want to find more policies. Some of the policies listed on the page no longer exist, so make sure the check to the sources to see if the problem is of recent origin or if it has successfully been eliminated.
Racial disparities are just pretty obvious. Report after report shows that white people are consistently better off in terms of health, wealth, happiness, success, education, and more. The list goes on and on. All these problems do not exist in isolation, so one problem can exacerbate or trigger another.
There are enough laws in place to ensure that anyone who wants to has the opportunity to succeed. There is no racism holding anyone back. The primary thing holding people back is their belief. If you insist long enough that you aren't responsible for your own happiness, you eventually believe it.
It is my observation and has been my experience that this victim mentality cannot be appeased. Whatever done is never enough. Because a person who believes themself a victim does so by choice.
I disagree. Again, I already explained why I believe that white privilege is not a myth. Because of this privilege, there is a way higher chance of white people succeeding.
I think you are not looking at all factors involved. And all factors need to be viewed. From birth, to entry into adulthood. If you only look at skin color, you are playing the race card from the outset.
I applaud your interest in the topic and your desire to see a more inclusive future, but I fear you have developed a view that cannot be supported by reality, without ignoring personal responsibility of some parties.
It might help if you could share specific examples. With as much background information as possible. Something fairly current.
Do you want examples of white privilege or of racism?
White privilege is pretty apparent from simple statistics. White people are, quite simply, better off. To be sure, there are lurking variables in many instance where white people are better off. For example, white people have a better education because they live in neighborhoods that offer good education. People of color who happen to live in these neighborhoods still get a relatively good education. The real point of the white privilege is not that each case of it has a lurking variable; it is that each case does not exist in isolation. You live in a low income neighborhood and there isn't enough fresh air, so your children develop asthma and miss too much school. You don't ask your doctor about it because of mistrust for the system, because of previous bad experience with healthcare, or because you don't even recognize the problem yourself. Your doctor isn't as good as the doctors in wealthier communities, so the doctor takes even longer to recognize that something was wrong. By that point, you have a few more medical expenses to pay for and cycle of poverty continues. The child misses so much school from being sick and falls behind. You don't have a good enough education to help with homework and the likes. Perhaps the child does not end up graduating. The neighborhood is already on the violent side, so maybe the child feels the pressure to turn to a little bit of crime and the cycle of violence continues. Each factor exacerbates other factors.
It is just a reality that people of color tend to face more political, social, cultural, and even physical barriers than white people do. White people are not solely at fault for being at an advantage. The initial disparity was obviously caused by the fact that people of color did not always have the same rights as white people, but I wouldn't say that white people necessarily have an obligation to always put themselves at a severe disadvantage to make the playing field equal. I'll leave affirmative action for a separate discussion.
Racism, on the other hand, is something that white people are responsible for. The obvious examples that probably comes to everyone's mind is how law enforcement seems to treat people of color differently. While it is a white privilege to not have to worry about police or about security guards following you every time you walk into a shop, it also white people's responsibility to avoid bias. The extreme case of this bias would be of how police keep shooting innocent or unarmed black men. It happens once and you can argue that it prove nothing. It happens twice and you can call it a coincidence. It happens three times and you start to wonder if there is something larger a play. Most of the time, I am willing to bet that the these police officers did not intend bias. However, that's the thing with bias nowadays; it's alway unintentional. It's usually implicit or unconscious. Plenty of studies show that white people harbor a lot of unintentional bias. There is still something that you can do about it. So far, the evidence shows that officers with bias trainings have a much better relationship with communities of color. Unfortunately, there has not been enough cities that have implemented retraining programs for law enforcement, so we do not really have enough evidence to really prove that it works, but it does sound reasonable that learning to be conscious of your own prejudice could make a difference.
Institutionalized racism is obviously a controversial topic, but I can direct you to the Wikipedia page on it because it lists tons of examples. Just make sure to check the sources because some of the examples are not recent. Other examples are recent, including housing discrimination or redlining, which was technically outlawed, but it still emerges in various cities with large black communities such as Baltimore, LA, and NYC. Some anecdotal evidence shows it may also exist in Atlanta, but the state of Georgia has not really done enough to investigate, so it is unclear. It is the practice of essentially controlling who lives in what neighborhoods based on skin color. However, it is done very subtly by banks and real estate agents, so it is difficult to catch and easy to excuse. A similar practice is environmental discrimination, which is when you limit certain neighborhood's access to parks, wildlife, clean air, and clean water. It has a huge impact on health. Flint Michigan is obviously the most extreme case, but less extreme cases also exist. Redling and environmental discrimination can help make it more difficult for communities of color to escape the cycle of poverty and violence, which I spoke about when I gave examples of white privilege.
So what do you believe is the cause of the racial disparity Bored Student has outlined?
Are you suggesting people of color are inherently inferior to white people in various ways?
If you are, then that (using the definition some in this thread have insisted is the only true definition of the word) is racism.
I don't consider anyone inferior. I believe, at birth, we all have the same potential. Many factors determine the course of our lives. I would never be foolish enough to advance the theory that racism does not exist. However, it is not pervasive and what prejudice anyone encounters is not insurmountable. If you are discriminated against, laws are in place to protect you. Laws which allow you to seek justice.
If any group were under the boot of any other, no member could escape that boot.
Tell me...how are many members of minorities able to succeed, if the deck is stacked against them? Explain the deck to me.
I'm not saying some individuals are not racist. I think many, from many different ethnic groups, are. But, I also think claiming racism has become fashionable and an easy crutch to use. I don't think it helps solve problems as much as it creates them. It divides in a racist manner.
I have white skin. So what? I watched a video the other day where a black woman claims she was discriminated against in a traffic stop. The police body cam was on throughout. Nothing happened that hasn't happened to me. Sure, my adrenaline was rushing and it caused me to perceive the moment in a certain light. But, I understood that was me. This woman, on the other hand, has apparently done the talk show circuit bemoaning the racism she was forced to deal with. My point is that crying racism,at every turn, negates the problem when people are honestly faced with it.
The conversation has to be fair and equitable. Honest and real. We all have to be honest with ourselves, as well as others. If personal accountability cannot be a part of the conversation, then at least one party involved is not being honest.
On the one hand you say "I don't consider anyone inferior", but when the effects of racism are cited as a reason for the racial disparity, you say racism "is not pervasive". So what is the cause of the racial disparity in your view?
In what context? Is there a disparity between people brought up with the same economic conditions? Does a middle class black suffer missed opportunities that a middle class white doesn't? Do two children brought up in a ghetto encounter different challenges? What circumstance are we discussing? Given the same variables is there clear evidence that a child of color does not have the same opportunities?
I think Bored Student mentioned that black people are proportionately more impoverished than other social groups.
Assuming that is accurate, they suggested systemic racism has (and continues) to play a significant part in that. You have suggested racism "is not pervasive", but that you also "don't consider anyone inferior".
So what do you believe are the significant factors responsible for this disparity, which are not related to racism, and which do not suggest black people are inherently inferior to other social groups in some ways?
My source for income inequality is the New York Times, which is not always considered a valid source among conservatives.
An analysis by the University of Colorado was reported in the editorial section of the New York Times about a year ago:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/29/opin … ilege.html
I don't have access to the original study, but all the numbers and graphs cited by the New York Times were consistent with figures provided by the US census and similar databases, so I'm assuming that the University of Colorado study was legitimate.
While studying income inequality, researchers at Harvard and the University of Wisconsin concluded that discrimination played a role in income inequality. I only read the abstract, but if anyone wants to parse through entire study, I would love to have it summarized. It is admittedly an older study since it was published in 1995 and I don't know how much of it applies today:
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/hand … sequence=1
According to Google Scholar, 319 studies and books have cited the 1995 study, so any one of the those studies might be able to provide more recent evidence for economic disparities among races and ethnicities. I don't think it's necessary to go through every single one to make sure the evidence from the New York Times is sound, especially since the author of the editorial was the researcher who lead the study in the University of Colorado. The author seemed to believe that the study revealed the existence for white privilege, which is definitely up for debate. However, I think the analysis from the study definitely reveals economic disparities based on whether or not you are white.
You got me. I would cite many of the things those from the black community have put forth. The lack of a two parent family plays a significant role in ensuring children born in poverty remain there.
No one has ever adequately explained why the sixties saw such a fast breakdown of the black family in America. But that is one key factor exacerbating the problem of poverty.
One has to wonder, had this not happened, where would the community be today?
I would say that if that problem can be rectified a lot would fall in place.
So you discount the effects of racism as a significant root cause of the racial disparities we see, but you struggle to explain those disparities in a way that doesn't resort to implying black people are inferior to other social groups in some way. I'm not surprised.
Every theory I have seen that suggests the effects of racism is not a significant root cause of those disparities, relies on either the implication of inferiority, victim blaming, or has some other fatal flaw.
Like the idea that the expansion of welfare in the 60s was the main cause of problems with family structure in black communities, and it had nothing to do with racism or post-slavery inequality. The flaws in that theory alone warrant a dedicated thread.
Suffice it to say, I look forward to a non racist, non-victim-blaming, non fatally flawed theory of why these racial discrepancies exist. If you do find any, please let me know.
I have not implied anyone is inferior and I do take exception to the allegation.
Edit. Unless you are implying that poor people of any other ethnic group are inferior because they suffer when similar circumstances are in play.
My wording was clumsy. I was trying to say that most explanations of racial disparities relate to the ongoing effects of slavery and post-slavery inequality, or to the inferiority/ superiority of races (i.e. textbook racism). So anyone who has rejected both those arguments (as you have) will inevitably find it hard to offer an alternative explanation for racial disparities.
The only argument I'm aware of that may sit outside those two, relates to the expansion of welfare in the 60s and the effect it allegedly had on (black) family structure. I assumed you were referring to this because you mentioned two-parent families. I'm tentative because the argument has flaws that affect it's implications.
If you're not suggesting the expansion of welfare caused the decline of two-parent families in black communities, what are you suggesting is the cause? And why do you believe that cause has disproportionately affected black communities compared to other social groups?
No. I'll grant you there probably are lingering effects of pre 1969 racism. I've hired people who were black, who had all the qualifications to advance, but wouldn't. They had no apparent interest. It frustrated me because I'd put their name forward, do everything I could to build their confidence and the problem seemed to be a lack, thereof. I always chalked it up to the residual effects of racism. But. They were given the chance at opportunity. It was not withheld.
Yes, the effects of racism can take many different forms. The effect on some children is particularly insidious:
It's not difficult to see how these effects can play a part in the racial disparities we see.
Several questions on the video. How many children were set down? What percentage had the results shown? Were children of different colors included? What was the home situation of the children showcased? What was the greater environment they had been exposed to?
It's easy to choose a couple of examples to attempt to prove a point. The question is, how is the point valid? What is the point for these particular children? Is it that society has imprinted a sense of lesser value on these kids? Is it that parents are imprinting their feelings of inferiority on them? Are the preschools suspect?
One of the segments said 15 out of 21 children (71%) chose the white doll. Don't know the figures for other parts.
"Is it that society has imprinted a sense of lesser value on these kids? Is it that parents are imprinting their feelings of inferiority on them? Are the preschools suspect?"
I think all of the above are possibilities.
Whatever the case, it's not difficult to imagine how this might affect those children as adults. They may have the strength of character to overcome it, but it still means they're starting out with an additional disadvantage. For those from poor families though, add the disadvantages of being poor. For girls, add the disadvantages of being a woman in a male-dominated society etc.
The worst part is that children don't cause any of these disadvantages. All they do is come into the world. They have no control over it.
How can we accept a society where some people are disadvantaged because of the family, skin or body they are born into? Surely we've learned enough to understand that economic, racial, sexual inequality etc. are not just a problem for people it directly affects. It's everyone's problem, because it affects everyone directly and indirectly. It's in everyone's interest for people in society to thrive, because that makes society better for everyone.
It's sad to see people (not necessarily you, I'm just venting) deny that these disadvantages even exist, let alone start to help try to fix them. And I have to be honest and say that the majority of people I have spoken to who hold that view are people like me: white, middle-aged, men.
The main reason for the intransigence? We have the least to gain and the most to lose (I say "we" because even though I don't share the same views, this is the social group I'm part of, so I own it). We feel that if we give a single inch to "the left" and "the Liberals" and "the gays", and "the feminists", and "the socialists" and "the blacks", that will be the end of our rein at the head of society. In the discussions I've had, pure self-interest is the driving force behind the objections to social equality (usefully wrapped up in some spurious argument in a transparent effort to make it sound like it's not just self-interest).
I don't feel guilty. I don't feel shame. I'm a rational person and I understand I have no control over what other people within my own social group do and say, or have done and said in the past. In fact, I'm probably just as selfish, but my selfishness takes a different form. I know that when individuals thrive, society thrives, and when society thrives, we all thrive. So it's in my interest to ensure as many people can thrive as possible. If that means giving up some of the power and privilege my social group enjoys, so be it. Trying to retain that power and privilege at the expense of others isn't in my interests. It's counter-productive and ultimately self-defeating.
I've heard some people in my social group describe themselves as dinosaurs.. The thing people often forget about dinosaurs though is that they didn't all become extinct. Some evolved into birds. Social equality is not about one social group becoming "extinct" and others becoming "superior". It's just about evolving, and taking a place among all the other birds, as equals.
I agree that we all have built in disadvantages. Whether it be from our home environment or the greater environment of society. But,the why is important in every individual situation. You can't overcome handicaps if you don't know the cause. Attempting to find a blanket answer is a serious problem. Because that answer doesn't fit all cases, nor is it the only answer in all cases. I honestly don't see this as progress for the groups who feel disenfranchised. I've seen 50 years of blame. Has it, in any way, helped the situation? Has it brought us closer to a conclusion and resolution or fostered greater divide? I see the black leaders of this (and I don't think they represent the majority of blacks. I know absolutely no black people who advocate much of the radical demands) unwilling to allow forward movement. It doesn't appear that there is anything to appease these forces.
But why accept that being a woman, or being black etc. are built in disadvantages? In general, those things shouldn't be disadvantages.
Part of the reason they are, is because most of the the rules of the game were created by people like me: middle aged white men, for the benefit of middle aged white men. I'm not making a judgement about that. It's just a fact.
When people within this social group, or from other groups, have the audacity to suggest that perhaps things could (should) be different, we throw a hissy fit. We accuse people of "reverse racism", "reverse sexism". Pretend men are being persecuted, white people are being victimized etc. We even fought a civil war. All for the purpose of maintaining the status quo, i.e. maintaining social inequality.
People are starting to learn that there's no reason to accept all this, and doing so is an accommodation of dysfunction.
But it's not about blame. Some people are angry, and expressing that anger in ways that might not be helpful (e.g. generalizing and insulting white people). But that's a far cry from real persecution, and they have every right to be angry. If I were black I'd be angry. If I were a woman I'd be angry.
It's just time for society to move on to something that isn't so obviously oriented towards a particular social group.
I hope this doesn't sound like I'm anti-middle-aged white men. I'm not, I don't do self-loathing. And it would be hard to argue that the founding fathers (with all their faults) didn't do a reasonably good job setting things up. And Abe did a pretty good job too. So we can be great!
It's just time for society to evolve. I have no idea how that's going to happen, but it does need to happen.
The rules of the game were written long,long, long before you and I came to be. And long, long before white men ruled the land. We are constantly evolving to a more inclusive standard and, to be honest, I think we've made greater strides in the last hundred years than almost any time that came before.
No one is throwing a hissy fit. Trust me. I've seen a hissy fit. We all want a color blind society where employment, housing and opportunity is concerned. The trouble comes when discussing how to achieve that. If you claim I'm racist, solely by my skin color, that is offensive. I was not raised to be racist, give it no quarter when encountered, and have no desire to be. But, I'm labeled racist because I'm white? It's completely ridiculous.
When I say we all have disadvantages, that includes everyone. What makes my perceived disadvantage more pitiful than yours, or anyone else's? What makes yours of more value? There's the crux. I'm a woman. You say you'd be angry if you were a woman. I say I'm ecstatic to be living at a time in history and a country where we have progressed to this point. My mother was miserable at her plight in life as a house wife. Does that mean the world owes me something?
Society is evolving. Quite well, imo. 150 years ago we had slavery. I've read the SPCA was the first organization which stood up for women and children back in the 1920's. Civil rights was almost 60 years ago. Women's lib 50. All of these were accomplished while white men were in power. So, the way I see it, white men should get some credit. Not be treated like pariahs. We have a ways to go but the wheels have always been in motion pushing us forward. At a pretty fair clip, historically speaking.
Hi there Live to Learn, I hope you don't mind if I grab your comment for a launch pad to a thought I have, that has been fermenting as I read a couple of these, (and past), thread topics.
"I say I'm ecstatic to be living at a time in history and a country where we have progressed to this point. "
Of course there have been the usual 'ideological' rant posters - which are never more than just rants, offering their comments, but there have been a few thoughtful perspectives also offered.
In trying to form an analogy, the best I could come up with would be of a young track racer that comes in 9th in a field of ten. Upon receiving admonishments to try harder, that racer works hard and comes in 5th at the next year's race. More "try harder" admonishments are the racer's rewards.
And that racer does try harder. Year after year, moving up a couple spots each time. Until finally, that racer comes in second. Their reward was not congratulations for a sincere effort, just another 'you can do better' admonishment.
Imagine what that feels like to that racer that has given all, heart and soul, to do better.
Echoing your comment, that is what I feel like in conversations about 'white racism'. I think we are greatly advanced from where we were, as late as the 1960s, but to hear the Utopians speak, it would seem we are still the Neanderthals of the Segregationist years, still the racer that hasn't won first place - no acknowledgement for effort made, just admonishments for not being first yet.
Nice analogy. I try to give white guys quarter. And, men in general. If you look at the adjustments they've had to make in just a generation or two, I'm proud of how well they've done.
Me too. That was the point I was making, only not restricted to just "white guys."
I was speaking of America in general. I think the cultural changes have been major, we should be commended for effort, not just berated because we haven't won yet.
Social inequality negatively impacts millions of people, can cause civil unrest, and retard the prosperity of the country. The seriousness of those consequences are not analogous to winning or losing a car race.
A more apt analogy, I believe, would be that of a bad surgeon who has seriously injured 10 patients this year, but resents being admonished because that's still 5 less than he injured last year! Serious consequences warrant a higher bar being set.
The equal status of people is not a gift for one social group to bestow on others when they feel like it. The equality of people is a "self-evident" truth. Calling for equality is therefore a call for the return of something that already belongs to people, but has been taken. Giving it back is not a favor.
If someone ties you up and leaves you unable to move for three days. Then on the fourth they loosen one of the knots a tiny bit, they don't deserve praise for that. Friends and allies who help you get free deserve praise, but no one would expect you to praise the abusive person who wants to keep you tied up.
And I'm glad you're able to not be angry about gender inequality, but that doesn't change the fact you would have every right to be if you were.
I'll defer a technical discussion about the different levels of children's tantrums, suffice it to say that when certain people form "white civil rights" groups because white people are supposedly being "persecuted", there's no getting away from it, that's just like a child sulking because they've been told to share their toys.
I've allowed myself to vent for a few posts because sometimes you gotta. But I think the main point for me is that until people stop trying to frame the issue in ways they feel comfortable with, further progress (that's an admission that some progress has been made by the way) will be difficult. It's not comfortable. Nothing about the situation is comfortable, but people's comfort levels are less important than addressing the issue.
What you have to remember is that using words like 'white' to describe those you consider to be the perpetrators lumps in 99.999% of all living white people who haven't done anything to anybody into the category. It's bull sh××. It's like my husband's uncle. His sister was savagely raped by 2 black men. All black men, in his eyes, are guilty.
"All black men, in his eyes, are guilty."
There is still too much of that attitude in our society, generally. If the percentage is as you say, we would not need to speak about this.
I get that. I honestly do.
And on the face of it that type of personal prejudice looks the same, no matter who it comes from, but it's not.
Why is it different? Because when a social group is over-represented in the senior positions of some of the most important social institutions in the country, the personal prejudices of the individuals within that social group can have more impact on the rights of others.
For example, as a man, statistically your uncle-in-law is more likely to be a member of Congress than you(1)(2). More likely to be a judge than you(3). More likely to be a military general than you(4)(5). More likely to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company than you(6)(7). More likely to be a doctor than you(8) etc. Those aren't accusations of anything, they are just simple facts.
The effect of this is that even if you, or other women, had personal prejudices and biases against men (which some women do) the opportunity for those prejudices and biases to impact men at a societal level is much less, so the potential harm is much less.
The same is true for people of color.
And to be very clear, none of this implies deliberate malice. Someone doesn't have to be blatantly sexist or racist to have biases. Regardless of where it comes from though, when a social group controls most social institutions, then the predominant biases of that social group (whether deliberate or unwitting) will be reflected, to some degree, within the systems, processes and frameworks of those institutions.
And that's why your husband's uncle's negative beliefs about black people, are not the same as someone in the black community who has negative beliefs about white men. That's uncomfortable to think about, but it's true none the less.
(2) http://fortune.com/2016/11/10/election- … -congress/
(3) https://www.nawj.org/statistics/2018-us … men-judges
(4) https://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/m … index.html
(5) https://www.infoplease.com/us/military- … personnel-
(7) https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccar … ad0cf9281d
(8) https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicat … 2asc%22%7D
I think we should leave women out of the discussion. Primarily because I see women as wanting to have their cake and eat it too. It's wonderful to be a woman today. You can do anything you want. Want to be a housewife? It's there and honored. Want to chase the corporate dream? Go for it. Want to run for political office? Not a problem. Want admittance to any university to follow any course of study you choose? Acceptance is only inhibited by your academic qualifications. But, you can't do it all. Biological clocks and maternal instincts send many women down a road that precludes looking back and complaining that you haven't attained the same level of success those who didn't submit to those urges did. The lack of an extra appendage does not hold us back. It is our choices which create our future.
But, to other groups who feel disenfranchised. Sure. there are micro aggressions that happen daily and greater sensitivity is required. I suppose it can be argued that a series of micro aggressions trumps a violent macro aggression. I would think that is only true because the experiences are shared with a greater number of people therefor a greater number of people validate the injustices they perceive and redress should be afforded.
However, in the current climate we are not allowed to use personal accountability as a measuring stick of the validity of the claim. Because, historically, we can look back to a time when it was, for the most part, irrelevant to the behavior toward that group. I think that is wrong. In the current climate we are glossing over hatred and bigotry toward particular groups as some type of desirable virtue signalling but it has gone bonkers. I've seen footage where blacks are called racist (white racists, by the definition of the protestors) by whites who believe that if you don't stand with them on every issue they have that right.
We can't change the past. We can unite in a desire for a fair and equitable present. If we can't do that we are only setting the stage for a future where the face of the disenfranchised is changed but I doubt behavior patterns will follow suit. I see no gain in such a future.
Don, I like your answer particularly this excerpt:
"If someone ties you up and leaves you unable to move for three days. Then on the fourth they loosen one of the knots a tiny bit, they don't deserve praise for that. Friends and allies who help you get free deserve praise, but no one would expect you to praise the abusive person who wants to keep you tied up."
The fact that the more egregious evidence of racism and race prejudice, lynching and blowing up people's homes, are no longer part of the story, does not mean that there does not remain much that needs to be worked on. This concession was the result of virtual war with the CRM on one front and an aggressive gavel on the other.
It is such that the floor is clean but there has been a great deal of dirt swept under the carpet. The quantity of which misshapes the carpet. Much of it and not ALL of the dirt is attributed to Trump and his supporters. So, the appearance of a shiny deck is an illusion, if what was to cleaned has been cleaned improperly. So, if anything, I can thank Trump for allowing us all to see this just that more clearly.
Both is the case, congratulations for a sincere effort, but Still, you must do better.....
Now if only those on BOTH sides listened to the ."......must just do better " part !
There are always two sides to a dialog .
Echoing GA's clarification. We musty do battery. We. That means you, me and him.
That's a large part of the problem, Credence. All of the finger pointing. I like the old saying that every time you point your finger at someone there are three pointing back on yourself.
I certainly agree that we must continue trying to do better Cred. And I am glad to hear that "congratulations" acknowledgement.
Hey, buddy, you truly have established your "purple credentials" here.
Depending on what side of the looking glass you are seeing things from the glass can appear half empty or half full. Since our groups have been subject to most of the injustices from general society, it is natural that we are going to be more anxious about corrections and the speed at which those take place. YOU GET It.
Those of the RED seem to think that problems and the blame are to be equally distributed and I don't believe that.
If we were to sit down in conference over these issues, I would be comfortable with someone like you on the other side of the table.
Ah, so I'm purple when you like what I say... (joking, joking, and it isn't as much fun when you have to be sure to label it - which I am going to stop doing, y'all can figure it out on your own) ;-)
I see that "RED" thought a little differently. At least the non-fringe REDs. I think they just see plenty of blame to go around for all.
I also think their responses might seem to sound like "equal blame," but is more probably like that racer's reactions; defensive, reacting to the lack of credit for efforts made, reacting to having their noses rubbed in the fact that racism does still exist - which I don't think any of them deny, but without ever getting any acknowledgement for progress made.
But, that's just how I see it.
You are "purple" when there can be found daylight between your thoughts and those of the Red.
I think that too many conservatives tend to not acknowledge racism or at least claim that it is not a real impediment to progress of non-white people living here.
Many of you are to be congratulated for taking steps in the right direction on a journey but there are many more miles to travel before they can sleep. We need to stay on course.
Agreed. I was going to say something about needing this sort of diplomacy in the White House, but I won't spoil a rare moment of multiple people with different perspectives agreeing
Dominance by Western Civilization of so much of the world is a given. Long after the slavery and imperialism ends, I lived in Central America and hear in Brazil the domination of "whiteness" over blackness.
This "remnant" is most irritating, and it is global. It remains a form of psychological intimidation for colored people all over the world. They play into it, at least when I was in Panama and judge each other by the lightness of their skins relative to their neighbor.
Being a haughty and relatively militant American black male, I made it clear that that was one area where I would not assimilate to the local customs. This is what Western Civilization exports and it is everywhere. What does it take to make people dislike themselves and the way God made them, who has the power to do that?
I don't know why you hired blacks that CHOSE not to advance. I certainly hope that you don't not link this in to a stereotypical view of black people.
But, I do appreciate your attempt to be inclusive in hiring practices. It would be interesting for you to reveal in what way did they chose not to advance. Were they just satisfied and content to work in the mailroom?
No. They didn't want management positions. But, they weren't unique. I learned a lot working that job. A lot of people have certain expectations and levels of income they function best in. I fought for a raise for a particularly good employee. The raise resulted in a sorry employee late for work and useless on the job. She came from poverty. Giving her more money, to her, equated in just not having to work as much to garner the pittance of a living she required. She was white, by the way. My experience is socio economic upbringing is the equalizer. Peel our skin off and we are all the same, within our specific groups. No amount of whining can dispute proven facts.
Look at well educated and affluent blacks. Thomas Sowell, Condoleezza Rice, Ben Carson, Colin Powell. I could go on, but that's my point.
I have had these same experiences and you raise some interesting and conveniently ignored points !
We always had educated and affluent blacks. Dr. King and Ralph Bunche were educated. But you were the one that talked about being under "a boot"? Instead of hailing those that were able to squeeze under the boot and get away, maybe we need to work on getting rid of the boot in the first place so that we could have more educated and affluent blacks. You talk about "whining", but "peeling off skin" is a simplistic understanding of what we are talking about here, don't you see? Yes, we are all the same under the skin, that is a platitude that everybody says. But does that really address the issue at hand? Conservatives always trot out 1 example from 1000 and consider it a rule rather than an exception. There have always been examples of relative Oprah Winfree's and similar achievers in society, that does not mean that race prejudice and bias is no longer an impediment in this society.
Ok, Credence. You tell me. What's your solution? How do we end this, once and for all? Because, seriously, that is all people of good will want to see? How do we, for the black community, specifically, appease those who feel badly?
The first thing is to acknowledge the problem for what it is. That is a start.
I am not confident of the "people of good will" idea. We have been hearing that for a long time.
Are we serious about listening to our complaints about disparities in the society with adverse affects on our communities, or just dismiss them as whining.
You, yourself, for example, talked about the need for a BLM, acknowledging that law enforcement and the judicial system are not as a fair and equal as it could be. With the current administration, we are seeing a new resistance to our concerns, on a lot of fronts. I don't see any reason why there has been resistance by large urban police departments to review their procedures regarding contact with members of the communities that they are supposed to serve, in the face of unwarranted accosting and shootings in Black neighborhoods.
Ok. Fair enough. Can we also look forward to solutions for the inner city crime? Communities riddled with drugs and gangs will always see more lethal force. How do we solve that problem? Where I'm from we lived peacefully together. And, no police violence targeting minorities.
Yes, communities involved with drugs and gangs are almost subject to more police violence as the nature of things. But, too often Black communities not necessarily inner city are subject to heavy handed police tactics. There should not be instances where unarmed men and boys are shot. The rights of freedom of assembly or prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures are not to be "suspended" in Black communities.
Training and weeding out the men with inappropriate profiles will help develop a force with better judgement being able to discern between the wheat and chaff.
Everyone says this all has been exaggerated, I think that this has been always been going on. It is just that, today, the technology that allows for one to have a portable TV studio in ones pocket, permits others to see what we have known for sometime, with indeliable evidence.
Social class may be as much a determinant regarding problems with police. This is a Mayberry type community, I have never experience these kinds of things. How much money you have could be an indirect determinant, just being poor subjects you to more. It is just that so many more minorities are poor in America.
Fair enough. But, I think the black community would get some leverage if voices spoke swiftly and strongly when invalid claims are made. Yes, we need to persecute and incarcerate law enforcement when the line is crossed but we need to stand with them when not.
Can we agree on that?
So bored student, what is the sociological definition of racism or is that just something you made up? Because the only definition I find of racism is:
1) belief in or doctrine asserting racial differences in character, intelligence, etc. and the superiority of one race over another or others: racist doctrine also, typically, seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or the races
2) any program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, etc., specif., such a program or practice that upholds the political or economic domination of one race over another or others
3) feelings or actions of hatred and bigotry toward a person or persons because of their race
What definition says racism isn’t racism if you are white and therefore aren’t affected by it? Is that what you call the siociological definition? Nice try but but your sociological definition is made up, it doesn’t exist. Is that what you do because you are bored? Make things up? According to you nobody is a racist unless the target of their racism “loses power or privilege.” If you don’t see how insane that is then the real racist is you.
https://revisesociology.com/2016/10/31/ … sociology/
Just another place for you to get your information.
No surprise here. Ask a liberal a simple question, “what is your reference for your sociological definition of racism” and instead of a simple definition spelled out in a sentence or two like the actual definition of racism which is what everyone uses including sociologists the liberal has to refer you to pages of unrelated information none of which provide a “sociological” definition of racism any different from the dictionary definition. And the liberal ignores the fact that I demonstrated what he presented originally as the “sociological definition” requiring “loss of power or prestige” as the requisite result needed to label a person a racist is not a part of any definition of racism but just an excuse for him to practice racism and not call it what it is. See this is why it is impossible to reason with a liberal - they make things up to fit their world view and have no need for the truth.
You seem to think racism is simple and it's not.
You asked what the sociological definition of racism is and I gave you a sociology study page that sums racism up as power and prejudice. If you want to read actual sociology papers, then be my guest. There are plenty of them to go around, but I kind of assumed that you did not want to go through the turgid prose of an academic article.
If this definition is not good enough for you, then great. You don't have agree with it, but I'd love to know what your problem with this definition is. You are entitled to an opinion and I'd be happy to hear it.
What I'm not happy to hear is baseless attacks on liberals. You don't like baseless attacks on white men on the grounds that all white men are violent, racist, or something else. I don't like baseless attacks on liberals on the ground that all liberals make things up and fail to pursue the truth.I love to pursue the truth, which is why I like reading academic papers on sociology, statistics, science, and anything else, but my personal hobbies are neither here nor there. I simply ask that you disagree with a definition based on evidence and not based on some warped and generalized concept of the type of person who provided it for you.
The big lie is your idea my accusations of liberals are baseless. Anyone except a liberal would not believe that because everything I have ever said about liberals has been said after laying out the basis which I have done in your case. Of course you being a liberal would have to say it’s baseless because you have no use for the truth if it disagrees with your opinion.
According to you no one is a racist unless they have the ability to or have taken power or prestige from the targeted race - your words, your definition, and it is illogical irrational and an insane excuse to be racist, which if any ideology is racist in practice it is YOU liberals.
If you remember clearly, I said that there are other definitions of racism.
Nice try, What you said is s lie - other definitions? You say that so you can say racism against whites isn’t racism. You make up a phony definition then say there are other definitions? How much deeper do you want to dig the hole you are in? Racism is a matter of the heart, there is no other definition unless you want to make some up so you can justify your racism isn’t racism - you liberals are a hoot
I said earlier in this thread, and I quote, "Racism means different things to different people and I am going by the sociological definition."
All the other definitions are fine by me. Just recognize that the sociological definition exists, even if you clearly disagree with it. I'm still waiting for a reason why you don't like it other than the fact that I'm a liberal.
The sociological definition is a redefinition known as a "persuasive definition."
Some common examples:
- all abortion is murder
- an atheist is someone that knows God exists, but is in denial
- rape is any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman out of her own genuine affect and desire
Do the above definitions truly represent what the word is "intended" (for lack of a better word) to capture?
Let's with the rape example since it's similar to the sociological redefinition of racism. Rape - as is commonly understood by modern society - is when someone engages in sex without the consent of the partner. The act is almost universally seen as an inhumane thing to do to another human being, so naturally the word carries a strong negative connotation. When radical feminists redefine it as something that can only happen to women, they are narrowing the definition while retaining the emotional baggage of the word.
If this redefinition were successful, what would be the outcome? Men would no longer be victims of rape, and there wouldn't be a word that describes the crime of non-consensual sex. One might say that men who are victims of non-consensual sex simply experience "sore genitalia or openings," which is a totally separate issue from rape. All that is left is a word that describes any time a woman has sex when she hasn't initiated it. That is to say, the word now captures the large subset of cases where the man initiated sex (i.e. what happens most of the time) with the emotional baggage of a horrible crime.
Is that what the word "rape" is "intended" to capture?
What is the meaning that the word racism is "intended" to capture? Hatred, antagonism, prejudice and/or discrimination on the basis of race. Similar to rape, it's one of the worst, most despicable things a human being can believe about another human being. With your redefinition you are narrowing the scope by saying that only some humans of a certain race can be victims of this moral crime. Your redefinition is actually racist according to the current lexical definition of racism. Are some humans more human than others?
That alone should be a problem, but now you've taken away the original definition of racism and don't have a word to replace it. Now, instead of strongly condemning one of the worst things a human being can believe about another human being (by using the word that has that emotional punch), you and others like you claim it's just "hurt feelings" or "mean words." Such minimizing language does an incredible disservice to what hatred of largely superficial qualities (like race) actually means.
That's why people don't like your redefinition.
"persuasive definition". I like that, for it is exactly what is done so much of the time any more.
Would you prefer the term "prejudice"? I feel like that has a moral punch to it without facing the same level of controversy as "racism". I tend to like "bullying" or "hate", but I am sure we can find a term upon which we can all agree that calls people out for bad behavior without inciting controversy. At the moment, I think "racism" is often a little too contentious. One day, I hope to determine a universally agreed upon definition of racism that hopefully will not discriminate. At the moment, the left wants to redefine it so that it acknowledges the much heavier impact that it has on people of color. Meanwhile, the right wants to define it so that it can include more people than it used to as the victims. This gap is currently not possible to bridge and I am happy to call it prejudice, bullying, hate, discrimination, or anything else in order to have a productive conversation with people on totally different wavelengths from me.
I'd prefer the term racism, since it already is the universally agreed definition of racism that does not discriminate. That's the lexical definition found in the dictionary. Your definition is contentious *and* discriminates.
In any case, prejudice does not have the same moral punch as racism. Prejudice is a broader term that includes characteristics that are not as egregious or consequential as race. For instance, thinking that all lawyers are liars is a prejudice. Thinking that Leafs fans are delusional is also a prejudice. That is not as serious as prejudice on the basis of immutable characteristics.
A quick Google search finds several sources (including sources that subscribe to your line of thinking, which I don't think is a coincidence) all agreeing that prejudice is weaker than racism:
https://www.elitedaily.com/life/racism- … ng/1363914
http://www.debbyirving.com/qa/are-preju … ame-thing/
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe … -prejudice
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. … 0Prejudice
So no. Prejudice won't cut it.
The right is not attempting to define anything. The word is already defined as I have described, and that definition allows for any human to be a victim of racial prejudice, because all humans are part of a *race* and can therefore be victims of racial prejudice. You don't need a redefinition that excludes an entire race to acknowledge the fact that racism disproportionately affects minority groups.
As for including more people than it used to as the victims - why would you not want to include all humans as being capable of suffering prejudice on the basis of race? All humans are capable of suffering racial prejudice, just like all humans are capable of suffering from non-consensual sex. Do we need to redefine rape to ignore all male victims just to acknowledge the disproportionate impact that it has on women? Do we need to redefine poverty to ignore all white/Asian/Jewish victims just to acknowledge the disproportionate impact that it has on blacks and Hispanics?
I can see that you're happy to call racism anything but the thing it actually is.
mrpopo, after reading your "redefinition" comments, I am envious.
I felt a similar sentiment after reading the sociological definition explanation, ie. the term was being purposely diluted to suit a perspective, but lacked the grasp to frame that sentiment as you did.
I stayed out of the conversation, (to this point), because of that "lack of grasp."
I benefited from your comment, thanks.
Glad it benefited someone. I was in a similar position. I took to reading a few articles to get a better grasp on the issue:
https://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%2 … values.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … umentation
Much of it went over my head, but I think I understood enough to make my case.
As I said, the gap is impossible to bridge. I'll keep using "hate" and you can keep being controversial at the expense of possibly being offensive.
Sidenote, I don't know what feminists are trying to redefine rape as something that cannot impact men, but I think you're just magnifying the voices of fringe activists to make it look like feminism is way more radical than it is.
I agree, the gap is impossible to bridge - mainly because you are creating that gap and not addressing any of the points that erase it.
There's not much I can do to convince someone who thinks it's controversial to use the lexical definition of a word. Controversial to whom, exactly? If anything has been controversial or offensive, it's the definition that reduces a moral crime of humanity to "hurt feelings." This may surprise you, but equating racism to "hurt feelings" is deeply offensive.
And yes, that's what you reduced racism to. Hurt feelings. Only now have you switched to using hate/prejudice/discrimination, all of which are still insufficient, but at least they're better than something that's often used in an innocuous context, like having hurt feelings during a break-up.
I explicitly stated "radical feminists," not feminists as a whole:
... Rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has
not been initiated by the woman out of her own genuine
affection and desire. [...] Anything short of that is, in a radical
feminist definition, rape. Because the pressure is there, and it
need not be a knife blade against the throat; it's in his body
language, his threat of sulking, his clenched or trembling
hands, his self–deprecating humor or angry put–down or
silent self–pity at being rejected. How many millions of times
have women had sex "willingly" with men they didn't want
to have sex with? Even men they loved? How many times
have women wished just to sleep instead or read or watch
"The Late Show"? It must be clear that, under this definition,
most of the decently married bedrooms across America are
settings for nightly rape. (Morgan, 1980, 134–135)
From my perspective, racism against people of color is far more severe in terms of impact than a similar act would be against a white person. Therefore, comparing the two is offensive to people of color because it reduces the word in terms of the effects that it can have.
I have already agreed with that premise for the sake of argument. Note my other examples: rape is more severe on a woman than on a man; poverty is more severe on blacks and Hispanics (as a group) than whites and Asians.
Anyone here offended by me stating that men and boys can get raped, or that whites and Asians can be victims of poverty? Because of that definition, are we unable to say that not all of the aforementioned groups are equally affected by poverty or sexual violence?
This game can be played with any group. Violence against
short, skinny, weak people is far more severe in terms of impact than violence against tall, muscular, strong people. Does that mean the latter group cannot experience violence, because the former group may be offended for whatever reason?
Furthermore, why stop at distinguishing whites from people of colour? Is racism against blacks more severe than racism against Asians? Is racism against Latinos more severe than racism against Jews? And if so, is it offensive to blacks to say that Asians can be victims of racism?
Any way you cut it, your reasons for redefining racism are inconsistent and, when applied to other metrics of victimization, become utterly ridiculous.
The premise of my argument is that you have to put racism in context. Now, you are reducing the argument to the absurd, so I guess I have to add more premises.
Poverty, in a vacuum, has the same impact on everyone. It just makes people poor. If it impacts one group of people more severely than another, it is because other factors are at play such as discrimination, location, access to government services, and other factors. Prejudice impacts people of color more severely than if impacts white people because more racism is at play. When you place poverty in context, it can impact certain groups of people because you put it in the context of factors that are not necessarily related to poverty (even if these factors can sometimes be closely tied to poverty). When you put racism in context, you can put it in the context of more racism and historical oppression.
I don't know why you think men have it better after being raped by women.
Violence is different from racism in that smaller people don't feel as though there is a reduction to the term "violence" by including larger people as the victims.
You are confusing race with ethnicity. I'll admit to my own inconsistencies with confusing races and ethnicities because, for precisely the argument that you gave, I have not figured out where I stand in terms of whether you can be racist towards a group of people that don't constitute a race. You can be hateful, hurtful, derogatory, offensive, prejudice, discriminatory, and bigoted, which are all more innocuous words that I have been trying to use more often in place of racism.
You are now moving the goal posts. First you said that including whites as possible victims of racism "reduces" the word because minorities are disproportionately impacted by racism. Now you are saying that it's different re: violence and smaller people because they don't "feel" like there is a reduction to the term "violence" when it includes taller people.
Which is it? Are we redefining words based on what one group supposedly feels (ignoring what other groups may feel about that redefinition)? Or are we redefining words based on disproportionate impact? And how are these redefinitions advantageous?
Suppose that smaller people did feel that there is a reduction to the word "violence" if it included bigger people. Why are smaller people's feelings sufficient justification to remove taller people as potential victims of violence? How do you think taller people would feel about this redefinition? Are their feelings not important?
Incidentally, do you have any evidence that generally PoC are offended when including whites as potential victims of racism?
"Poverty, in a vacuum, has the same impact on everyone."
So does racism.
"Prejudice impacts people of color more severely than if impacts white people because more racism is at play."
Now you are comparing poverty in a vacuum to prejudice in a non-vacuum. If PoC experience more racism, then it's no longer in a vacuum (i.e. all other things being equal). In a non-vacuum, PoC are disproportionately impacted by poverty, therefore my example still stands.
"I don't know why you think men have it better after being raped by women."
Biological differences like pain tolerance, how invasive sex is for a man vs. a woman, risk of pregnancy etc.
"You are confusing race with ethnicity."
I consider prejudice based on ethnicity to be as "bad" as prejudice based on race. But if you don't like that one, my other example still stands: Is racism against blacks more severe than racism against Asians (because there is "more" racism at play against blacks)? And if so, are blacks offended when it is said that Asians can be victims of racism?
I am "moving the goalposts" because, as I said, I have to add more premises if you want to reduce an argument to the absurd. Reduction to the absurd is fallacious if it is done if there are more premises than initially presented. Therefore, I need to present another premise. It's basic logic.
At no point have I said that any of this advantageous unless you care about the sensitivities of the people are the most marginalized over the people who are the least marginalized. I presented the sociological definition as a valid definition for racism. Sociology studies the societal structures and functions. Therefore, power (and the impact that power can have) is going to make the biggest difference to a sociologist when it comes to defining racism. Sociologists will care about systems, constructs, and institutions that are racist. They will not care about hate speech unless it fits within a broader context of systemic oppression.
If smaller people felt that there should be a difference between two types of violence, then they could speak out. I would evaluate the merits of their arguments and decide if I should use different language in order to be sensitive towards the fact that they were a smaller victim of violence and, therefore, more heavily impacted by it. We don't live in that reality, but we do live in a reality where people of color ask that we use language that is sensitive towards the fact that they are more heavily impacted by racism because of power dynamics. If you want evidence for people of color feeling this way, all you have to do is look up the controversy of terms such as "reverse racism". YouTube is littered with black people attesting to the fact that reverse racism is fake. These are from the HuffPost:
I am sure you will find the videos ridiculous, but I am just sharing them as evidence that black people are asking for this type of sensitivity.
I agree that racism, in a vacuum, has the same impact on everyone. My point is that neither poverty nor racism exist in vacuum; however, while poverty exists the in the context of location, discrimination, healthcare, education, and more, racism exists in the context of more racism. I was simply differentiating between poverty and racism, explaining why comparing the two is misleading. Poverty has a heavy impact on certain groups of people because of factors that are not directly related to the poverty. Racist has a heavy impact on certain groups of people partly because that racism exists in the context of even more racism. It's just me "moving the goalposts" again.
I also consider prejudice based on ethnicity as bad as prejudice based on race. Are we okay calling it "prejudice" in this case?
The distinction you have made is clear, regardless of what that distinction is called.
For me, it's obvious that a black person making derogatory comments about white people, is not the same as a white person making derogatory comments about black people. The imbalance of power makes it different, i.e. social context is important.
Calling both these actions "racism" suggests they are equivalent. That's a false equivalence.
You have been honest and pragmatic about the fluidity of the terminology, and have made good-faith efforts to agree a common term to denote the distinction you are referring to. If others don't reciprocate, then that's a reflection on them, not on the way you have conducted yourself here.
This is an amusing summary of how "reverse racism" could be a real thing:
When it comes to derogatory comments the only valid factor is context, not social context.
The entire dialogue in this conversation attempts to give credence to a philosophy that is in direct opposition to the civil rights era that demanded racial equality, and instead seeks for racial superiority.
Should we have a different set of law books based on race to appease your demand for social justice? Because this country banned those rules in the 1960's. It makes no difference who those rules favor, and history shows that they will always be wrong.
Social context, like historical context, political context etc. form part of the whole context. An examination of context that excludes social context would be an incomplete examination. So if a full examination of context is important, then social context matters. That doesn't mean only social context matters, it means social context matters too.
I don't agree that the dialog in this thread "seeks for racial superiority". That, and your comments about different laws etc, seem a strange overreaction verging on hysteria.
Personal prejudice against white people cannot affect white people's rights to the same extent that prejudice against black people can affect black people's rights, because one social group has more social, economic, political power than the other. I'm not sure why you think acknowledging that will cause the sky to fall.
MLK certainly wanted racial equality, but pretending racial inequality doesn't exist by ignoring social context is not the way to achieve it. Neither does it align with Kings beliefs. He explicitly expressed the view that white people should "confront the ugliness of their prejudices and the tragedy of their racism" and that the tension that brings this about is ". . . healthy and necessary for growth"(1).
So considering social context in relation to behaviour can be uncomfortable. That doesn't make it invalid though. I think your comments about people seeking "racial superiority" are more a reflection of you, than people who believe social context is important.
(1) https://www.uni-five.com/upload/doc/82818file.pdf (p.96)
King also said I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. You don't seem to want this. Individuals are to be judged by their actions regardless of skin color. Anything less is racist.
Social equality does not equate to treating people exactly the same. King recognized the difference, which is why he was in favor of affirmative action:
"It is, however, important to understand that giving a man his due may often mean giving him special treatment. I am aware of the fact that this has been a troublesome concept for many liberals, since it conflicts with their traditional ideal of equal opportunity and equal treatment of people according to their individual merits. But this is a day which demands new thinking and the reevaluation of old concepts. A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis."(1)
You don't recognize the difference because doing so requires an understanding of the social context (systemic oppression). As I said before, the fact you deny this social context even exists is not something I believe I can help you with. Based on your previous comment though, I assume you now believe MLK was racist.
(1) https://www.uni-five.com/upload/doc/82818file.pdf (p.95)
Yes, affirmative action was a necessary policy at the time to enact in order to assure black people fair treatment in the hiring process, just as unions were at one time useful to employees. However these programs have developed into a social construct that they were never meant to be.
Nice try at painting MLK as a social justice warrior but it pales in comparison to the prevailing racist rhetoric that our leftists in society embrace.
Also I have a perfect understanding of your "social context / Systemic oppression", I just don't buy into it. If there is a racist policy in effect I'm against it. I will not concede to the idea that there's just some basic underlying racism in the cosmos that is unproven, or unseen, so I just have to feel guilty about it.
Yes, there is an underlying racism in the cosmos and closer to home, planet Earth and the USA. Racial bias is part and parcel of American society.
Negative statistics in regards to the most of the indices showing aspects of prosperity and achievement between blacks and whites are not explained solely by the Righties claim of disfunction of the black community and culture.
So, whether you feel guilty about it or not, the facts still remain....
Racial bias is part and parcel of leftist policy. It just swings the other way so they think it's okay. It's not. Show me an actual policy that is racist and I will agree. You don't just get to assume things are racist without proof.
So, Onusonus, you wanna dance?
Of course, the "System" is clever enough to expunge specific references to race in our written law. I did not say racist policy, I said racial bias. That is your "workaround" and that is why racial bias can be prevalent absent any legal construct. 'This is how you did it then and how you do it, today.
So who did you think the GOP had it out for based on the rant from its primary political consultant? Is it any surprise so many of us refuse to vote Republican? And, remember this is 1981, not 1881.
Harvey LeRoy "Lee" Atwater (February 27, 1951 – March 29, 1991) was an American political consultant and strategist for the Republican Party. He was an adviser to US presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and chairman of the Republican National Committee. Atwater aroused controversy through his aggressive campaign tactics, such as race-baiting, or appealing to racial prejudice to maintain Republican support in the Southern states.
As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to political scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of the interview was printed in Lamis' book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005, issue of The New York Times. On November 13, 2012, The Nation magazine released a 42-minute audio recording of the interview. James Carter IV, grandson of former president Jimmy Carter, had asked and been granted access to these tapes by Lamis' widow. Atwater talked about the Republican Southern Strategy:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*****,N*****,N*****". By 1968 you can't say "n*****"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*****, n*****".
PS and don't tell me that this is fake news, it is documented fact, everywhere...
Did you just ask me to dance?
I seriously couldn't get past that part. That's about as lame as a male model walk off.
Ok, Onusurus, we've had our fun.
Now, what is "lame" is that you with this leftist/Democrat Bolshevik schtick of yours have offered no challenge nor rebuttal to my point that clearly condemns the Right in general and the Republican party, in particular.
In the face of the challenge, all you can offer are cartoons? Are you a "one trick pony"?
Watch out!!!!, Republican have God on their side.
So on the one hand judging people based on their skin color is racist. On the other, affirmative action in the 60s was not racist because of the social environment of the time.
As I said at the beginning of the thread, "we perceive and respond to behaviour differently based on social context"(1). That is exactly what you just did.
Thank you for clarifying that your disregard of systemic racial oppression is not due to lack of understanding, but simple denial. As I said before, the fact you deny this particular social context exists is not something I believe I can help you with.
Also, I'm not sure what your apparent preoccupation with "guilt" is all about. You've raised it several times now for some reason. Again, I don't believe that is something I can help you with.
There was actual measurable and active racism at the time. Show me a single fortune 500 company that practices outright discrimination the way that they did back then. And when you do, I'll agree that a racist policy is racist. No proof, no racism.
In other words, social context matters. Exactly my point.
Social context (overt racism) is the reason you do not consider King's comments about affirmative action in the 60s to be racist.
Likewise, social context (structural racism) is the reason the NYT do not consider Sarah Jeong's comments to be racist now.
Again, as I have repeatedly said, the fact you deny the existence of the social context considered by the NYT, is not something I believe Ican help you with.
The vitriol in her comments makes me raise an eyebrow about 'social context'. Although, if we add media in between the words social and context it becomes a little easier to understand.
I hear a lesbian is the latest to be attacked on social media as not being lesbian enough for a role as Catwoman.
So you accept social context matters then? Just clarifying as you haven't mentioned it since you inadvertently demonstrated it does, after implying it doesn't (presumably that was a temporary glitch in your "perfect understanding" of the subject).
You have made it clear you are not convinced by any currently available information that systemic racism exists. I literally cannot help you with that. In the same way that I cannot help someone who is not convinced by any currently available information that recent climate change is caused by humans. There is simply nothing I can do with that.
In both cases, it doesn't follow that because you don't accept it, there is no proof of it.
More importantly, I don't care whether you believe systemic racism exists or not. You asked a question about why the NYT editorial team perceive Jeong's comments the way it does. I answered that question. What you do with that information is entirely up to you.
You don't seem to be able to wrap your brain around the fact that racism has to be proven, in order to be real. You can't assume there is racism without proof. 1960's in the deep South there was proof. There were law suits, there were policies enacted to ensure that people of all colors get treated equally. In that context it was the right thing to do to ensure that people were treated fairly. Giving one group of people a pass to spew out racism would not have been right then just as it isn't right now.
As you keep demonstrating, social context specifically is particularly important to how we perceive these things.
For some reason you seem unable to explicitly acknowledge that. I know you previously implied that social context is not important, but I hope you aren't one of those people who can't bear to admit they got something wrong.
In terms of evidence, as I've said, your denial that systemic racism exists, doesn't mean there is no evidence for it. The most you can reasonably say is that you aren't convinced by any of the currently available evidence. Others, including institutions like the NYT, evidently are.
If you want to go further than mere denial, demonstrate the counter assertion, that full racial equality exists in practice not just in theory, across every significant structure and institution in society.
But be warned, if you are unable to provide evidence that proves that, by your own reasoning, it must not be true.
And you still haven't provided any proof of racism. As I said before if you can prove something is racist then I will agree with you and will gladly be against it based on the context. Today, individuals need to be held accountable for their actions regardless of what group they may be categorized as. What would you do to correct for history? Take homes away from white people and give them to minorities?
It appears that racism exists because some believe it does. With that as the criteria....we'll never be past it. Because the bar will be constantly changing in order to keep the illusion alive.
There is ample evidence that racism exisis. You can choose to deny the evidence, but why would you?
You choose to read more into the statement than was said. I didn't say no racism exists.
I guess I am connfused by what you mean when you say "It appears that racism exists because some believe it does."
Of course, some people say it exists because there is compelling evidence of its existence. If that evidence didn't exist, I suppose some people might just say it for the heck of it, but I don't see that as being very likely.
And you still haven't acknowledged that social context specifically is important within the context of a discussion about race, despite earlier suggesting it's not.
What you have done, is indicate clearly that you are not convinced by any currently available evidence that systemic racism exists. Providing evidence would therefore be the equivalent of providing a climate-change denier with evidence of climate change. Flogging dead horses is not something that interests me, thanks.
And ditto, I will agree with you that full racial equality exists in practice, not just in theory, across every significant structure and institution in society, when you have provided evidence that it does.
So far you have not. Therefore, using your reasoning, you must have no proof of it.
The burden of proof lies with the accuser.
Another question; Based on your reasoning of social context, do you agree with Hamas and Hezbollah's position on hunting down and exterminating all the Jews?
Pretending this is a court won't help you. You're making a positive assertion about racial equality. The burden of proof lies with you.
You still haven't provided any proof that full racial equality exists, in practice, across all significant social structures and institutions. By your own reasoning, we can now assume you have no proof of it, and it therefore doesn't exist.
First, answer the question: is social context important to the way we perceive and respond to comments/ behaviour?
This is where many want to have their cake and eat it also. Where the majority are requested to look at the social context of the most extreme examples, in order to understand the view of the minority demands that the majority apply that to all else. The thread was started because of a decision made to hire a woman who is lesbian and of asian descent; who had posted a large block of anti white twitter posts.
You tell me, Don. What is the social context there? Because she claims some people sent her some unkind comments? I haven't seen a body of proof to support that claim. I have not seen any evidence that white people, or white men, have been proven to have sent the few she revealed were received. Does the anonymity of the internet allow us to come to firm conclusions, does it allow us the right to make derogatory comments about an entire group of people? Does it allow us to band together to bully any particular group of people?
Social context is a convenient way to avoid hard conversations. Throw out the term and, if you are arguing in defense of someone who has been unkind, (and is not classified as white) you believe the argument is won.
I'll ask you this. I told you about my husband's uncle. Now, in fairness, I must reveal that I have nothing to do with the guy because of his views. But, in defense of his views. His social environment is a lower class neighborhood. His social context is that he is attempting to raise 2 boys in an environment filled with drugs and violence. His social context is that his sister was violently raped by a group of men from a particular minority.
Socially context speaking, does he have a right to make derogatory comments about everyone who is loosely associated with those men who perpetrated the violence? If not, please explain why.
I think you're essentially asking the same question as before: why is it perceived differently? So I'll quote what I said earlier rather than re-write it:
"Why is it different? Because when a social group is over-represented in the senior positions of some of the most important social institutions in the country, the personal prejudices of the individuals within that social group can have more impact on the rights of others.
The effect of this is that even if you, or other women, had personal prejudices and biases against men (which some women do) the opportunity for those prejudices and biases to impact men at a societal level is much less, so the potential harm is much less. The same is true for people of color".
Again I'll make the point that this does not imply deliberate racism or sexism. When one social group dominates most social institutions, the predominant biases of that social group (whether deliberate or unwitting) will likely be reflected in that institution's policies or practices.
That's why negative comments that your husband's uncle might make about black men, can be perceived differently to negative comments a black person might make about white men. They may look the same at face value, as they are both rude and insulting, but the social context means they are not equivalent.
So, let's take a close look at your statement. 'Because when a social group is over-represented in the senior positions of some of the most important social institutions in the country, the personal prejudices of the individuals within that social group can have more impact on the rights of others.'
Yes. It can. But the difference is you perceive 'can' as 'does'. Interpreting as exactly what you said 'can' puts us in a position to require proof of 'does'. And, I don't see that as a lot to ask. Because when you arbitrarily assume 'does' it puts you in a position to allow for anti social behavior patterns with absolutely no consequences.
And we have passed the point where just old white men are our bosses and our leaders. Long ago. When using the yardstick or our own lifetimes.
What we have to come to an agreement on is what biases do you claim are 'likely reflected' in policies and practices. If we can pinpoint the exact claim of racism or systemic racism we can correct it. If we can't then we have to determine why we can't. Is it because it doesn't exist? Is it because, even if it does to some degree, does it influence the ability of the individual to succeed? If it does create a hostile environment, we have to know exactly why. If we can't identify the parts can we honestly be upset when other people don't see them?
We are a country increasingly concerned with individual rights and individual perception; all the while insisting that the whole be exclusive to only those who agree with us. I don't understand how people can't understand that this concerted effort to exclude those who disagree with us is doing absolutely nothing for our social fabric.
My husband's uncle had a horrific experience to live through. I would say it trumps some woman being upset that someone made a derogatory comment about her choice of partners. We always say your rights end at the tip of my nose. I doubt any of those comments came anywhere near her nose. Is he justified in prejudice? No. Would any of us react in a similar manner? We can't say. We haven't been there, done that. But, his social context includes a minority having power over him and his family. His social context includes a minority depriving him and his family of basic human rights. It is no different (actually to be fair his situation is worse) than a group of people claiming 'systemic racism' without working toward helping those they are accusing to better understand their claims; only demanding concessions.
I like evidence. I don't like flogging a dead horse.
This thread posed the question, "why is it okay to be racist?" The answer to that (loaded) question is: Sarah Jeong's comments are not perceived as racist by the NYT and others because of the social context.
You asked what that social context is. I told you. There ends my investment in whether or not you believe that social context exists.
If you choose to do further reading, good for you. I'd be happy to give a reading list, but there's an abundance of useful information, so it might be easiest to just Google "systemic racism" and start reading. There are also many informative books on the subject. Sadly there are no shortcuts though, only reading and more reading.
If you've done that, and are not convinced racism (including systemic racism) exists, then I literally cannot help you with that. In the same way I cannot help someone who has read the available information about climate change and is not convinced climate change exists. All I can do is say I disagree. Anything else would be flogging a dead horse.
Individual success stories of people of color do not prove systemic racism does not exist. They indicate that some people can succeed despite it. If systemic racism truly did not exist, the counter assertion would be true: full racial equality exists, in practice, across every social structure and institution. If that's something you feel you can prove, go for it.
Your focus on overt, intentional, interpersonal racism misses the point. Systemic racism is rarely overt, often not intentional, and by definition, not interpersonal.
Not sure what point you are making about your husband's uncle. From what I understand, his sister was raped, which caused him to be prejudiced against black men. The point beyond that is not clear to me. All I can say is that as traumatizing as that was for your husbands uncle, surely it was more traumatizing for his sister, no? I'm not sure how relevant that is to the point you were trying to make, so I won't comment further on it.
I think we are in agreement that we are beating a dead horse. I would suggest you, also, invest in some further reading. From a social context, I will say that debating a white guy doesn't add to my understanding. Because as you've pointed out your agreement with the subject of the OP in that itwould be justified in being described as two dogs pissing in the street. And, I'm not interested in re-educating people as much as I am interested in individual growth. Because, everyone's experience is important. Everyone needs to build on their personal experience to come to a more inclusive belief structure. Only through personal growth can society change and I see the most radical voices on both sides of the argument as stagnating in that effort.
And, I've been given no cause (as of yet) to consider the stand of viewing statements at face value as wrong or being racist or insensitive.
I love reading. What further reading do you suggest I invest in? Is there a particular subject you have in mind?
"From a social context, I will say that debating a white guy doesn't add to my understanding."
But according to the reasoning you, and others, have used in this thread, comments should be treated the same regardless of social context which, in your words, is merely ". . . a convenient way to avoid hard conversations."(1)
On that basis, you have made a negative assumption (nothing "white guys" can say can add to your understanding) based on skin-color. Therefore your comment is an offensive expression of racial prejudice against white men, and should be treated as such.
Why do you feel it's acceptable to express racial prejudice against white men? And what sanction would you deem appropriate for the racial prejudice you have demonstrated?
Actually, I was referring to your defense of MS. Jeong's assertion about white people. Don't throw her words, or your support of them, onto me.
You made explicitly clear these are your words ("I will say"). And you made explicitly clear you think someone from a specific social group cannot add to your understanding ("my understanding") based on skin color ("white guy").
So you have negatively pre-judged white men.
By your reasoning, and that of others in this thread, we are all duty-bound to judge your comment the same as we would any other racial prejudice.
In fact Onusonus thinks anything less would be racist: "Individuals are to be judged by their actions regardless of skin color. Anything less is racist"(1).
So, by that reasoning, what you have said is the same as if you had said it about black men. They are equivalent.
Are you suggesting it's not equivalent? That it should be judged differently in some way? Why is that?
Or are you now saying you think debating a "white guy" actually would add to your understanding?
L to L, let me take on Don’s point from a different angle. Earlier in this thread I gave a very good example of over representation of a social group in prominent positions and how they can and do have a more adverse effect for more people over a broader area, than the influence of people who do not possess such power within the system.
Did you read how “institutional racism” played a part in the operations of an entire political party against a entire group of people? The example is one that is relatively recent, 1981 is not the "Middle Ages" There is no “flipside” here; minorities cannot impose such things upon whites in this system dominated by white people and white culture. To say that individual and personal prejudices rise to the same level as institutional racism is like saying that the effects of firecrackers and supernovas are equal in their destructive power. Many would want to say that the example that I have provided featuring the Republican Party is an aberrant one, not representing the “system” as a whole. Well, I believe it does, even though great effort is put forth by the “system” to conceal that fact surreptitiously to maintain its prerogatives and advantages over marginalized people within it.
Here is another example, I am not promoting any article I wrote, but include it because it is smack dab relevant to what it is that is being discussed. WE simply are not in control of massive institutions that give us the power to affect the majority in the same way. Not possible......
https://hubpages.com/politics/A-Progres … rgo-Affair
I'll certainly read your article. I realize my comments here probably make me look like the bad guy. I'm not attempting to imply blacks have not been in a group more likely to be taken advantage of in ways. Or that racism doesn't exist in some quarters.
My point is not that systemic racism does not exist or that we don't have work to do toward including all Americans in the ranks of those who don't feel discriminated against, but that we cannot be exclusionary. We are creating an environment where voices feel ostracized. Not because of who they are, necessarily. They are excluded because we slap a guilty verdict on them because they are a particular skin color, while branding others innocent including people of similar behavior because of their skin color. This will not stop anything. If you feel emboldened, because of your feeling of perceived persecution why would you not understand another feeling persecuted because of perceived persecution? Why would you not see that such practices will only set the stage for endless perceptions of victimization? Why would compassionate people support that? Why is it unfathomable to those attempting to create an exclusionary environment that roles won't change and another group will fall through a crack and suffer similarly? You can't spout hatred without creating problems.
You are probably upset about everything you have become aware of that has happened to people in the group you identify yourself with. I seriously doubt that you have been a victim in all of those ways. I think all people, of good will, agree that wrong is wrong. All people of good will should stand together to support change which will ensure these don't happen again. But I don't see good will in the current environment.
I see you as struggling for good will, as I hope am I. Somehow the show me request is seen as offensive, by many. But, show me has always been an American staple. Our desire to see embodies the ideal of innocent until proven guilty. Of each offense. You can't expect this bar to be abandoned for convenience. If we abandon it now, it is gone forever.
I realize many see demands for dialogue as racist but I understand it is following a philosophy of, 'if I don't stand against injustices now...there will be no one there to stand for me'. And I don't see this as very different from the forces which drive the other side of the argument.
But, I think what we all have to remember is that the idea of social justice waters down the idea of justice, overall. The term is specifically designed to allow the individual to throw the idea of justice out of the window, by adding a social context and not everyone is going to agree with the context because social is defined by the environment you have existed in. It doesn't matter how many hours I may spend attempting to imagine walking in your shoes, if you don't afford the same courtesy there will be more miscommunication and disagreement by your lack of consideration. Please remember the term you is used generically, it is not directed at you, specifically.
You, the bad guy, perish the thought. You and I came to an agreement. The idea is not to ostracize anyone but to assure that we all have equal rights, are treated equally and that resources are distributed in this society based on earned merit that is accessible for any of us to attain.
This has never been personal; I criticize institutions and their behavior. Specifically, how it is that those institutions and their behavior contribute to the disparity in the pursuit of equal rights and equal of justice that we see today. WE are not the ones that generally are in control of these institutions, i.e Wells Fargo or the Republican Party. But, on an individual and personal basis the lack civility can be found amongst any one, regardless of race, color or creed. I am not justifying this behavior. So, I am not just beating up on white folks, just acknowledging that your group has certain advantages, and any institution that is anything in this country is primarily controlled by white persons. That has not always worked to our advantage in the scheme of things, while it has worked to the advantage of the majority more consistently. Again, I offer the example of the criminal justice system and the heavy handedness of police activity prompting the creation of BLM.
The fact that you and I can discuss the matter is evidence for me that you are “working on it”. Such institutional bias is simply not directed at whites in the society. When I have a prominent political party that includes stoking racial enmity as part of its mode of operation or one of the most prominent financial institutions in the world targeting me and people that look like me for fraud and abuse, it is more than a small matter. I express anger, rage at the gall of these institutions to dismiss so many people with the swipe of one hand. I spout distrust and suspicion, but these miscreants have earned it. In that disappointment, I am trained to be suspicious and cautious in my accepting the word and premise of these and other institutions at face value. That is making sure that there is no hidden sleight of hand or banana peel hidden in the path, somewhere.
There are not enough people of good will or too many that are content to sit on the sidelines and absolve themselves because they are directly involved. That is what is going on now. If any of the abuses happened on an institutional scale, I consider them as directed at me. Just because I may have been “out of range” of the deadly missiles did not make me any less a target. Will we ultimately find peace between us? I don’t know. We appear to make progress in so many areas, but fall back in just as many. America has had an ugly history in so many ways. So, I operate on the principle of having a “healthy paranoia” about the environment, not to the point that it is unreasonable about people and world we live in, but duly cautious. There remain many wounds to bind. It could be well beyond my lifetime before this society can “in reality” actually live up to its creed.
Who can stand for me, when I see that a whole political party explicitly state and through extension, one half of the country that votes with them, that it stands against me? You can’t wear my shoes and I can appreciate why. We simply see things from opposite sides of the looking glass. But, I can’t be blamed if I want to make sure that the shoes that I wear are properly shod and the laces tied.
I can see the side of white folks believing that we eternally whine about events and behavior that have happened in the distant pass and why we cannot move on? The current administration and its behavior on many of the issues of concern to us, does not really leave us with the confidence that the ‘system’ really changes but more so adapts as a camellia in mere expediency to different circumstances.
I can certainly understand your position. And, give certain concessions because of it. I was thinking that maybe my perspective is skewed because, yes, I know the rules of the game are off. But, it isn't just a minority which suffers, or multiple minorities. It's pretty much all of us. Maybe, being white gives me certain advantages. Being a guy gives you certain advantages. Being upper class gives one certain advantages. A higher IQ, another. Level of education gets another perk. And, if you strip those little perks away. One by one, yeh. You are basically going to feed at the bottom of the barrel, economically.
And, maybe as a woman my perception has been to understand my handicap and strived to mitigate it as much a possible. I know the things I never thought of because they weren't fields I thought I'd have a chance in, as a woman, at that time. Were I just 20 years younger my life could have taken a much different course. I can't begrudge the world that what if because I recognize my advantages,also.
So, yeah. I get the attitude at your age. You are an intelligent guy. I can't begin to imagine the frustration you went through at times knowing your disadvantages.
I think, my stand is tied to that knowledge and experience. We did suffer lost opportunity. We did suffer not shattered dreams, but the knowledge that our dreams were, and would always be, someone else's reality. But, reality has changed so much.
I can't see where young people have suffered what our generation did, or we what our parents went through. Maybe, my attitude is something akin to the old 'I had to walk five miles uphill, each way to school.'
I see this generation as having their own disadvantages and not understanding that the ones we went through are increasingly surmountable and, in some instances, extinct.
I could go on and on about the world we have bought into, that is so toxic to the idea of happiness. The world that pits our morals against our greed. Our love of humanity against our love of money. I just think this current climate is ignoring the bigger picture and the bigger battles we could be fighting, because the current battles are predicated, in my opinion, on the idea of attacking others so that those involved can ignore and justify their own shortcomings. No one is trying to change one heart at a time, it seems to me it's more along the line of retribution. And, against whom? We are literally and figuratively chasing ghosts while the real bogey man walks around scot free.
"Calling both these actions "racism" suggests they are equivalent. That's a false equivalence."
Yep, about as much as calling a slap "violence" and a murder "violence" suggests they are equivalent
Is that right? If that's true, then I admit complete ignorance on the matter of basic logic. Unfortunately I have been unable to find any evidence that corroborates your claim. I ask that you please provide some evidence of your claim, preferably with examples of fallacious use of reductio. As far as I know, the only fallacious use of reductio is when a strawman or a slippery slope is employed, which I did not do. But I am open to being corrected.
As far as I can tell, your adding of additional premises that alter the essence of your original claim is special pleading or moving the goalposts, and is not a valid form of argumentation. Again I ask that you provide some evidence that adding additional premises every time I propose a counterargument is not a fallacious use of moving the goalposts.
In any case, my suggestion is to simply present all of your premises at the beginning, instead of adding them every time I find a counterexample. At the very least you’ll save us both some time.
Regarding the sociological definition:
I can’t speak for everyone, but I don't care about the sensitivities of marginalized people if it means ignoring moral crimes committed on another racial group. The disadvantages of doing so far outweigh any supposed advantages.
I understand some sociologists may want to use stipulative definitions for academic purposes. But that's not what you've been doing. You've presented this sociological definition and declared it as valid, which I take to mean a well-founded and justifiable definition (you haven’t exactly proved that it’s valid, but fine). The problem occurs when you dismiss the lexical definition of the word, which is the definition most of us in this thread are using and the definition used by most of modern society. In many back-and-forths you prompted myself and others to use a different, much weaker word for racism when it happens against white people. This is not an honest attempt at using fluid terminology – this is an attempt at rigidifying terminology to suit your ideological needs.
If you want to use the sociological definition you can, but you can't use it to dismiss the OP's claim because his claim is contingent on the lexical definition. And if you want to convince the rest of us to use it in place of the current definition, you’ll need to prove not only that the sociological definition is valid, but that it’s superior to the current definition.
What do I mean by this? An example of a successful redefinition is the definition of rape that I mentioned earlier. Historically it's been defined as a crime against a woman by a man. Only recently have we begun to redefine rape to allow for the possibility of male victims of rape, and of female victims in different circumstances. The DoJ redefined this as recently as 2012. The new definition now encourages male victims to come forward, and protects both men and women against other types of rape (f.i. using objects). Thus it is a better definition for protecting constituents and it more accurately encompasses the essence of what rape is.
Compare that to the redefinition proposed by radical feminists. What would be the consequences of using their definition of racism in a court of law? What would be the consequences of using your definition of racism in a court of law? The answers to those questions hint at the limitations of those redefinitions and whether or not they are justifiable.
Regarding your evidence that PoC are offended by the current definition of racism / feel that the word is reduced by including white people as victims:
One or two anecdotes are not sufficient to support your claim that PoC are offended by the current definition of racism. Given how poorly the ratings and comments are on those videos (well, on one of those videos - the other had the foresight to disable them, to avoid hearing criticism) I'd say it's actually contradictory to your claim, especially if you compare to other anectodes like these:
Each of the above videos recognize racism against whites as racism, plain and simple. (Note: some of these videos have some violent imagery and expletive language).
All in all, I don't see any evidence to suggest that a sufficient number of PoC are offended by the lexical definition of racism.
Moreover, even if we assume it to be true that most PoC are offended by the definition, you still have not made the case for why a redefinition is justified. Do the feelings of PoC trump the potential victimization of white people? Do the feelings of black people trump the potential victimization of Asians? Do the feelings of small people trump the potential victimization of tall people? Etc. etc.
Regarding Poverty and Racism:
We're in agreement - both poverty and racism do not exist in a vacuum and have disparate impacts on racial groups. Poverty for a variety of reasons (including racism), and racism because more racism is directed at PoC. Is that a fair enough understanding?
Assume it to be true that the following groups are offended by the corresponding definitions. Your claim (and correct me if I am misrepresenting your position):
Racism against people of colour is far more severe in terms of impact than a similar act against a white person. Comparing the two is offensive to people of colour, therefore we should redefine it to exclude white people as victims of racism.
Applying your logic to poverty:
Poverty experienced by people of colour is far more severe in terms of impact than it is for a white person. Comparing the two is offensive to people of colour, therefore we should redefine it to exclude white people as victims of poverty.
To sexual assault/rape:
Sexual assault experienced by women is far more severe in terms of impact than it is for a man. Comparing the two is offensive to women, therefore we should redefine it to exclude men as victims of sexual assault/rape.
Violence experienced by women/children/smaller people is far more severe in terms of impact that it is for a man/adult/taller person. Comparing the two is offensive to women/children/smaller people, therefore we should redefine it to exclude men/adults/tall people as victims of violence.
Do you disagree that this is a fair interpretation of your argument? Are there additional premises that I am not aware of? If so, what distinguishes racism from the other forms of victimization, and how does that distinction render these parallel arguments invalid?
Since ethnicity is at least partially defined by a group's ancestry, and prejudice on either basis is equally bad, I'd call it racism. I don't see the need or advantage of broadening such discrimination to "prejudice."
First of all, https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/ … -absurdum/
I see that we are just going in circles here. If I came across as dismissive of the OP's claim, then that was not my intention. My intention was to raise awareness of the "stark difference" between attacks on white people and attacks on those who are not white.
Aside from your argument about how my source of how black people feel it is insensitive to assume reverse racism is real, I believe I have already addressed all your other arguments. My primary response relied on the premise that many people of color are requesting this sensitivity. Again, if other groups of people requested this sensitivity on the grounds of disparate impacts, then I would consider finding terms to differentiate the situations.
I don't consider your point about poor ratings as compelling because left wing videos have a tendency to do badly on Youtube. There will always be exceptions (such as John Oliver and most other comedy news), but in my own experience, I have mostly seen poor ratings for things that are left wing, so I'm just not compelled by that argument. At any rate, I'm sure you can find POC who believe reverse racism is real, so I suppose black people are not a monolithic group. No single organization can speak for all black people, but I can easily go by the loudest and strongest groups such as Black Lives Matter, which has stood up to criticism for being "reverse racist" by mentioning the same "stark difference" that I am talking about.
As for your point about ethnicities, I think we've just found another gap that's impossible to bridge. You want to broaden the term "racism" so that it can applied to communities that aren't even a race, which is perfectly valid. However, given certain sensitivities that I have chosen to keep in mind (while you admitted to not wanting to keep these sensitivities in mind), I don't see a problem with broadening the term "prejudice" or using any of the other similar terms I have mentioned in earlier comments.
Welcome to HubPage forums, Bored Student. It's a rough place to express an opinion.
But that which does not kill you makes you stronger.
No Racism from Bored, I can spot. A well said, reasonable explanation.
What school/course taught you this perspective?
This country has spent trillions of dollars and passed thousands of laws trying to fix the slavery system introduced by the European colonial powers.
We had a Civil War to end slavery that cost hundreds of thousands of white lives.
Yes, we still have racism, and it flows both ways. But we have gone far beyond a "minimum effort" to solve it.
Obviously, we have a different opinion on what a minimum effort is. I am of the opinion that, in order to consider yourself an ally to a particular movement or group of people, you need to step up every single day. After all, racism is experienced every single day, so the fight against it exists every single day.
Well said. I agree with you it's a daily battle and that we should ally ourselves with a movement -- in this case the opposition to racism.
I also think allying ourselves with a group of people rather than a movement in an attempt to fix a racial problem may create more problems.
Do we risk overcompensating and creating a backlash of resentment? Based on what I've seen and heard, I think the answer is yes.
I absolutely agree. It is a tough balance to figure out when to align yourself with people and when not to. In politics especially, I prefer not to support candidates simply based on the grounds that a politician does not have white skin. It may be important to diversify politics a little bit, but I just do not think the country will benefit from politicians of color who have bad policies. Luckily, there are plenty of politicians of color who do have good policies and I end up casting my ballot for a diverse group of people. Still, in general, I agree that it is better to support a movement than simply supporting a group of people.
I was at first shocked when I read this and then I saw college student and it all made sense.
“it is not racism because, ultimately, white people will not lose their power and privilege over it”
Huh? What are you talking about? Sorry, racism is not connected to losing “power and privilege.”
“white people are not usually attacked simply because they have white skin. White people are usually attacked because of a terrible colonialist history and because of a minimum effort at trying to rectify that history.”
Who taught you this? What a pile of absolute nonsense. Question for you. How about someone like myself who has white skin, but has ancestors who didn't come to the United States until 1902 from eastern Europe? My family had NOTHING to do with colonial America, the Civil War, slavery. So, why is that put on me? Not ALL white people who are here now were here then. I have relatives who came over in the 1990s, are they responsible? Guess what? I still have people of color make ALL sorts of references to my skin color. So, your theory just doesn't hold water in the realm of reality.
“racism usually requires hate, aggression, or attacks simply on the basis that someone comes from a different race,” yeah, when I read those tweets from Sarah Jeong I felt the love. Do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds?
It's obvious you've been fed too much intellectual nonsense.
It's funny that you think power and privilege have nothing to do with racism. According to the sociological definition of racism, power and privilege are the two most important aspects of racism.
My family came in the 1940s from Eastern Europe as well, but I am not talking about ancestral or family history. I am talking about the history of our people as a race.
You mean the race that created many inventions that changed the world? The race that gave the world everything from the automobile, airplane to the radio as well as electricity, advanced civilizations, computers, space travel and so many advancements in the medical field, there are too many to mention. Lets not even discuss advancements in law, literature, philosophy, mathematics and more. I consider this the history of our people as a race. Racism, it is a pendulum that swings both ways. If you don't believe me, I'll take you to the old neighborhood where I was a kid. Go onto the basketball court after dusk. I guarantee you will hear some rather harsh words about being white. There will be threats. All the alleged white privilege in the world won't help you avoid being robbed and experiencing physical harm if you can't run fast. That is not a sociological definition, that is reality.
Funny, you got about four response and they don't get what your saying.
I get what your saying clearly from history and experience and kodos for you.
Not getting something and disagreeing with the statement are not synonymous.
I think what people fail to take into consideration is that simplistic attitudes deny obvious realities. You have to take into account all factors. If you deny the present, in order to find fault with the past you set yourself up for a resolution in the distant future.
From studying Racism pass and envision the future. It's clear to see the non whites are changing reality quicker than whites. I work these problems out by each time I simplifies, simplifies and simplifies
I agree. It does appear that you simplify, simplify, simplify. I see that as a problem.
If we view a problem from one perspective, that is easy enough to do. However, the harder thing is to attempt to see from other perspectives, simultaneously. Solutions cannot be found by denying the value of all experiences. And, my observation has been that when you bow to the sensibilities of one particular group, they will never be satisfied. You cannot feed the monster of entitlement enough to sate its appetite. It only grows and grows.
I would really like to see your methods of getting closer to Solving problems by complicating, complicating and complicating.
From being white and half of my love ones are. How is possible my perspective gose against the 86℅ majority non whites, or whites. When my perspective is more in line with the majority overall.
American Whites have been in the greatest denials throughout the world's greatest genocide of black salavery and American Natives destruction. Where Germany has done an excellent job of redemption.
The most modern change has been blacks can vote and legalized interracial marriage in 1965. Don't worry non whites will change up alot more to come.
Hatred solves nothing. Historically, we can find a reason to claim persecution from any angle. As a woman, I could easily find my share of indignation. But, you know why I don't? It solves nothing to blame those not responsible. You,as a man, owe me no apology for the behavior of other men. You, as a man, owe me no apology for past patriarchal systems. I am thankful to live in a society which attempts to be inclusive. In a society which constantly critiques itself and corrects course where needed.
If you think hatred and vitriolic language will shield you from the consequences if your desired claims come to fruition, think again. Your light skin will be the thing you are judged by, when you hope for a return to a world where skin color is the litmus test used for anything.
“American Whites have been in the greatest denials throughout the world's greatest genocide of black salavery and American Natives destruction.”
So your position is that only American whites were involved in slavery when northern whites were actually the ones who liberated the slaves (while blacks in Africa were the ones who delivered black slaves to Americans) are still practicing black on black slavery there?
And American Indians were obliterating rival tribes throughout their known history even before whites came to America - this is a historical fact.
My point being that atrocities like you describe are not unique to whites but on the contrary a human condition the spans across all races.
It is not ok to say that you're a racists or a sexist for that matter. It has nothing to do with political views. That's just a lousy excuse.
Anybody who makes a racist or sexist remark should be considered as a racists or sexist.
A president who is tweeting racist and sexist text is a racist and a sexist. Nothing else, no excuse.
Both racists and sexists want to dived people in us and them.
We, white people against them black people. We Christians against them Muslims, we rich people against them poor people, we man against them women, we Americans against the rest of the world people. We Democrats against them Republicans. We Lefties against them Righties.
It is us against them. We, the good guys against them the bad guys.
This is not a healthy way of living. It builds hatred and mistrust. The more groups are separated, the more they become alienated from each other and the less easy it is to understand each other.
For politics it's great though, as divided groups are better to rule. Divide and rule is a classic strategy. Promoting sexism and racism is a classic government strategy done in many countries.
And because the government is behaving in a sexist or racist way, it does not mean it's ok.
To be racist or sexist is foolish behaviour and it hurts not only the person who is discriminated but also the society.
Racism and sexsim is a crime, and should be acted upon like it.
Grabbing women by the pussy without consent is a crime. Nothing more nothing less.
Not hiring a person because of their religious belief or colour of there skin is a crime. nothing less.
When your against anything you join the problem. Being not for something is a better solution of harmless preference.
Only an angry teenager is against anything, or grownups who never grew up.
Anger is an emotion easily awakened and used often for political gain.
It's quite obvious why the US has a racial problem, compared with for example the UK. The US was build on slavery (ad to the mix religious extremism and genocide) and you have a difficult start.
The US never dealt with the segregation in the society. Only 50 years ago black people had to sit in the back of the bus, use different toilets or benches in the park.
50 years, is not even a generation. No wonder lot's of people find it difficult to change there attitude towards Afro-Americans. They learned from their parents and the society that they were privileged.
It's exactly this white privilege that Trump grew up with and that he promotes. A privilege that many people understand and want to be continued. Trump hates Obama and many do, simply because he is black.
Many will be afraid to admit that this deep down racism is the reason of their distrust against everything Obama did.
Now they are pointing fingers to black people who also tweet or say racist things. Just to justify racist behaviour from white people.
The big difference is. There are far more white people, and they are in the position of power, that tweet racist remarks then there are black people who do so.
Neither is good, but one black person making a racists remark does not make a racist remark of a white person good. But it is clearly used in this way by white racists.
I, too, hate racism. But everyone appears to have a different bar used to gauge it in others. Unfortunately, if your skin is classified as white you must be guilty, with no proof other than that light skin. So, a lot of lighter skinned people appear to be scrambling to clarify they can claim some affiliation to oppressed groups or they understand these claims of oppression so shouldn't be included in the wrong side of the witch hunts.
We all know people whose personal experience lead them to making broad generalizations about specific groups, which plays as racism. Using the same measuring stick, no matter the color of the individual making the generalizations, leads me to label people racist when they display traits of nonacceptance, intimidation or a desire to minimize the value of the individual because of their skin color. As part of the light skinned group, that (I'm certain) will win me a racist label.
Racism is no bound by color. You can be black and being a racists (like the racist tweets from example above shows) just as you can be white and be a racist.
And the label racist is verry clear. The bar used to gauge it, as you say, is made vague with intension as to give racists more room to be explicit.
You are not a racist because you are white live to learn. It almost looks as if you give yourself an excuse to be a racist. (Im white so people think im a racist anyway, so thats fine, ive got an excuse to be racist, as they expect it from me.) I dont think thats a good approach as there is no excuse for racesist behaviour.
So if you label yourself a racist Live to Learn then I believe you, and I will dislike you for that a lot.
If you label yourself a racist simply because you think of your white skin you must be a racist, don't think this way. You will give the wrong impression to people.
You started the post with saying that you hated racism. And you label yourself as one. So what is it yes or no.
I will say, yes you are a racist, and you just started the comment with a feel good sentence. Im sorry if I have the wrong impression, as I do not know you. But these are the consequences of what you wrote.
I didn't say I was racist. I said I would be labeled that. I don't see myself as racist because I use the same measuring stick, across the board, to determine if comments or actions should be labeled such.
Sadly, in our collective attempt to create inclusion we are causing exclusion. I don't think the fact that a particular group was discriminated against in the past is cause to discriminate today. And the subject of the OP should be labeled racist, and fired, since that is the treatment others are getting.
The news media has done its part to fuel the flames. If you are white, and did something socially unacceptable, they immediately include the word racist. If you are any other segment of society and do likewise, it is difficult for the reader to discern anything. Since we are a predominantly white society it gives the impression the perpetrator is white, thus continuing the attempt at the illusion. When the article does name a nonwhite race of a perpetrator there is always the accompanying attempt to justify the action. As a proponent of fair play, I find the current climate deplorable.
I do not think you will be labelled a racist if you are not acting like one. So why would you label yourself. Or assume others will because you are white. Do not turbid the discussion. As I said that's what racists want.
Racists want to delude the word racist for using it for everything, so if something really is racist, the word will have lost it's meaning. The same thing is done with the word socialist in the US. It's true meaning hijacked. And the fascist also try to downplay the word fascism and only want to label it to what happened in the German Reich. But fascism means much more.
I think people should talk clear. And racism or sexisim is not acceptable in the media. Not rightwing, nor leftwing. Not for white not for black journalists.
And indeed the climate in the US and the world in general has become deplorable. And this word to is hijacked and almost given a crime status.
Thanks for clearing that up Live to Learn. Don't worry to much about labels ;-) Labels are dangerous things...
The world is better without them, as we wouldn't have a them and us kind of thing..
I agree she got a free pass. I also strongly disagree with liberal media (as opposed to conservative or independent media) that is defending and rationalizing her Tweets.
If you are asking why Jeong's comments are perceived differently by, for example, the New York Times, the answer is social context.
On one side are comments that are rude and mean to white people, said as a form of mimicry in response to the racist, misogynistic comments Jeong receieved.
On the other is the systemic oppression and marginalization of people who are not white and not male (which racist, misogynistic comments form part of).
Suggesting these are the same is false equivalence.
I don't condone Jeong's comments, but I fully understand why these things are different.
I'd like to see the chronology of the comments back and forth prior to an attempt to justify behavior.
This may be helpful: https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/ … 6775226368
Maybe I'm confused. I thought the defense for her tweets was that racist white guys were attacking her, and she was responding in kind.
I didn't read everything in your link. It was a butt load of tweets but the only ones I saw were her racist statements. Did I miss the claimed attacks?
They're hidden in the oppressive systemic systems of structural institutions. Or something.
I think it says an incredible amount for those called white to attempt to continue to find ways to understand and forgive the injustices of this current climate. Hopefully, those called by other names will eventually learn a lesson and do the same.
Understanding behavior is not the same as justifying it.
If justification is what you want though, I strongly suspect Twitter is not the only source of racism and misogyny Jeong has encountered as a woman of color. If so, I think it would be inconceivable for that not to have influenced her decision to post those comments, but I'm speculating. I haven't shared her lived experience, so I don't know.
But even if she hadn't been harassed on Twitter, her comments would still be perceived differently because of social context. Being rude and mean about white men, or white people, is not equivalent to the systemic oppression and marginalisation of women of color.
You would first have to be able to prove that systematic oppression actually exists. And when you look at the data, it's easy to see that it does not.
Systemic, not systematic. They are different things.
I'm not interested in your view of "the data". You asked: "...how is it that the New York times allows this double standard to prevail when they hire a known racist Sarah Jeong".
I've told you it's probably because the New York Times does not perceive Jeong's comments as racist due to social context. The fact you deny that context exists is not something I believe I can help you with.
Well as long as people such as yourself are willing to allow the double standard to prevail there will always be a division among races. Which is what gives more power to politicians rather than the groups they claim to defend.
You were born with a certain color of skin. No one should feel guilt or pride in that.
We perceive and respond to behaviour differently based on social context all the time. I'd say that selectively not doing that is the double standard.
Why would I feel pride or guilt? As a rational person I can acknowledge that I benefit from various forms of social inequality, but have no control over the social group I was born into. At the same time I can understand why some groups affected by social inequality might want to celebrate their attributes and achievements, without it making me feel threatened or upset. I can even join in those celebrations! No pride or guilt needed on my part. Just basic human empathy and common sense.
So, can we say you would hold some people to a lower standard of conduct? Do you think them incapable?
I see no difference between the two. I would make no excuse for the people who provoked her, and the same goes for her. Both parties took the low road, and are equally racist. The fact that you don't recognize it is racist.
You mean it isn't OK to be racist as a response to a racist? Isn't that kind of like maintaining ethical standards in the face of unethical behavior, remaining calm when greeted with vitriol and refusing to revert to childhood when dealing with childish actions? Isn't that a rather quaint notion?
Apparently it is depending on how many intersectionality points you can muster during a debate.
Naw. All that really matters is if the listener shares the same brand of racism as the speaker. If so they can mutually declare themselves as non-racist (no dissenting voice, and no honesty, either).
You need to read an article from the New York Times titled "The Asian Advantage," and wonder what she has to be upset about.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opin … ntage.html
I strongly suspect one NYT article will not be enough to counteract Jeong's own lived experience, and every other example of racism and misogyny she has seen, heard, or knows something about, but I can't be certain.
You could ask her if it does. She is on Twitter I believe.
This is a very typical liberal response. Conservatives are all racists, if some idiotic liberal is a racist, you can rationalize it and defend it. I believe the concept of double standards and hypocrisy are things the liberal mind cannot comprehend. I would no longer talk to her than a black person would walk up to a member of the KKK burning a cross and ask to discuss race relations. Your response on many levels is to be expected but is still unreal. Now is the time to bring out your reference to the Ukraine, which is a favorite way for you to respond to things. Go ahead, I can take it.
I think it's the typical response from someone capable of recognizing social context.
Conservatives and liberals? Are those races now? That's new.
Nope, a woman of color saying mean things about white people on Twitter is not the same as the KKK burning a cross. I checked in the liberal handbook, source of all liberal truth and knowledge. No, definitely not the same.
Ukraine? You've lost me. I've not discussed Ukraine with you. You must have me confused with someone else. It could have been one of my liberal colleagues. It's very difficult to tell us apart.
The problem of this post is that it does not say anything about the context of the posts.
I doubt it Onusonus has collected these tweets himself . I guess he copied the picture from a article on a web page.
On first sight the tweets looks incredible racist. Until you know that Jeong was a subject of online harassment by trolls. As a reaction toward the posts and tweets of her trolls she decided to use the same rhetoric as her harassers.
If you know this, the tweets should be read completely differently. And can not be seen as racism but more as a reaction on the language used to discredit her.
The question you can ask is: Is it the right way to fight trolling?
Apparently not as this forum discussion is merely feeding the trolls discussion.
In this respect the picture of her tweets above is misinformation as it does not tell the whole story.
Jeong said in an interview that she sees her error in the way she handled trolls as it only "feed the vitriol that we too often see on social media."
Calling people trolls for opening a dialogue is rather trollish. If the subject of the OP insists it wasn't racism but more in line with responding in kind it would be helpful to present the evidence.
Claiming bigoted statements are the correct response to bigoted statements is fine only if that behavior is accepted across the board. I see no evidence of that being true, either.
Dear Live to Learn, I did not call people trolls. I was talking about feeding trolls, not being trolls themselves.
I said the tweets made by Jeong were a reaction to trolling. And therefore must be seen in a different light. Please read my post carefully.
And nobody claimed that bigoted statements are the correct response.
So, you agree that Jeong's statements were bigoted in nature? And, although you are correct that you didn't single anyone out as being a troll, I do take exception to the statement. Pretty much anything feeds trolls. I think the onus asked a fair question.
The bottom line is...does the desire for social justice allow for the cessation of a desire for overall justice? When does hypocrisy get labeled, as such?
Yes Jeong’s statements were wrong, I said that before. But it has to be seen in the correct context. And this context was not given by Onusonus. And so many people gave an answer to this question without knowing what was behind the story.
And so you can question if the tweets of Jeong were truely racist or more a parody on racist behaviour.
Since I searched the web and only found excuses, without any real body of evidence supporting her claim of responding in kind; I cannot support your conclusions. Nor can I see enough support for her statements. If it were presented, I might be able to see this in a different light. As it stands it appears to me she may be standing behind a lie.
Sarah J fought back internet bullying by posting in a spirit of revenge. If she intends to develop and maintain a good reputation, she showed bad judgment, bad example and immaturity. (Her literary creativity got the better of her.)
In fact, she apologized.
We can safely give her a second chance, I would say.
How should we deal with internet bullying?
"In sum, it can be difficult to hold bullies accountable for their actions (for both adolescents and adults). In a country such as ours that values free speech so highly, many people genuinely believe they can say whatever they want, to whomever they want. We know that is not true, but it isn’t clear where exactly the line is. And just because we *can* say certain things, doesn’t mean we should. It’s no wonder that many teens are wrestling with this problem—they see the adults in their lives saying mean and nasty things to others on a regular basis. Do your part to model appropriate behavior and address any hurtful language when it comes up. The kids (and other adults) in your life will hopefully see it, remember it, and act in the right ways."
https://cyberbullying.org/advice-for-ad … erbullying
So based on the context and your reasoning, if I were being attacked on line and used the same language about black people you'd be okay with it?
You still haven't provided any proof that full racial equality exists, in practice, across all significant social structures and institutions. Based on your reasoning, we can now safely assume you have no proof, and that such equality doesn't exist. Do you see any faults with that reasoning?
And is social context important to the way we perceive and respond to comments/ behaviour, in your view, or not? You started by implying it's not. Then demonstrated that it is. Now seem unable to decide either way.
Depends on the context. If there is racism it can be fought against in court and corrected. Of course racism exists, I'm refuting the idea of undetectable systemic racism.
You still haven't provided proof that full systemic racial equality exists, in practice, across all significant social structures and institutions, which is what you are asserting.
So, in your view, are there any instances at all where social context is important to the way we perceive comments/ behavior?
Point to a rule in any industry that is in place that is racist.
That relates to racial equality in theory. I have asked for "proof that full systemic racial equality exists, in practice, across all significant social structures and institutions", because that is what you are asserting.
And again, in your view, are there any instances at all where social context is important to the way we perceive comments/ behavior?
You believe systemic racism doesn't exists. So unless you are suffering cognitive dissonance, that means you believe full systemic racial equality exists.
You don't seem to be able to wrap your brain around the fact that full systemic racial equality has to be proven, in order to be real. You can't assume there is full systemic racial equality without proof.
So what is your evidence that full systemic racial equality exists, in practice, across all social structures and institutions?
Show me systemic racial equality exists, in practice, across all social structures and institutions.
You are asking me to prove something I don't believe in doesn't exist. Are you religious?
By asserting systemic racism does not exist, you are asserting that systemic racial equality exists, in practice, across all social structures and institutions.
You don't seem to be able to wrap your brain around the fact that systemic racial equality, in practice, has to be proven, in order to be real. You can't assume there is systemic racial equality in practice without proof.
So where is your proof?
It might be easier if you could provide examples of where it exists without the benefit of laws in place prohibiting it.
Laws, policies and statements are not proof systemic racial equality exists. For example:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
Does this statement prove that systemic racial equality existed within the social structures and institutions across the Thirteen Colonies in 1776?
As I said, systemic racial equality, in practice, has to be proven, in order to be real. If you can't prove it with evidence, then you are only assuming it exists.
Well now you messed up, because even though that statement was made, slavery still existed, which is PROOF that there was systemic inequality. And the argument was fought over in court, and on the battle field, to end it.
It is proof that written statements (including laws) promoting equality, are not evidence of systemic equality. Try harder.
You still haven't provided any proof that systemic racial equality exists. As I said before if you can prove systemic racial equality exists, I will agree with you. To prove something exists you have to provide evidence. If you can't provide evidence, then you are merely assuming it exists.
And you are assuming that systemic inequality exists without proof. You pointed to a law "all men are created equal" and then refuted it using an actual racist institution as an example, which is sound reasoning. Clearly you can not do this in today's era. There are no laws that discriminate against races. And if there are any at all, I will gladly be against them.
I didn't refer to a law, I referred to the Declaration of Independence. They are different things.
That declaration, as well as the protections enshrined in the Constitution, both existed at the same time as the most overt racism.
I am merely pointing out that explicit statements, laws and policies that lack overt racism, or even promote equality, are therefore not evidence that systemic racial equality exists in practice.
So you have still not offered any proof systemic social equality actually exists, in practice, across all social structures and institutions. No proof, no systemic equality.
"laws and policies that lack overt racism, or even promote equality, are therefore not evidence that systemic racial equality exists in practice"
I agree. But you have to have something to point to, such as slavery, Jim Crow, etc., that are identifiably racist in order to prove that there is indeed active racism in an institution.
You have to have something to point to, other than laws and policies that lack overt racism, that demonstrates systemic racial equality, in order to prove that there is indeed systemic racial equality across society.
That's the finest paragraph you've ever written here .
And you can't just assume that people are racist without any proof. Every fortune 500 company has a non discrimination policy in place otherwise they would be sued and shut down by the federal government. If anything, capitalism is less interested in race and more interested in making money. it is therefore in the best interest of the capitalist to abide by societal law in order to exist.
It is a fact that overt racism is repulsive to the general public. Even if I were the most racist businessman in the world, I would still have to show that I am not actively discriminating against minorities. Otherwise I would loose my business not only at the threat of being sued, but also out of the will of the general public who have the ability to freely choose who they do business with.
You can't just assume systemic racial equality exists without any proof.
Pointing to laws and non-discrimination policies won't help you, as we have already established:
You don't just get to assume systemic equality exists, in practice, across all social structures and institutions, without proof.
What you seem to be saying is that there is a vast conspiracy between all factions of society against minorities. Sure there may be racists out there, however it is not a collaborative effort. When the evidence presents itself we can solve problems, but only with evidence. Otherwise you are just convincing people that they are victims of some nameless, faceless enemy that hates them for no reason, and can't be detected. It is a sad and pathetic attempt at implementing social justice in our government.
Absolutely , It's just one more liberal dream to ideologically assume that because they accuse of systemic racism -it HAS to be true . That they can then obtain political mileage out of it .
I'll say one thing , these accusations prove only one real thing , those making these accusations will make excellent car salesmen [women] .
For you that may be what I seem to be saying. This is what I am actually saying.
The continuing effect of systemic racism does not require conspiracy or intent (the clue is in the name "systemic"). It merely requires ignorance, denial and inaction.
Taking control of your life to the greatest extent possible is a good way to live. People don't need to be defined by victim-hood. Individuals of all races can, and do, succeed.
That doesn't mean we have to deny systemic racism exits though.
Acknowledging it exists doesn't preclude people taking responsibility for themselves. It simply adds to our understanding of why some people might be able do that to a greater/ lesser extent than others. This increases our chance of addressing those issues, which in turn, helps make a more prosperous society.
Projecting conspiracy theories is more a reflection of you than the concept of systemic racism, or those who acknowledge it exists.
And what proof is there that systemic equality exists, in practice, across all social structures and institutions? If there is no proof it exists, you are only assuming it does.
"The continuing effect of systemic racism does not require conspiracy or intent..."
You forgot proof.
Some valid proof systemic equality exists, in practice, across all social structures and institutions would be great. Do you have any?
If not, then you're making an assumption it exists based on what you want to believe rather than what you can prove. Are you religious?
Sorry but the burden of proof lies on the accuser. Otherwise you're just asking for free money.
You're making a positive assertion. The burden of proof sits with you.
I'm afraid you are wrong. That's a guilty until proven innocent stand. Works great outside of a democratic and free society, not so well within.
If you were on trial; your liberty and property at risk of forfeiture. Then that would (rightly) be the case. You aren't and it's not.
In a general discussion it's typically accepted that if someone makes a positive assertion, it's reasonable to ask them to prove it.
Negative assertions are harder to prove so there is less expectation for people to prove negatives (e.g. an atheist would not typically be expected to prove the non existence of god).
First, you brought up the systemic racism discussion, not him. And he is claiming the negative. You admit, in this post, that the one claiming the positive has the burden of proof. You say there is. He said there isn't. You can't claim both are positive assertions.
I am reminded whenever I see "racism " the word used anywhere but especially today and when I read certain posts . About 5% of slave traffic arrived on the North America's shores ,
Think about that .
Yet , today's race baiting rhetoric , 98% of which has arrived into the News Media of the United State of the United peoples of the world .
Think about that .
But then What other nation can pay for the agenda , the higher wages of " reparations "?
I don't know about reparations. I think of other reasons it may be advantageous to certain groups to push this discord. A blind and skewed picture of reality.
It plays into the hands of the left, quite well. I have noticed people waking up, though. People who realize it must be seen as hyperbole, since any reasonable short term or long term outcome one can imagine is a negative.
I'm reminded of the Jewish people. A group, truly, marginalized and who suffered great injustice over centuries. A group the left continues to target today. Their example of perseverance and refusal to play the victim is, more than likely, the reason many minorities speak so against them. It must be difficult to reconcile hatred over perceived injustice with true injustice which was not met in such a way.
But, the band wagon of the victim mentality is the party bus of the moment. Everyone wants a seat on board.
Read this comment:
Do you need to provide proof that you aren't racist? Or is it just assumed that you are?
No one is being asked to prove they aren't racist. Just as no one is being asked to prove systemic racism does not exist.
Claiming systemic racism does not exist is equivalent to claiming systemic equality does exist. That is a positive assertion. What evidence is that assertion based on?
We have already established that your first offerings of evidence (laws and HR policies) do not prove your claim. Is that all the evidence you have, or is there more to come?
[edited for clarity]
Systemic racism, for those who acknowledge it exists.
A net worth of a
White family $134.000 a year.
Hispanic family $14,000
Black family $11,000
Yes, it is real.
Looking at different surveys one had $171,000 for a white Median wealth US. That is 10 times that for blacks and roughly eight times that for Latinos.
Lowest white family survey income was $97,000 by a Federal survey.
Still very out of wack incomes between white and non whites. If that is not systemic Racism, what is?
I would think the constitution written at that time is proof enough that statement has changed meaning, in our collective hearts, over time. You know that.
Please try again. That was not proof of your attempted point.
See previous comment.
Also, you haven't yet explained why you feel it's acceptable to express racial prejudice against white men.
Can you please explain why it's ok for you to express a negative assumption (nothing "white guys" can say can add to your understanding) based on skin-color(1)? Is there some reason your expression of racial prejudice should be treated differently to any other type of racial prejudice?
Well, I can't walk in the shoes of another human any more than you can. You repeat 'systemic racism' with no facts to back it up. I would assume someone who believes they have suffered from it could better explain what has happened to make them feel that way. You being a white guy could not have suffered any of it. You, yourself, have already stated that any suffering by a white person cannot be compared.
It's akin to your comments about what women should feel. How would you be able to determine that? I'd be more than willing to discuss with a woman, when and where she believes she's been discriminated against, but she must prove her case. She doesn't get a free pass to claim it.
In other words, your comment should not be perceived the same as other racial prejudice, even if it meets that definition, because the context (including social context) makes a difference.
Sounds sensible. In fact I think I've heard that point before somewhere.
And if you had chosen to say the same thing in a more insulting way, some people might have been genuinely offended, but that wouldn't magically change the context. People aware of that context would still perceive your comment differently (as you evidently would hope).
In case it's not clear, I don't find your comment offensive, I was just highlighting the point: just because a comment constitutes racial prejudice, by definition, that doesn't mean all such comments are (or should be) perceived and responded to the same. The context, including the social context, matters.
I didn't say anything directly about white men. My comment was about her comment, your acceptance of its validity, etc.
If you had your way. Apparently the utterance of any word by a white person, in reference to any group of humanity, can be labeled racist.
It is not the same as actually displaying racism. If you want to compare it to Sarah Jeong I consider it to be a stretch so severe the cord broke half way through your attempt at reasoning.
You pre-judged based on skin-color: ". . . I will say that debating a white guy doesn't add to my understanding". That, by definition, is racial prejudice.
If it were up to me, I'd just apply the relevant context, which would allow me to acknowledge your comment is not the same as other comments that express racial prejudice.
Unfortunately your reasoning doesn't allow for that. According to you, if a comment meets the definition of racial prejudice, then it should be treated the same as any other comment that expresses racial prejudice, regardless of relevant context.
I am merely applying your own reasoning, to your own words. If you have a problem with that reasoning, then you might want to take that up with yourself.
Label me prejudice against white guys for pointing out your opinions are based on nothing akin to personal knowledge.
Not a problem.
It's not me.
"Prejudice" means to pre-judge someone/something. When you suggest a white guy can say nothing that will add to your understanding, that is, by definition, prejudice.
According to your own reasoning any comment that meets the definition of racism, and therefore presumably racial prejudice, should be treated as such, regardless of the context (including the social context).
Applying that reasoning to your comment results in it being perceived and treated the same as any other type of racial prejudice.
As I said, if you think that reasoning doesn't make sense, take it up with yourself.
I'm going to have to go back to review the comment later tonight. So, at the moment, you've got the benefit of the doubt.
It appears that giving you the benefit of the doubt was an exercise in courtesy on my part. Reviewing the dialogue I can only conclude you are making things up as you go along. I stand by my statements and see no reference of prejudice or bias. You don't have first hand experience, so can only offer opinion based on personal belief.
Your continuing demand for proof, without offering any, serves no purpose other than to filibuster at an attempt to create an aura of credibility.
You said "From a social context, I will say that debating a white guy doesn't add to my understanding". That is a verbatim quote.
According to your reasoning, we must disregard social context, so that part is irrelevant, which leaves:
"I will say that debating a white guy doesn't add to my understanding".
You didn't qualify that statement in any other way.
Therefore, on its face, your comment meets the definition of racial prejudice (it is also an example of gender prejudice as it was directed at men but we'll ignore that for the time being).
By the reasoning expressed in this thread, if something meets the definition of racism or racial prejudice, then it is equivalent to all other examples of racism and racial prejudice and should be treated as such.
So again, what sanction do you think would be appropriate for the racial prejudice you have expressed?
These are your rules, not mine.
LOL. So, it is your contention that attempting to follow your reasoning is racist. You've also implied that not attempting to follow your reasoning is racist.
I have only applied the reasoning you and others have expressed in this thread, to a comment made by you.
Your comment meets the definition of racial prejudice.
A comment that meets that definition is equivalent to all other examples of racial prejudice, regardless of who expresses it, and the social context.
All such comments must be treated the same.
That reasoning leads to the conclusion that your comment must be treated like any other example of racial prejudice. So what sanction do you believe is appropriate?
If you think that conclusion is incorrect, fine. But it's your own reasoning being applied. If you don't accept a conclusion based on your own line of reasoning, what does that say about that line of reasoning?
Just had to.pop in and say excellent job on this thread, Don.
No Don. The comment you are using for your argument was based on your reasoning. The fact that you come to the conclusion you do proves my point.
Whether it's a genuine comment or not, it's a useful exercise to apply the reasoning you, and others, have expressed to see what the outcome would be.
Applying that reasoning leads to the conclusion that the comment is an example of racial bias like any other, and warrants sanction.
Do you genuinely believe that would be a sensible conclusion if someone made such a comment in a discussion?
And again, in case it's not clear, I wouldn't find such a comment offensive because the line of reasoning I, and others, have expressed, considers the full context, which includes the social context.
Don, full context (including social context) is open to interpretion and disagreement. The problem I see is that you are applying a definition of social context I don't agree with. You are making claims I don't consider valid. My disagreement does not make me a racist. And that is the problem. Disagree with the left and the word racist rears its ugly head. The left has used it to the point of having lost any valuable meaning.
At no point have I said you are racist because you disagree. I have no problem with disagreement, which I think this thread makes evident.
And I'm not really interested in the whole Left vs Right thing. That just seems to distract from the real issues.
I'm asking a simple question.
If a (hypothetical) white woman, in a discussion, said . . .
"From a social context, I will say that debating a white guy doesn't add to my understanding"
. . . the line of reasoning you and others have expressed would lead to the conclusion that this comment is an example of racial prejudice, and gender prejudice, and therefore warrants some form of sanction.
Do you think that conclusion is sensible?
i'm afraid it is not a sensible conclusion, but I do understand the point you are attempting to make. If you make your argument broad enough in order to gain consensus, you can then take that broad consensus to declare valid a senseless point.
The conversation began with Sarah Jeong. Racist statements made. Over a long period of time. Her claim was that they were in 'social context'. That she was being harassed. Now, I stated in the beginning that were she to provide proof that she was being harassed and that these statements were in response or, at the least, explained within the context of a given exchange, they might not appear so damning. That evidence has never been offered. We are just to take her at her word.
People lie, Don. That's a fact. So, you can't take your defense of Sarah, make a meandering and broad reaching argument, and negate the fact that there is a body of evidence which points to a very suspicious behavior pattern.
That's what you have to do. Prove behavior patterns. You can't take an isolated incident and make an all encompassing social claim.
I don't think it would be a sensible conclusion either. I think it would be foolish.
As foolish as concluding that firing a gun at someone is the same as giving someone a noogie, just because both actions meet the definition of "violence".
What I'm seeing in this thread is people advocating this approach in relation to comments about race.
According to that approach, if a comment meets the dictionary definition of racial prejudice, it is automatically equivalent to every other example of racial prejudice and must be treated the same. I believe that leads to foolish conclusions.
If people disagree on what the social context is, that's different. But disregarding it completely just to focus narrowly on whether a comment meets a certain definition doesn't make sense in my view.
In relation to Sarah Jeong, I don't think the social context was just about her responding to attacks from white men. I think the difference in power between the social group she belongs to, and the social group she was being rude about is also relevant.
People are free to disagree with that, which I think you are. But looking at the social context as part of deciding an appropriate response, is better than not. It's certainly better than discarding it in favor of looking only at whether it meets a certain definition.
Sure, people lie. But look at it the other way. If Sarah Jeong proved without doubt she had been the recipient of years of abuse from white men online, could this narrow approach take account of that? No, because according to that view, the only thing that matters is whether her comments meet the dictionary definition of racial prejudice at face value.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, that narrow approach may stem from a commitment to being 'color-blind', which is a good sentiment. It's also a misguided one in my view, because it can cause more problems that it solves.
The funny thing is, I agree that people take words that meet the definition of racial prejudice without talking other factors into consideration. But, unfortunately, those of your view insist such should only apply to white people. I've never agreed, nor see a time when I will.
You dismiss the assumption of color blindness as misguided, creating problems. If our collective goal is not a color blind society, then that would make sense. I see the constant desire to claim some special victim status as the reason for contention. We should be able to come to a point where we celebrate difference not beat each other up because of it.
I've nothing against aiming for a society where race becomes irrelevant.
The issue is that although race is (mostly) a social construct, it's not an illusion. It still affects the way we experience the world. Real people are privileged and disadvantaged because of it.
So a society where race doesn't matter is a good aspiration, but I don't think we can get there by denying the political reality of race and racial injustice.
That's why I don't think 'color-blindness' is the answer.
Nor will we get there by hyperinflation of biased perception of facts or by coddling people and stroking their insecurities.
The people who claim persecution have experienced little that other groups have not. What do you think causes one group to rise above and another to do little more than lay blame at the foot of everyone else? What drives hatred when other courses are readily available? What reason, when other solutions are easily within reach, would there be to support a path which includes so much which mirrors behavior patterns that are supposed to be offensive?
"The people who claim persecution have experienced little that other groups have not."
Would you like to explain what persecution you mean?
"What reason, when other solutions are easily within reach . . . "
Would you like to explain what solutions are easily within reach?
I could give you examples; but any thinking person can come up with several examples of current groups who have suffered historical discrimination or social atrocities who have not used it to consistently, over generations, claim that the historical problems are current and whole classes of people must bear the guilt of past offenses.
What did Forrest Gump say after he cleaned the mud off of his face with that guy's tshirt? Or Rafiki in 'The Lion King' after he thumped Simba on the head? There are two clear courses to choose from. Learn from history or repeat it. I see one side of this argument who believes society has learned the lessons of history. Another side wants to rehash every moment, ad nauseum. Wants to use past injustice to pretend that it is still prevalent today and use that belief for anti social behavior patterns. And runs the risk, if successful in their campaign, of putting us in a position of repeating history by finding another group to marginalize through biased misconceptions.
I will say that if you look at minority groups which may, or may not, represent the beliefs of the majority within that minority you see some unifying threads and compelling evidence of why some inequities persist; in isolated areas. I watched an interesting video by an indigenous American who was pushing for individual land ownership on reservations. He made some interesting points. Individual land ownership was a major factor between an impoverished Native American and one who was not. I'm not a believer in one factor simple solutions but it does make you think. A native American who functions within the greater society, who adopts the belief in the value of individual land ownership...who raises their children with one simple main stream society belief...who takes advantage of educational opportunities and stays current of the mainstream needs in the market has a better chance of financial security than one who chooses to live on the reservation attempting to stay true to ancestral customs.
What obligation do we have to groups which choose not to evolve within the society they live in; whatever the factors led to that point? These factors are generations removed from us. At what point do we put the past behind us and live in the current world? At what point do we accept a changing world?
This is not an attempt to bash any who choose to participate and immerse themselves in subcultures within our landscape; but subcultures also result in missed opportunities. Subcultures are a call for solidarity and exclusion of the majority. Now, although, historically subcultures were imposed, now they are a choice. It is a dangerous game to play. While greater society is doing everything possible to be more inclusive and continues to evolve toward that goal we have forces constantly claiming victim status because of long past historical atrocities which are claimed to give the right to continue anti social behavior patterns
The news media plays to this desire nicely. I don't blame the media. They create headlines to reflect hot button topics; in order to get us to read the articles. But, it is a concerted effort to paint a picture that is not realistic. Barbecue Betty comes to mind. A meme for racism. Anyone who has heard the 911 tapes knows this is ridiculous. Claims were made that she used the n word but there is no evidence to support this. As abhorrent as I find that word to be, I don't even believe its use in an isolated incident could support the claim of racism. But, she was white. And that is the way it goes. If a person does something asinine and they are white their race is plastered in the headlines. Conversely, if a person is any other color you can rarely find their race in the article; suffice it to say it is not included in the headline. The woman who beat the elderly hispanic gentleman with a brick is one example. Since the majority are white, without inclusion of race in the article it is implied the perpetrator was white.
Solutions are easy. Stop laying blame. Give each person the benefit of the doubt unless a body of evidence points toward guilt. Use the same standard of judgement for each individual regardless of race or ethnicity. Stand against race baiting from whatever quarter it emerges. Be realistic. Don't limit 'social context' to the parameters that suit your agenda.
People such as yourself, who spend a number of days arguing in defense of the stand you have chosen to take forget that you are, for the most part, depending on anecdotal evidence supplied to you by others. You have not experienced the problems you claim exist. I get it. I'm a big under dog supporter myself but I need to see evidence of underdog status in order to step to the plate.
Name one problem which is claimed to exist, and prove to me that an individual is not guilty, in some way, of contributing to the problem they perceive (because I am a firm believer that the individual must take responsibility for their part). I'll certainly join you in your crusade. Name one problem that is not illegal and is not punishable by law, which exists that discriminates against any minority and I'm right behind you. But, just throwing out general accusations; without also providing examples to back up the claim, should not be taken seriously by reasonable people.
I don't want to assume too much, so I'll need some clarity.
"I could give you examples . . . of current groups who have suffered historical discrimination or social atrocities who have not used it . . . "
Which groups did you have in mind?
" . . . who have not used it to consistently, over generations, claim that the historical problems are current and whole classes of people must bear the guilt of past offenses. "
Who do you believe has "used" social atrocities over generations, and what do you mean by used it over generations?
"What obligation do we have to groups which choose not to evolve within the society they live in;"
Which groups do you believe have not evolved within the society we live in?
" . . . but subcultures also result in missed opportunities"
I want to clarify these things before addressing your comment.
Groups which suffered discrimination who we don't hear demanding to be biased and prejudiced; while insisting it is within their rights? Jewish people, the irish,, asians in general, Japanese Americans specifically.
You misunderstood, or misconstrued, the 'social atrocities' statement. It was meant that it is a historical fact; but several generations (if not much more) removed; depending on the injustice. How many children's children's children who might bear some resemblance to those abused (or not) are allowed to claim offense at the actions of great great great (and sometime more) grandfathers of some who share a skin color with others?
Those who chose to identify within any subculture will find their opportunities minimized; depending on that sub culture. Which subcultures? Any that cause behavior patterns and/or dress and appearance to make a person less than desirable for specific jobs. Here's a list from Wikipedia. I would not consider this to be a complete list, but it is a start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_subcultures.
None of these subcultures are race or ethnicity specific. But let's take 2. One on the list. One not. Let's take a hip hop culture which glorifies the hatred of police, drugs and that unfortunate fashion thing called sagging. And let's take a neo nazi alt righter. Either, fully immersed in that sub culture would be qualified for what jobs, specifically? Either, would be prone to be discriminated against, for what reasons? Either would not find invitations to join what particular clubs?
Neither of those subcultures are specific to race or gender. Both include people of various colors. Both will suffer discrimination. But, we ignore the individual actions which can cause what some call social injustice and what others might call anti social behavior which has caused a degree of ostrification from the larger culture it functions within.
Some sub cultures on that list are cultures not by choice, but by birth or circumstances beyond that person's control. We are morally and ethically obligated to ensure these types of cultures are protected against any and all discrimination but I do not feel that we have the same moral obligations towards subcultures chosen. Two example of which were given in the previous paragraph.
Actions taken by the individual which are clearly seen as dangerous or antisocial cannot be ignored when looking at outcomes. If you walk into a job interview sagging your pants or with a Nazi symbol emblazoned on a tshirt it will have negative consequences. Not being qualified for the highest paying jobs available to your educational range because you present yourself in a manner that is not conducive to good public relations will have negative consequences. Attempting to rent an apartment dressed such will have negative consequences. The list goes on. I do not find any of those negative consequences unreasonable.
I don't think the cause of racial inequality in America is hip hop (sagging pants and all).
The centuries of slavery, followed by Jim Crow, followed by continued segregation, followed by implicit racial bias are more likely to be key factors.
The argument that other races have experienced the same degree of sustained, systemic oppression in America, is not borne out by historical facts.
Even if it were, that argument merely implies that one social group (which happens to consist of people with brown skin) is inherently worse at overcoming adversity than all the others. Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying, that's literally racism.
Likewise, the idea that racial inequality is mainly the product of people (who all happen to have brown skin) deciding to make more bad choices than other social groups. Again that implies people from that social group are inherently prone to making bad choices. Without an alternative explanation, that's also a racist narrative.
I believe the disparities we see between races stem from lasting economic deprivation caused by, for example, historical exclusion from land and property ownership; loss of opportunity due to overt and implicit racial bias; continued systemic racism; the ongoing dismissal of systemic racism in favor of blaming individuals etc.
Some argue that poverty is the real issue, which affects all social groups.
If poverty alone were the issue, we should only see significant disparities between different socio-economic groups, regardless of race. E.g. all poor people doing worse than all middle class people etc. We don't. We also see disparities between races, even after accounting for socio-economic level i.e. comparing poor black with poor white, middle class black with middle class white etc.
Again, if you have alternative explanations for that, great please share. But at the moment, you seem to be suggesting people in the social group generally most affected, are inherently different (worse) from other social groups at overcoming adversity, making good choices and "evolving" with society.
Which leads to the whole hip-hop, Nazism, subculture thing.
I get the general point you're making about individuals and outcomes. But aside from the fact that the point you're making is wrong, the way you've chosen to express it is . . . surprising.
You've compared hip-hop culture with the alt-right, a group that incorporates extreme right-wing ideology, including Nazism. That's a poor comparison.
As I keep saying in this thread, just because two things meet the same definition, that does not necessarily make them equivalent.
Wearing sagging pants is not even remotely equivalent to wearing a Nazi swastika, a symbol that indicates someone supports genocide.
Sure, hip hop culture is not without its issues, but whatever you think of the music, dance, art and fashion of hip hop, it doesn't equate to literal Nazism. That's just silly.
And this is a common refrain. Instead of addressing the issue of systemic racism, which is difficult, uncomfortable and complex, people go out of their way to blame individuals, because that's easy, fits all the right narratives, and is simple.
You seem to forget that systemic racism, in some shape or form, is the norm not the exception, relative to the age of the country. It was present from day one.
There has undoubtedly been improvements, but the pervasive and insidious effects of historical systemic racism are still being felt, and current systemic racism, which exists in different forms, exacerbates the issue, and dismissing the issue entirely makes it even worse.
I have seen no alternative explanation of the various disparities between races that doesn't rely on some form of racist narrative at its core. If you have such an explanation I would be glad to hear it.
But as I said before, taking control over your life to the greatest extent possible is a good way to live. People don't have to blame all their problems on racism, or define themselves as victims. Individuals from different social groups can (and do) succeed.
That doesn't mean we have to deny oppressive circumstances exist though. While it is possible to escape those circumstances, we all have a civic duty to work towards eliminating the unjust conditions that cause them in the first place.
A good starting point would be learning what the concept of systemic racism is all about.
The point I am attempting to make is that you claim systemic racism....without factoring anything else into the equation. You must prove it exists, while factoring all things in. Or, you are making excuses.
I can claim discrimination because of sex. But, it will only be taken seriously if I can prove it, after all factors are considered. If I deny you the right to look at all factors, I could be just making excuses to cover up for my own shortcomings.
I don't think systemic racism is the only factor. That would be as ludicrous as suggesting "bad choices" are the only factor.
And the question is not really "does systemic racism exist?" Such racism is the norm, relative to the age of the country. The question is "did systemic racism ever really go away?"
To say it did, is to say racial equality now exists across all social structures and institutions for the first time in US history. Claiming such a momentous achievement warrants a request for proof. I've seen no such proof.
The "bad choices" explanation is a bad one, because it doesn't actually explain anything. Multiple people, in multiple families, across multiple generations, across an entire social group, don't all just decide to repeatedly make "bad choices", to the extent that it creates significant disparities between that social group and others in the areas of employment, education, health and numerous others.
The scope of the issue alone, suggests it's systemic in nature, and not based on the proclivity of some individuals to make bad choices.
The only alternative I have seen to that argument, is the idea that some races are inferior/ superior to others. Obviously I totally reject that, because I don't subscribe to white supremacy and racist ideology.
If you have an explanation for the disparities between social groups that makes more sense than "bad choices", and doesn't rely on racist ideology, I'd be happy to review it.
Until I see a better explanation, systemic racism is the best we have for the phenomenon we are seeing.
That's pretty much a catch 22 you've got going. If you are going to set the bar at 'all social structures and all institutions' always. Of course it exists. But, I would disagree that it always exists in any particular place. Or that any particular individual has no recourse to fight it.
I'd also argue that any current effect on any particular individual is more negative than the effect of bringing up generation after generation and causing them to believe it is still wide spread and insurmountable. I would argue that instilling such a belief in any minority population could contribute greatly to any problem. Action, reaction, back and forth it bounces. To the detriment of the person actively seeking to validate that belief.
It can also reasonably be argued that systemic racism exists within minority populations and various subcultures. To the detriment of those not agreed by that subculture as belonging.
I'm not setting the bar. People in this thread are saying systemic racist doesn't exist at all. That's the same as saying racial equality exists everywhere. I'm don't believe that's true, and if someone claims it is, I think it's reasonable to ask them to prove it.
As I said before, I don't think systemic racism is the only factor. I do think it is a significant one.
Yes, individuals have recourse to challenge specific instances of racism (providing they have the time, money, inclination). Systemic racism is harder for an individual to challenge though, because by definition it's all-encompassing. That's one of the reasons collectivist groups have become more prominent. It's something that has to be addressed at societal level.
Instilling negative beliefs within social groups is an issue, but perhaps not in the way you are suggesting. Internalized racism or internalized oppression is another type of harm systemic racism can cause.
When people within a social group are told they are worth less than others, and that message is reinforced with acts of racial injustice, some people within that group can start believing the negative stereotypes, which creates a negative self-image.
Those videos of black children describing black dolls as "ugly" and "bad" are an example of internalized racism/ oppression. Obviously those children were not born with those beliefs about themselves. They have learned them from society.
Such beliefs form part of a cycle of oppression, because they shape and influence those young people's attitudes and expectations about the world and about themselves, which combined with their experiences of interpersonal racial prejudice, can severely impact their lives.
I'm not sure what you mean by "systemic racism exists within minority populations and various subcultures". If you mean hierarchies exist within social groups, then yes they do, but I'm not sure how that relates to the issue of systemic racism.
Unless you have created a new definition for the term, other than what is defined historically ( which considering the conversation thus far, wouldn't be surprising) I am surprised you are having a problem.
And you don't seem to understand that when you accuse somebody of racism, you need proof. Are you religious?
Again context Onusonus. There is a difference when a black person uses racial language as a reaction towards white suprematism compared with a white peson using the same laguage to defend against a black extremism.
You can not always say if A does something to B it has the same value as if B does something to A.
When a man makes a sexist remark it has a different impact then when a women makes a sexist remark or when a homosexual makes a sexist remark towards a hetrosexual it has not the same effect as a hetrosexual calls a homosexual by names.
Everything must be seen in the context it is said. If you dont, if you leave context out of the quotation the sentence does not have meaning, or worse changes meaning or becomes a lie. Dont you think?
What are you talking about? Suprematism is a crappy art form based on simple geometry.
Also I agree that everything has to be seen in context. Just not social context. Because that's a BS word.
Racism isn't okay ever obviously but that isn't racism, the system has to be working against you for it to be racism, you have to be a minority - white people aren't minorities this is just prejudice not racism
Wrong, racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
As you have seen, some people are so shocked the meaning of a word can change over time, they fail to note the point you are making.
I acknowledge your point.
Within the current social context, personal prejudice by white people against black people, can affect the rights of black people in ways that personal prejudice by black people against white people simply cannot.
So although racial prejudice by a person of color against white people can be just as rude or insulting on a personal level, it is not equivalent.
Some people are hung up on the idea that both are the same because they meet the same definition.
But firing a gun at someone and giving someone a noogie both meet the definition of violence. No sensible person would suggest those actions are equivalent though.
Yet here we are, with people insisting that just because two comments meet the definition of racial prejudice, or racism (as it's commonly defined) that those comments are equivalent, and should be treated the same.
They aren't and they shouldn't.
Again, racism is a belief. Argue with a dictionary.
Dictionaries (eventually) reflect words and usage. They don't determine them.
All new usage exists before it enters a dictionary. It's included in a dictionary precisely because people are using it.
If words and usage were rejected on the grounds they are not already in a dictionary, no new words or usage could exist.
So you are wrong to imply kiylahskies' usage of "racism" (racist belief combined with power) is somehow invalid because it's not currently in a dictionary.
The most you can reasonably say is that this usage has not met the required frequency and breadth of use necessary for inclusion in a dictionary (yet).
If you choose not to accept it on those grounds, that's your choice, but that doesn't change the fault in reasoning kiylahskies (and others) have highlighted: just because two things meet the same definition, that doesn't make them equivalent.
And you still haven't produced any evidence that systemic equality exists. Are you planning to, or have you given up? Presumably your belief in systemic equality is based on something. If it's not based on evidence, what's it based on?
So not only do you believe in guilty until proven innocent, but now you get to change the meaning of words at will.
Misrepresenting my comments won't help you.
It doesn't change the fact that just because two things meet the same definition, that doesn't make them equivalent.
It doesn't change the fact that you have not provided proof that systemic equality exists, even though you think beliefs must be based on evidence, otherwise they are merely assumptions.
When your own belief fails your own test of reasoning, that says something about either your belief, your reasoning, or both. I'll leave you to decide which.
I pretty much summed up exactly what you believe. I just did it without all the sugar coating.
I'm sure you would like nothing more than to change this nations constitution to reflect that sentiment. Fortunately for the rest of us it remains in tact.
I believe the burden of proof lies with the person claiming something exists, not the person denying it, which is a widely understood, and uncontroversial convention.
You summarized that as: "you believe in guilty until proven innocent".
I could "summarize" your comments in a similar way. I won't though because it's dishonest and unproductive. Do me the same courtesy.
Unfortunately (for you) misrepresenting people's views won't help with the issues in your reasoning.
Again, have you given up trying to prove systemic equality exists, or is there some evidence you'd like me to review? If you've given up and accept you can't prove the claim, do you now reject the idea systemic equality exists as per your own reasoning? If not, why not?
Likewise, do you believe two things that meet the same definition are necessarily equivalent? If not, why are you suggesting they are? Would a dictionary definition of the word "equivalent" help you? I know how much you like dictionary definitions.
You are the one claiming systemic racism exists. Prove it.
If someone accused you of being racist, should you have to prove otherwise, or should they have to provide the evidence?
Systemic Racism exists only in the minds , relationships and politics of those looking for societal "reparations "of one form or another .
Prove it is right . What they want us to believe is that because we are born white in America that we are thus part of the problem simply by association . That we certainly were born with genes proving our bias , prejudice and an inherent need to dominate other races and ethnicities .
Poppycock or as we say in the sticks B.S.!
But I haven't accused you of racism. And no one has accused me of racism. By definition, it's impossible to accuse an individual of systemic racism.
You are the one claiming systemic equality actually exists. Prove it.
If someone claimed leprechauns actually exist, should you have to prove otherwise, or should they have to provide the evidence?
I believe that Onusonus is indicating that there is racism against Caucasians. However, the definition of racism is the dominant race in the society having THE POWER to deny avenues such as basic services &/or providing inferior services to the oppressed race. In this society, there is no systemic racism against Caucasians because the latter is dominant & has power. What Onusonus meant is that Caucasians are discriminated against but they are objects of systematic racism in America.
Thanks, but I think it only fair that Onusonus be allowed to explain for himself what he means.
So let's ask him.
Onusonus, do you believe "the definition of racism is the dominant race in the society having THE POWER to deny avenues such as basic services &/or providing inferior services to the oppressed race"?
Round and round we go. You can't answer the question because it contradicts your reasoning.
Do you have to prove you aren't racist, or should someone have to prove that you are?
Do you have to prove leprechauns don't exist, or should someone claiming they exist have to prove they do?
It's interesting how people's arguments stall when their own reasoning is played back at them.
I wonder if there are any lessons to learn from that.
Probably depends on whether they recognize they are essentially arguing with themselves.
Well then go ahead and try to prove you're not racist.
Round and round we go. You can't answer the question because it contradicts your reasoning.
Do you have to prove leprechauns don't exist, or should someone claiming they exist have to prove they do?
You're the one claiming the big bad racist boogeyman exists.
You're the one claiming the mythical equality fairy exists.
So if one company proves to be racist then there is no equality in the rest of the entire system? That's poor reasoning. This is why collectivism, and social justice is garbage.
Find the racism and address it when and where it happens, regardless of who is responsible. Nobody gets a pass no matter what the color of their skin is.
So if one company proves to have good equality and inclusion practices then there is total racial equality in the rest of the entire system? That's poor reasoning. This is why individualism, and denial of systemic racism is garbage.
Find any good examples of equality and inclusion, and encourage it, when and where it happens. Everyone has a duty to help eliminate racial inequality, especially those in social groups that have benefited the most from it.
Then quit your job and give it to a black guy.
By the way, saying the exact opposite of what I'm saying is the lamest form of rebuttal.
If you want to turn a discussion about racism into nothing more than a pi**ing contest, that's your choice.
But don't start whining when all you get is a pi**ing contest.
If you need to go away to a safe space, that's fine. If you want to say something sensible, that's fine too. I don't mind which you do.
But if you continue engaging in bad-faith, and misrepresent people's views then, lame or not, you'll continue to get nothing more than a mirror image of yourself which, as your comment confirms, leaves a lot to be desired.
I realize that it's hard for you to admit that you have the lamest or laziest argument in this entire forum. I'm not quite sure what a safe space is, sounds about as effective as a gun free zone. More liberal delusion of reality.
Your solution to racism serves to only make white people feel guilty, and minorities feel angry about something that they have no control over. All the while giving a pass to one group who has the luxury of being as racist or bigoted as they want to be, and the rest just have to put up with it.
This is the prefect liberal solution for creating animosity and division.
Of course if folks like Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton actually pursued a solution to end their Systemic racism fantasy, they would be putting themselves out of business, and guys like you couldn't push your morally bereft social justice agenda on people.
I realize that it's hard for you to admit that you have the lamest or laziest argument in this entire forum. I'm not quite sure what systemic equality looks like, sounds about as realistic as the idea that more guns are the answer to the gun problem. More conservative delusion of reality.
Your solution to racism serves to only make black people feel guilty, and the majority feel superior about something they have complete control over. All the while giving a pass to one group who has the luxury of being as racist or bigoted as they want to be, and the rest just have to put up with it. This is the prefect conservative solution for maintaining the status quo.
Of course if folks like Donald Trump, and Mitch McConnell actually pursued a solution to end systemic racism, they would be putting themselves out of business, and guys like you couldn't push your morally bereft social inequality agenda on people.
Good morning mister Onusonus. The majority of people want to benefit from public services. When the government see or they get a report of someone not doing their job right that it is when they get fire. Also, people sing contracts for many years, and corporations are not allow to hire them again because that it is their rules on their company. Racism is rare. Their is always an explanation to someone act to the affected person. The affected person knows it too. They do not want to tell the truth of the matter.
", it may arguably cause problem with divisiveness, but it is not racism because, ultimately, white people will not lose their power and privilege over it."
What about whites that have zero power and privilege. This is the type of rhetoric that helped lead us to the clown in office today. It's not productive for anyone.
Yes, if you already have zero privilege, you aren't going to lose it. I thought it was clear that those who face the threat of losing power are those that started out with it. White people in power will not lose it from most of these attacks. Maybe, next time, I'll be more clear.
The majority of White people are loosing their empire. In which, the white people today are being out strategizes by the 86℅ non-white population of the world. America has more non-whites being born than whites. Most win strategy in war are by sheer greater numbers of people. The only obstacles to take down is the white secret societies that are running as paper tigers. Then equality will come closer to a reality slowly.
They're white, that's their privilege - if you're white you can't possibly say you have no privilege. Sure lots of white people have hard lives harder than other people of colour, you can have a hard life and be white but your life can never be hard because you're white
In what way do white people have power and privilege, I ask?
Those who have moral boundaries, respect for others, and live by the golden rule have power and privilege. Power and privilege can be had by all in this country. This is the ideal which we must fight for and focus on. We have laws toward this end. They must be followed. They must be enforced.
Your ancestors weren't enslaved, you have a higher chance of getting a job even with a criminal record than a black person. You probably will never feel afraid of the police, so yes white people have privealage
You have absolutely no idea whose ancestors were enslaved, or were not. And your belief that white people can't have a hard life, simply because they are white, is so naive as to be ludicrous.
Racism didn't originate with government , apologists of the left primarily blame every human fault on government because "government" is easy to blame , Stop it , that is the easy way out of a debate , it's lame , it's bogus and it just pushes all of our societal problems down the road for someone else to solve.
Absolutely correct LtoL , the use in and of "racism " in our media , by bigoted activists , by generalizing and sensationalizing media pundits unfortunately has diminished the sanctity of all solutions to racism .
White people , and I'm sure so many minorities too, shake their heads every day when we see the blatant misuse of any terminology. Racism is a particularly sensitive issue because for so long so many people not only sacrificed but educated themselves and even their children to this cause .
So be it in the use of this false accusatory charge. it does however prove without one doubt that there are many, many intellectual racists who still haven't learned the lessons of history . Perhaps one day the lessons from the streets will rise to the occasion and teach academia's ivory towered hearts that they are filled with bigotry and racism too and perhaps moreso .
I will say that railing against the white man seems blind, to me. All you have to do is observe what has happened in the African sub continent during recent years (South Africa playing that out, today), the Middle East, etc. Order and progress is a major part of the legacy of Western civilization. Western values are what have given us the freedom to have these conversations, the technology to converse globally and the wealth to do it in comfort.
If we blame the big bad white man we should, in the same breath, give him kudos.
I have been reading up on the opinions of racism and reverse racism , there are those who say there's no such thing as the reverse of racism , No I guess there isn't . However , there is probably a larger percentage of minorities who are racist towards whites than whites by percentage towards others . We'll never truthfully know because we have a media driven to the bias of the politically correct .
Trump should pass a law making the very word illegal with stiff fines and repercussions for using it especially falsely ! I for one am sick to death of those who know nothing of racism throwing the word around in accusatory fashion as if they knew ,..... as if they knew !
Say Racism - Pay a ten thousand dollar fine .
Today's news- yesterday's cause ,we really have to ask Why is it okay to for racism to be used by the democratic activists as a tool ? The charge is thrown around like fresh wet snow- balls the morning after a storm every single election cycle ?
Most of the young activists and parrots using the term today can't tell you when slavery actually happened , why or in what proportions America participated. What 5 % of slave traffic came to north America ? It Seems , other than easy victimology , we should be celebrating the progress and not the negative .
It's just "Tool box" terminology.
We have to give "students " a little leeway , they know nothing but what they are fed by the Bill Ayers of modern academia , No one alive today the slave holder or the slave . But hey , That's just facts and has nothing to do with TODAY'S racism , Today it's about "white privilege " , My problem is just where the heck that exists , I seem to have a ton of trouble joining up with mine.
With what just happened to Candace Owens, I think we can all agree that the term 'racist' is synonymous with conservative to the left. Agree with the left, or you're racist.
absolutely , Funny isn't it pools show more blacks sliding over and cozying up to Trump more now than before .
From what I have read Candace Owens was banned from Twitter for posting comments by Sarah Jeong, replacing the word "white" with "black".
Some people criticized the ban, saying she was only posting those comments to make a point. Twitter have apparently reversed it.
Can I assume those who consider Jeong's comments racist, also consider Owens' altered versions racist and support her being banned from Twitter? Or does the social context of a comment suddenly matter now?
at least two years' worth of unqualified, unprompted racist Tweets vs. a single Tweet that was explicitly crafted to make a point.
No need to hand-wave social context, regular context explains it just fine.
Sorry for the confusion. No. I wasn't talking about the Twitter story. I saw she was harassed outside of a restaurant by antifa. A black woman, being protected by black police and white protesters calling them racist. Because she is a conservative who expected a quiet breakfast, was the only explanation anyone could figure.
I love it when people just assume that they understand an entire group of people. You don't like the left for generalizing the right as racist. Please don't generalize the left either. No single political party is going to be monolithic. I know you aren't the only one who has ever done this and I apologize for calling out this comment and not any other comment (whether it was a comment directed as the right or the left). As a member of the left, I just felt that I had to stand up for myself here.
You are certainly welcome to (and should) stand up for yourself. Unfortunately, reading your comments in this thread, you would fall into the category.
The problem with blame is...there is enough to go around. For everyone. Solutions have to work...for everyone. Whether a proponent of one side recognizes it,or not. There are always valid arguments against and for. That is the nature of human interaction. In order to blame, you have to focus only on negatives and ignore positives. You cannot expect other parties to follow suit.
We have to accept that 'the West' and 'white' are synonymous. We have to take into account the strides society had made in the attempt to continuously broaden full participation in the concept of individual freedom. And, we cannot turn a blind eye to the accountability of the individual.
Does society have a ways to go? You betcha. Has progress stagnated? No. You can't make progress in inclusiveness by attempting to ostracize.
I'm not sure what about your comment is something you think I'd seriously disagree with. I would just add that, while historically the west and white are synonymous, the west/white people need to be making an active effort at inclusion, or else what exactly is the west good for if not for true egalitarianism? We may simply disagree with what those efforts should be.
The only comments in this thread that I really made is about language choice. I simply said terms such as "racism", "privilege", and "power" mean something very specific. I'm not sure when I ostracized anyone and I'm sorry about that. I agree that alienation is not a solution. I also don't think careful language choice is necessarily a solution either. Admittedly, I would say that political correctness is important, but I don't currently have a strict definition of political correctness, so I would say to avoid things like racial slurs and you're probably good.
I would contend that vast amounts of effort have already been put forth and that our country (barring Neanderthal hold outs) remains firmly committed to the ideals of a color blind society. But, being who I am,I'm not going to be bashed for crimes committed prior to my introduction into the world or the actions of other individuals.
I actually refused to allow my son to be in close proximity to one of his grandparents because of my firm disapproval of ethnic slurs. But, I challenge anyone to say the west hasn't made great strides in inclusiveness. America, specifically. But, we are so much more diverse than many other countries in the west and had open immigration policies for quite a while. I don't see anyone as not open to conversation but race baiting seems to be acceptable from any non white party and I see many whites virtue signal in a mad rush to distance themselves from the attacks on that particular skin color.
My family led the charge for integration in their time. We were raised to respect all individuals. This was not the norm back then. We have made great strides, as a nation. We certainly have room for improvement but I am not a fan of the current climate of social media mobs and double standards. That is not progress.
And, I do see white privilege as a myth. Maybe, middle class and upper class privilege. There are many factors involved in how we perceive and react to one another. I don't know that skin tone is a deal breaker in the vast majority of encounters. I need much more info than a one sided sound bite to come to a judgment on most of the things I see presented as reason for outrage.
I'm not surprised that we disagree on what the solutions should be. I would say everyone needs to hold themselves accountable because studies have shown that unconscious bias is extremely prevalent. I remember Harvard ran a test about generalizations that showed white people tend to accidentally make detrimental stereotypes with regard to people of color. I remember Scientific America ran an article about implicit bias. There was also a study about how "black-sounding" and "Latinx-sounding" names on a resume would hurt a person's ability to get a job. There are many other similar studies as well. Therefore, you may not be intentionally causing problems, but there is a high chance that some of the smaller things you do are actually making the situation worse. Again, if you think you are making an effort every single day to try to improve yourself, then you are doing what I think you have to do.
I also do not think white privilege is a myth. First of all, class privilege is closely tied to white privilege. When the economic disparity between whites and nonwhite is so huge and so consistent, you have to acknowledge an individual black community that is doing poorly does not exist in a vacuum. Likewise, one case of a black person being followed by a security guard in a store is not an isolated incident. I know that there are plenty of poor white people, but not per capita. Furthermore, black people are the victims of more hate crimes than anyone else, even though they make up 12% of the population, which just shows that black people have to live with a certain amount of fear with which white people do not have to live. The ability to walk outside and be relatively certain that you will not be a victim of a hate crime or some other type of serious bias is a privilege that black people do not usually have. You admitted to the Neanderthal holdouts and I just think we have to acknowledge how much of a difference those holdouts make in the lives of a person of color.
Of course we need to be individually responsible. All parties. Individually responsible does not include my being guilty of the actions of an individual across the country or that of society prior to my participating in it. Now, if I as an individual did not speak out when witnessing inappropriate actions of another then, yes, I bear responsibility on several levels. But, again, the same holds true across the board. If I see race baiting I have as much a responsibility to stand up for a white person as I do for any other individual. As should everyone.
Feel free to stand up for white people. Stand against bullies as much as you want. Just recognize "reverse racism" or whatever we want to call it these days is starkly different from racism against people of color.
Additionally, I would never condone guilt. In fact, most liberals take serious issue with what is generally known as "white guilt". Guilt is not productive. Action is. Of course, I cannot speak for all liberals, but I think most people would agree that action is better than guilt is.
The problem is that one has to expand the definition of racism in order to have it fit your reasoning. Society has not agreed on this expanded definition. You will continuously encounter push back when insisting on muddying the waters in order to attempt to gain the upper hand in the discussion.
In general, the right sees the sociological definition of racism as an expanded definition of racism. Meanwhile, the left sees it as an expansion if you start defining racism as something that makes white people just as much of a victim as anyone else. I'm not sure if there is actually a way to bridge this gap. Some people will always say that the sociological definition of racism is ridiculous. Some people will always say that people of color are disproportionately impacted by racism and there needs to be a way to acknowledge that.
The truth is that I don't think we have to expand any definitions. I don't think there is anything problematic with using racism labels when it looks like traditional racism, while using a different label for something else until we can all agree on a definition. There are plenty of terms out there. Personally, I like to call people bullies. It is a relatively innocuous term in that it really does not discriminate in any way.
To be honest, at this point, we're arguing over nitty gritty details of words, which is not actually practical, but it is still a fun exercise and I'm happy to keep going.
Gee, BoredStudent, what are you, a Rhodes Scholar?
I been saying much of the same thing for quite awhile, but it has more than often fallen
upon deaf ears.
Ahhh- the north won the Civil War, hence the north writes the history.
If you read any intelligent discussion of the Civil War, it was not about slavery.
If it was, why did Lincoln only outlaw slavery in the Confederate States, but not the northern states?
Because if he had outlawed it in the Northern States, he would have been shot a lot sooner. He would never have lasted as president if he had outlawed slavery in the north.
That was almost 160 years ago. Whatever the reasons for the war thankfully the abolition of a terrible institution was one of the outcomes.
I guess you never read the secession letters. Because it's fairly obvious that the Southern States were pretty obsessed with preserving their "peculiar institution" of slavery.
I think that a majority of Americans are fatigued with any "dialog " about racism , I say dialog but today it's really a monologue , Accusatory racism , systematic , systemic , white privilege , white guilt , .............enough , the causes ,the implementation , the act, the result , .......................almost the entire story of racism , slavery and at this point , the aftermath are all experiences that very few people alive today either caused , experienced or cured .
Slavery and indentured labor , I wish some college professor somewhere in America would do a study on just how many white immigrants came into America from other countries under the guise of indentured servants , in studying the issue anyone would be surprised just how many places in small town or big city America you can still find written records of indentured laborers , I for one in studying family genealogy find these often hand written notes in town clerks or administrators offices .
Yet in the P.C. culture of today in America ; All we hear about is one ethnicity , one color , one victimology while in these records you'll find the Irish , Scottish , English , Italians , Franco - Americans , eastern European nationalities .............the minorities of every country in the melting pot that America is , have been "enslaved " by yes the wealthy but also working class farms , factories and basic households , even towns and cities had indentured servants made up of primarily poor , indebted immigrants . Usually all of them getting only "food , room and board " and sometimes a small weekly stipend .
Americans need to reign in their focusing primarily on P.C images of only black people picking cotton under the hot sun and look at the larger pictures of what once was a primarily agrarian culture , an economy of widespread poverty ,working class people and almost an entire civilization of farm dwelling people where about everybody worked in the fields at one time in America .
Would you then blame the discrepancies in such cultural acts and facts as crime , abortions , black on black crimes and gang activities on white privilege and racism? What about single family homes , fatherless children , "fatherless children ".........what a term huh,don't all kids have a father ?
These charts came from one googling .
How does one explain that traditionally not only do African Americans by a majority vote liberal , live in liberally managed inner cities and similar enclaves BUT that the democratic party continues to maintain the bull-- horn over the charges of racism , institutional racism , white privilege etc...........while controlling the very poverty OR privilege of blacks in these places for up to a century ?
I am going to completely disregard the fact that I have no way of verifying these graphs since your source was google images. I will take you at your word and assume these graphs are accurate and address the fact that we are very clearly on totally different wavelengths.
You show me some graph about how black people usually grow up without a father and assume that means there is a problem with black culture. Maybe there is. I actually made a comment on this thread about black culture and why certain attitudes from black people are not always productive. However, to me, the fact that so many black people grow up without a father is just a sign that black people start out at a disadvantage. This disadvantage simply cycles and spirals, but I think we can trace its origins back to something like slavery or Jim Crow. The fact that this disadvantage seems to exist goes back to my whole point about privilege. Obviously, however, you see this graph as some sort of sign that black people are worse people or something.
I think we face a similar problem with opposing wavelengths around your graphs about incarceration and violent crimes. In the numbers between the amount of black and white violent criminals, I see a discrepancy factor of maybe five or ten. In the incarceration graph, I see a factor of about twenty. Therefore, even though more black people are committing crimes, there is still a disproportionate amount of them who are punished for it. Of course, you only covered violent crimes. I don't have the statistics handy, but I assume more white people commit white collar crimes. There are more black people living in violent areas and more white people in white collar businesses. Therefore, it actually makes sense that white people are more likely to commit white collar crimes and more black people will commit violent crimes.
The final chart you gave me was circle chart about abortions. I feel like now would be a bad time to get into a fight with you about morality and legality of abortions. It's really besides the point. However, I will say that study after study has shown that abortion rates go up with poor sex ed. Since, as you say, black people are often from inner cities, black people are more likely to have a subpar education. Additionally, many people of color feel uncomfortable trusting adoption agencies because kids of color tend to do much worse in orphanages and foster care. Therefore, they often opt for abortion in place of adoption.
Lastly, thank you for calling out the Democratic Party for having problems with managing race issues in the inner cities. I am glad that you see that people in power are often somewhat racist. After all, power often plays a big role in racism. Blowing the racism bullhorn does not exonerate anyone, whether you are a democrat or a republican. Democrats blow this horn, which is definitely a start, but I will never believe it is enough until it is actually enough. I will gladly hold my own party accountable. I hope you do the same for yours.
For once a liberal that when handed the truth actually sounds reasonable ? I don't quite know what to say . Reality check , we all live in modern day America , not 1890 for instance . There are neither ex- slaves nor ex slaveholders in our midsts ,
Our news media , and I say ours with many ,many reservations , is distorting the very meaning of the word racism in modern America , with the inclusion of a very friendly democratic party they have rather hysterically sensationalized something that is neither productive ,one , And is extremely distorted and entirely divisive on the other hand . When we accuse by false narrative and wave false media flags inciting violence to that end -We accomplish nothing in solutions. This has been an agenda of the left , not the right .
Furthermore ,No. It is NOT okay to be racist ! But the media and ideologically created entity of victimology has to take a hard inner look at the genuinity and agenda of the party that mostly keeps "racism " alive and breathing strong .
I will always blame Pres. Obama for inciting his administration, media , academia ,and ideological war against whites , against figures of authority in law enforcement , against the long and dedicated flow of racial healing in America . Reopening wounds with a combination P.C. salve made up of salt and vinegar .
While there are no ex-slaves, nothing exists in a historical vacuum. It's 2018 and I was hoping that, by now, the term "color blind" wouldn't be so contentious, but it is because we still have a long way to go. You seem to think liberals are at fault for whatever progress we have not yet achieved, but I simply disagree. To be sure, everyone may play a role in racial disparities, but I think it was people of color who incited the recent cries of racism. I think they were experiencing racism and they complained about it. Liberals have sensationalized and politicized these complaints, which may have caused divisiveness in the name of making democrats the guardians of equality. The solution is not to simply disparage democrats. The solution is to take a long hard look at why people of color seem to be experiencing hate. Many of these people are not the types to be convinced by the media that their experiences are functions of racism, especially Latinx individuals who -- according to my Argentinian grandfather -- rarely follow politics. Once we understand the source of this hate, we can try to dismantle it. Again, I would not blame the liberal media alone. I would blame a number of different institutions.
You also blame Obama and I am willing to believe that Obama was one of the people of color who cried racism. I think he did it because his constituents included more people of color than any other president. He wanted their continued support and racism was something that they cared about it. White people may not have seen it because insufficient light had been shed on the issue in the past. I am pleased that this light is no longer insufficient. Hopefully, thrusting racism into the spotlight may actually make it possible for this country to achieve progress.
Bored Student , We HAVE TO ALSO acknowledge that there is a falsism of some extent to today's media generated rhetoric , in other words ,what percentage of this rhetoric is actually positive ? When false cause is used in ANY issue then only false solutions can emerge .
For instance , A couple days ago I watched part of a Ken Burns documentary about slave trafficking , In that film a map showing about 5 % of slave ships traveled all the way to the US , I found that number "encouraging " in one way and disappointing in another . Does the news media tell us this silent little fact ? No. Do "reparations experts " tell us that ? No. Negative aspects of this dialog unfortunately outweigh sometimes the positive , I blame the news media for this .
Negative dialog equals negative results and there is where we must us great caution . The media needs to be more responsible .
Sure, hold the media accountable for misinformation or a misleading agenda, but not primarily responsible for racism. I still contend that racists are primarily responsible and I don't think you're going to convince me otherwise.
My point is that racism accused ; If done falsely and , sensationally , is racism in itself . Anyone that thinks that racism can't come the people accusing doesn't fully understand the meaning OF racism nor the humanity that is capable of such hypocrisy itself.
No, it is not OK to be racist. We do seem to revisit this theme often. To provide a general response to all with the “Student” and Promisem in mind, here it goes.
I can’t blame whites for the entire problem because that would be dishonest, but they, if not individuals, but culture, share a large portion of it. In America, whites always knew that if they had the ability and applied themselves, they had a reasonable expectation of success. Before 1960, for Black people, that was not true. We had just had a landmark decision 6 years before outlawing legalized segregation, and we all knew that separate meant unequal. So, a century after the Emancipation Proclamation, the law says that We were now no longer “second class citizens”, well, what do you know? The right to vote in much of the South was still being denied. How do you control your future in a democracy and elect people that are not going to put more obstacles before you without having the right to vote? With the possible exception of the military and the federal employment, there was no equal opportunity. There was no fair housing, fair lending or anything like this. This was true across the country, not just the South. So, when you had so many obstacles keeping you from benefitting from your innate ability and hard work, is the outcome so much a surprise?
So, yes, we are behind, but you have been “free” since the inception of this country, we have been for only 60 odd years. I get pi$$ed when I think of how much loss potential there was, we could never have had an equivalent to a JD Rockefeller, or J.P Morgan. Structural American racism would have made that impossible.
With the combination of the CRM and favorable court decisions, some of the shroud was lifted for my dad’s generation during the late 1960s and early 1970’s, and subsequently, for me as well. But wealth takes time to accumulate, and is the product of generations and experience handling resources that we simply did not have. This is why most black families are not aware of the concept of inheritance that virtually every white person I know receives in one form or another.
As for us, where do we contribute the problem? I criticize my own for failing to develop the self-discipline and self control needed to overcome so many structural disadvantages. We cannot compete with people who have had advantageous circumstances over centuries without it. Growing up in a Black neighborhood, I always wondered why the disciplinary problems in a mixed school were the Black kids. Their medium was in entertainment and sports, and those that broke that following were labeled as “acting white”. Where did this come from? In later years, I asked a “young blood” or two why the attitude, somewhat surprised that I did not already know. They reveal a profound distrust for the system, afraid that the opportunity was false and that the “man” had a banana peel waiting for them, in some form of racist expression that would short circuit their efforts along the way. It reminded me of the “Peanuts” characters, Charlie Brown and Lucy. Each football season Lucy would invite Charlie Brown to run and punt a football that she was holding. Charlie knew that each year, Lucy would pull the football away and Charlie Brown would fall and land on that perfectly spherical head of his. She reassures him that “that” was not going to happen this time, so he runs for it. But, again she pulls the ball away at the crucial time and he lands on his head.
As a result, the “brothers” prefer making their money in areas where they can maintain a relative control of the outcome, entertainment and sports. Thus, they circumvent the “system”.
Racism in the American culture envelopes us all as does the atmosphere and it works on many subconsciously, even when it is not deliberate. It is like gravity, your every act makes account for it even when you are not thinking about it. It is in the body language, eye contact any number of things that all conscious human beings are cognizant. It was only when I travelled abroad to Europe, did I see much of those ever present cues disappear.
It is these suspicions and fears that keep us apart, our distrust of you and the system and whatever corresponding fears you have of us. These are areas that cannot be codified in any manner; it is going to require a change of minds and hearts that I cannot see coming any time soon. Racism is just another form of imposing power over others. That power is associated with the accumulation of wealth and resources for oneself rather than shared with others. When the strife associated with this power and those who wield it disappears, maybe then, we can confer more comfortably.
This comment was well said. To add to it, since you mentioned JP Morgan and the likes, statistically, those with the money tend to just keep getting richer because of various economic realities. With good money circulation, these riches only sometimes reach the poor and, when they do, they usually reach the poor in much smaller numbers. Therefore, on a purely economic level, richer white people will improve their situation exponentially, while poorer people of color can only improve their situation in a way that looks much more linear (at least at the moment), which only increases economic racial disparities.
What do richer "colored" people or poorer white people do? The same as any other rich or poor people do?
Money does not care about the color of your skin. A poor white person is going to face the similar problems with economic growth as any other poor person. There are simply more poor people of color per capita than there are poor white people per capita.
And are you then willing to state that it is the fault of the Caucasian that that happens? Is it the fault of the rich, black, white, brown or red? Or does the fault lie to a considerable degree with the poor?
The white secret societies and power to be are the worst form of crime. For example.
There is more evidence indicating that white-collar crime is more serious than street crime. Occupationally crimes, they go unpunished. When prisoners have grown 10 times greater in the pass 40 years. Then Corperation bids on these prisoners for cheapest labour. This is like lynching after the civil war. Who reporting this on the news?
That's right , what is reverse racism ?
When its just simple fake racism .
"The white secret societies and power to be are the worst form of crime."
Absolutely! Worse than being raped, being tortured and murdered. Worse by far than the man near me that abused a 6 year old for years and when the boy was to weak to walk, took him to a canal, filled his pockets with rocks and threw him in. Worse than lynching folks, worse than politicians allowing the pollution of resources to the point people die from it.
But they're secret, so no one knows about them or their deeds, right?
These white powers to be, create the bankers, nukes, wars, poverty, pollution, toxic buildings, food weapons, legal drugs that kill us greater than illegal drugs yet the users are most locked up.
The whole offensive snytheic world that continues to get worst.l
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, so a secret white cabal creating nukes, weapons of food and useful chemicals isn't much in my playbook.
(Did you consider that maybe illegal drugs don't kill more people is because they are illegal? It IS a deterrent, after all, and if you're locked up the drug isn't killing you!)
For example, this is how your owners work because they don't own me.
Tobacco kills more people than all the legal drugs and illegal drugs, as it is legal every country in the World . Plus a totally useless plant product.
Where illegal cannabis/marijuana is illegal in every country except one. Has killed no-one directly in 10,000 years. More people in prisons over it, as they kick out the Violent ones and killers prisoners to make room for peaceful potheads. Cannabis plant species is the most useful and productive plant in the world.
I don't suppose these kinds of totally a*s backwards ways of thinking. Like the State and Bankers.
Why would I blame all rich people for the existence of poor people? Why would I blame poor people for it? I'm saying that simple economics is the reason that it's happening. Economics isn't a person; it's just the way our money is going to circulate. I'm contending that all the lower income communities of color are going to have trouble getting of the ground and you can't start blaming things like "black culture" or "victim mentality" alone as some people seem to blame.
That is an intolerant person. Unless she is screaming at an extremists KKK or Trump.
It's not OK to be that way...unless it is screaming at someone you don't like either? Sounds intolerant either way to me!
There is alot better method than screaming at anyone.
Let me change that up some. If the your entire poor brown family is being killed by US troops, signed by Trump. Then I can understand screaming is in order when you loose it.
And if your poor white country is glassed over by nukes from "people of color" the you can scream, too?
I mean, if you're going to make things up, might as well do it right!
No other Country of people of color have ever nuclear bombed another country.
In predominate white America case, they nuked twice.
And thankfully so or you would be speaking German and doing artwork with Japanese sand art .
English language has never been under threat. Because it"s bussiness language and most don't want to learn even more complicated language like Chinese. You seen the truck tire size dictionary books they read????
I guess you lost my point , The US is about to invade Japan in 45 , costing 300,000 to 400,000 US troops lives alone in WWII combined , I wished they had dropped enough bombs to have saved those US , lives , don't you ?
There are 14 other countries of per capita of kills, greater than in the world war two than the Americans.
Russia lost 15℅ of its total population, compare to American less than 1℅ lost of lives.
I believe if any of those countries had had the advanced technological abilities to produce a nuclear bomb...they would have used it. The United States advanced enough to make it and use it. Do you know anything of the horrible things the Japanese did in World War II? The Bataan death march, Nanking massacre, and more. It was justified. Too many people today living comfortable lives can't imagine what people during that time were facing. I've yet to see someone from the left display any competent understanding of the subject.
It's estimated that 20 million died in Russia during WW2. It's estimated over 50 million died in the Soviet Socialist Republic. Socialism appears to be more dangerous than world war.
Where do Mike and you consistently get these crazy ideas?
Mike, I trend left, but as an educated historian, I am well aware of Japanese atrocities during WWII and supported Truman's decision to use the "bomb".
No, L to L dictators and tyrants are the cause of wars and I would blame America and Capitalism for contributing a fair share of imperialism and exploitation in the world.
War is one thing. Socialism is another. Both have caused massive loss of life. That isn't an idea. It's a fact
No, it is not a fact, what have youto support this besides your "opinion"?
Are you saying that millions have not died under socialist regimes? Please look at all. Remember the Nazis were the socialist party so that counts under two headings.
LtoL , Nooo,............Everybody know socialism is the answer to all the ills of the world , a chicken in every dish , pot in every pipe , free country homes for the taking , goats in the yard , daisies in the front yard , free college for life and no one ever dies ....................come on dude who died under socialism ?
No, Socialism is an economic system not a political one. Sweden is a Socialist Democracy and it and its Scandinavian neighbors are among the most peaceful nations on earth.
National Sociaism meant that some industries in Germany were nationalized but the deaths resulting through Hitler and Stalin was that those countries were governed under a fascism/totalitarian political system and that is the stuff of the Right.
So, let's get this straight. Socialism running its natural course is cool until it isn't and then, it's far right. Lol.
And Sweden is not a socialist country.
Yep, looks like things have beenchanging recent years it has pulled back its traditionalsafety net and and is having increases in social inequity so as to quickly resemble the United States, that is most unfortunate, and i stand corrected.
I am not particularly intimidated by Socialism, you are, I get that.
Socialism intimidates me because of its long list of failures.
Edit. I would like to add that I am not unfeeling. I would love to see a reduction in military spending to address many of our poorest citizen's problems. Jesus said the poor would always be among us so we have to accept that, and try to ease their pain. But, I also believe we need to create an environment where everyone works. No free hand outs and certainly not prop up a drugee. The current system we have feeds into the drug problems, in many ways.
Capitalism presents problems, but it just comes from a different direction. I agree, the idea is that everybody should be working and the opportunity provided so that anyone can be productive contributors to society.
That means access to equal education opportunities and job training and eliminate every excuse able bodied people have for not working. When society is willing to do that, I will pay more attention to this. What righty is going to even think about looking at military spending as questionable?
Fact ; No one in the modern political world who naively screams RACIST at other people is ever going to convince those people who are NOT racists ,...................That they actually are racists !
It just makes sense.
Racism exists equally in the mind of any man , be they black , white , brown or purple AND It's beneath intelligent to suggest it is or isn't possible for it exist inside any color or skin .
The attempt to divide hate into unequal proportions is preposterous , Racism is racism , hate is hate , Do all of you really believe that genuine hate from two different races can be defined as anything less than equal amounts ?
You're all overthinking again . That's the biggest problem of being intellectual without the presence of common sense !
There is no attempt to "divide hate into unequal portions". Only an acknowledgement of the imbalance in political and economic power between different social groups.
That imbalance of power means that personal prejudice by white people against black people, can affect the rights of black people in a way that personal prejudice by black people against white people simply can't.
Hate is hate Don , racism is racism ,no matter the origin of color. What imbalance of power and where?
I would love to experiment on horse. I can do professional makeup art. I would paint horse skin black, then give him an Afro hair. Then send him out into white nabougrhoods to live for a year.
If he survived, he would come back screaming for his white privilegevles to be return back to the rightful owner, whites.
"White privilege "?.........Well I don't know ,perhaps throw in a little affirmative action any any other social reengineering benefits availed one of color today ? Maybe I wouldn't have been raised in rural American poverty too ?
Let me think about it .
What war did America ever win?
US claims to have won the world war 2, coming into the war really late. They lost 416,000 compare to 80 million killed, I don't think so
Not the 1812 war against Canada.
Maybe the Mexican-American War, which arguably is the only war that the US won completely by itself. Starting in 1846.
Then Base on Racism the US tries the 1936 Mexican drug called marijuana wars. Still locking up millions of people today, heavy fighting along the border. Cartel, Gangs and lawyers only ones winning big money in these wars the rest of us lose. Have US won against Mexican?, still 60 million Mexican living there.
All the middle eastern countries and other Muslims countries still carrying on. Not counting white secret societies(they are not on the books). No win there, just mostly millions of innocent poor people killed.
Alot people don't know. Hitler wanted to stop the Jewish banking system that was ruining and driving people into a depression like in the US. It is starting all over again with the Centro banking today. The Countries who are being attacked, do not accept their Centro banking.
Those poor trillionaires are challenged again, and war solves nothing again for the rest of us.
Bankers could could clothes, home and feed everyone on earth. Rather than us being owned by them, and living in a debtors world rather than gains.
Take them down, is the only answer.
"The imbalance of political and economic between different social groups ............." That I can except but when we're saying "racial disparities exist" , I think we have to look at the democratic party social programming and reengineering by way of Affirmative Action and multiple welfare programs create as much racial disparity as it ever cures . Look to the party screaming "racism" the loudest and ask ." If so they why create and maintain it all ?"
Maybe racial disparities is a much better term than racism ?
Castle , I have a rule about letting people experiment with me ..............first they have to be able to spell ........:-]
I'm going to throw a question out there that will cause some grief, but it is something that bothers me in this whole discussion. Racism is all about putting people into classes by color. I don't think anyone can argue that many black people have a tendency to do this. It's all over places such as You Tube and other sites where we share ideas and opinions. I've seen many. Things like 'what white people need to know' 'dear white people' 'how white people cook chicken' etc. These are all about how blacks are different.
So, these proponents want us all to recognize the differences in people based on color and culture. They are full of negative judgements, based on skin color. But, any attempt to comment without it being considered racist in nature are impossible.
I've heard complaints by black leaders that it is racism to be offended by foul language and ethnic slurs used by some. It's 'part of the culture'. We should understand that, the leaders say.
If a group is going to argue that they are different, that they should be seen as different, treated differently....should it be any surprise that our collective ability to move toward a more colorblind society is going backwards?
Even BLM. Which started with a fair attempt to bring to light police brutality. This devolved into a demand that white people will their wealth to blacks.
Asking to be in a position to judge and not be judged, to receive and not give back, are recipes for disappointment.
We all love the image of the societal salad bowl but the truth is the melting pot is the better image. A diverse group coming together through shared values. Where the things we have in common bind us as one people who can celebrate their differences. Not where we use our differences as cause to demand everyone, but us, must change.
LTO L , excellent post by the way yet ,If we in America call this a "Melting Pot " by doing so we are then eliminating the possibility that one group can be highlighted , be treated special in any way or be singled out for special treatment .
That will never fit well with the left , there has to be cause for collective outrage and to attain outrage there has to be victimhood and in recognising this there is then a reason for parties growth by the emoting of all political policy . Emotionalism in politics is alive and well on the left even at the cost of truth .
That is definitely one argument against the melting pot analogy. But it doesn't have to be so. We add particular ingredients to a stew because of their original flavor. Celebrating the value of each ingredient doesn't have to be done at the expense of all others.
From my experience living in Canada and the US. Canada has a better system in dealing with Racism.
Canada is like a mosaic of cultures with many multi cultural celebration going on. You can be Muslims first and Canadian second, yet most choose Canadian.
US is like an international airport with money being the melting pot.
It won't work with top leaders being Phycopath , and bankers being your God.
"From my experience living in Canada and the US. Canada has a better system in dealing with Racism"
Castle, I can relate. Canada deals with it better because its past is not covered with the ugliness of the history of race relations associated with life for ethnic minorities in the United States. I have never seen the Canadians tolerate people lynching or intimidating ethnic minorities to anywhere near the same extent. I like the generally law abiding nature of the people. Perhaps, you can tell me why?
While Canada and Europe generally does has its problems, I never got the impression that my entire identity and reactions to me by others was exclusively defined by subtle realities of racism and custom that was always "all encompassing".
It felt different, particularly in Europe, like I was walking around in a space suit on Waikiki. Finally free to shuck so much psychological and emotional baggage, and cutting loose an elephant you have been dragging around for a lifetime. But, having naturally adapted to that reality based on the reality of the American cultural environment.
That is shroud behind race relations that needs to be cleared up and who knows how long it will take?
I like the Canadian idea of "a patchwork quilt" over the idea of "a melting pot" as one indicative of a more advanced society. The former indicates an unconditional acceptance of people as they are and the other says you are accepted based on some amalgamation based standard oddly defined and not attainable by anyone "American norm".
In spite of her faults, this is still MY country, so the "love it or leave" attitude will not work, instead we are going to change it, regardless of the time it continues to take. Besides, we, my wife and I, hail from tropical climes, and Canada is a bit too cold.
Not many blacks take to winter sports. Lol
I am moving to Colombia because the overall mess that keeps growing in North America. Been to USSR, it feels America is going down that old path. Wail Russia and the BRICS are going down a better path. Meaning world war conflict. About 93℅ of the world's war weapons are north of the equator. Race won't matter much then, survival will.
You should try Venezuela. I hear they have socialism in full effect going on right now. You should love it.
If that is a plane ticket to go to Venezuela, as a gift from you.
I would return it to i's rightful owner_you. Same if the ticket was to North Korea, US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. For a lack of freedom and individualism.
Sorry. You aren't a natural citizen and haven't lived there long, according to your comments on this site. You are in a position to see what you want to see. I'm happy that,somewhere in your life, you've found a position not to negatively judge.
If you have a brother and he called you twinkletoes, you could accept that address from your brother, because you know him. You would not welcome being addressed by a pet name by a stranger. The racial slurs are insults from Whites because of the history of the word and the oppression that is associated with it. The word is used AMONG US as a sign of camaraderie and understanding that we come from the SAME struggle. Even though among our group it is not used in polite company.
The true test of an advanced society is can people be different, yet their differences be accepted as part of the general whole as to how they are treated in society? There is no such thing as a "melting pot", what is the ideal standard? It is adherence to the white male culture and if you are not that, you are not a "real American". Is that not what Sarah Palin alludes to? I should be a "Real American" whether or not my wife wears a burka or not. Righties are always talking about a fear of destroying American culture, what is an American culture?
So, there is no grief....
Well, maybe the term polite society is debatable. I hear foul language and racial slurs used frequently by blacks. I have to listen to it from music blaring in the car next to me. I have to trudge past it in Skype sessions for our team. I have to hear it from nearby tables,infrequently, while eating out. Where is polite society,in your opinion?
And, a melting pot is a constantly changing mosaic. We, the people, are that pot. Not our politicians.
It is ill-mannered, but hardly universal... Better educated people tend to speak in a way free of colloquialisms and expletives. I can't speak for stand up comics. I am not necessarily justifying it, just explaining why the words are used and in what context.
Hmm. Some of these people I work with are well educated. Try again.
Don W , I'm actually surprised at you for posting of such a possibly biased origin as that . Really though, we can all imagine such this but to promote it as a standard to measure against and from you ? Doesn't quite fit . And before you accuse me of being made uncomfortable by the video , It only makes me feel uncomfortable because of the probable , likely , agenda-ed set up behind it .
Americans , especially today , aren't very good at defining , asking and especially answering in depth questions . This video is a prime example .So , How is a four year old "educated " in these probably adult inspired prejudices ? It sure as heck isn't genetic , they weren't born with either feelings of being superior or inferior , I believe this video "study " is way , way preloaded with prejudice .
What possibility is there in this example of racial disparity being a factor without some kind of off camera coaching ? Without some influence either intended or not of bias training ? Either a five year old learns self worth from their parents or they learn the opposite . IF they are learning the opposite , you cannot then blame something like" white privilege" .
I swear to God , If leftist didn't pollute the integrity of any issue, like race relations, with their own twisted value system , their own prejudice of thought , they would have no reasonable sense of value in dialog at all . This video is a prime example , "Here let us watch five years old define the meaning of an adult issue."?
While I believe TODAY's systemic racism an overblown accusation , not any of it which anyone alive today caused or cured -- except for the democratic strategies of using "racism "as a political tool to both accuse the right of negatively in politics and to attain and maintain media party attention .
I believe a question people of ALL colors need to ask and extremely loudly is "WHY has the party of the left kept 'racism' alive in the media for so many years for political purposes and in all of their activism , seemingly not one legislative accomplishment to advance these "systemic racism " causes for the good of any colored people , be they for blacks or any color ?"
What are these legislative advances since the Clinton , Bush or Obama era ? Nothing ? My point , Isn't it just false flag politics conveniently reopened just during election cycles ?
America IS a melting pot . It is in the ingredients of this "salad " that certain people will not give in to the natural mixing , Be they white , black , native or heck, chinese . Americans gather in their groups feeling comforts that are more often than not addictive to the souls , while as onesey or twosey's move around to other neighborhoods most people feel comforts within their own .
Guess what ? The prejudices , biases and abuses come from within ALL cultures ,colors and nationalities . Today the US news media focuses for the benefit of democratic party election cycles on blacks --Nov. is coming ! All of us need to ask ourselves ,Just why after Nov mid trms these issues will return to their original place on the "back burners " , Come December democrats will once again forget their crayons on the way to work at congress ,
The news media will move on to the latest oil spill , third world insurgency , or natural disaster .
"Systemic Racism " will be once again out of the media camera focus until the next round of elections .
OH WE ACKNOWLEDGE RACISM , .... It comes from all sectors of our society our culture , including minorities . Anyone who can't accept that "racism is wide enough spread to include ALL " is just blind .
I could not help to note that the originator of this thread touches on sensitive topics when clearly he is about as much of the "problem" as the "theme", itself.
While he banters around cryptic codes and plays semantic games, it is obvious that he is just like the late Lee Atwater.
He and people like him, spend more time trying to convince us that the elephant in the room is not there, and distracts us all in the activity of chasing gnats, instead.
They are the true race baiters, knowing full well how the "system" operates and has been operating, having every malevolent intent in regards to maintaining it. But, it is more important for them that we are to be made ignorant of this rather than acknowledging racism's existence as the beginning of taking the path toward making corrections.
This thread and the course of discussion is most illuminating, allowing me to sort the wheat from the chaff....
Most interesting, all of that can't be hidden among complaints of Socialism and the impending "communist menace".
As your dance instructor I feel it is my duty to say that you have missed the entire point of having a dialectic discussion.
More B.S.? For many of us, these matters are too serious for you to be playing games. You say dialectic, I say excuses and diversion when you and your "reasoning" are both cornered like a trapped animal.
Therefore, it must be paramount to defeat the rightwinger and all he or she stands for....
You disappoint me, I really expected more of a debate from you.
We are all mysterious creations of nature. Nature in all it's forms and ways is beautiful. The soul and essence of every single man/woman/child is divine. Jesus said, "Know ye not that ye are gods?"
No. We are not self-realized as such ...
but we could be.
That was very poetic. Also, I have no idea what you are talking about.
We are equal in our beauty in that God created each and every one of us.
Racist attitudes comes from ignorance of this FACT.
I was just saying, (poetically, I guess), that it is not okay to be racist.
I agree: The New York Times shouldn't have hired, "a known racist, Sarah Jeong,"... no matter who she hates.
Why would the Times hire a known racist?
Where is the public outrage?
Your question is completely valid.
I can think of no obvious answer.
PS ... what is it to her whether we burn up in the sun or not?
"Wells Fargo & Co., the nation's largest mortgage lender, will pay at least $175 million to settle allegations that the company discriminated against black and Hispanic borrowers.
The settlement announced by the Justice Department Thursday involves at least 34,000 minority borrowers who were charged higher fees or were steered into risky subprime mortgages when they could have qualified for a prime mortgage, ones offered to borrowers with the best credit."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 … %3Darticle
Is this racism? It is wrong whatever you call it. Salespeople prey on people by offering hope. Hope is very tempting.
Realistically, however, the responsibility is on the buyer/borrower who should have known it was too good to be true. Blacks and Hispanics have as much brains as anyone else.
Wells Fargo, by the way, denies the allegations. They were only avoiding a costly legal battle by agreeing to pay the 175 mil.
I'm sure white borrowers were also involved.
"Is this racism? It is wrong whatever you call it. Salespeople prey on people by offering hope. Hope is very tempting."
What makes it racism is that the fraud was perpetrated on primarily Black and Hispanic mortgage holders. If not, why then did not Wells Fargo engage in such fraudulent activity with anybody and everybody?
Obviously, the salepeople did not offer such “hope” to white people in the same way...
"Realistically, however, the responsibility is on the buyer/borrower who should have known it was too good to be true. Blacks and Hispanics have as much brains as anyone else."
That is BS, Kathryn, and as the late George Carlin once stated, “it’s bad for you”. Go see the PBS documentary program, Frontline”, specifically, an installment entitled, “The Retirement Gamble”.
Millions of Americans have been and are defrauded, inundated with fees and surcharges by 401 K managers. The industry fought against demands that they provide disclosure to the clients as to the nature of the fees and the arithmetic that starkly diminishes their anticipated returns over time. I guess these hapless millions should have known that this was all “too good to be true”? Is it my responsibility to know that beef merchants are mixing horsemeat in the product they sell me at the market? That is why EVERYTHING is labeled as required by law and I like that. Because, you know what, I don‘t have my own home bio-chemistry lab, alas.... So, I say Wells Fargo took advantage of people based on their superior knowledge and they did it out of malice and racism, focusing on Black and Hispanic mortgage applicants. Otherwise, why not share the con with all? All of your excuses cannot change that.
"Wells Fargo, by the way, denies the allegations. They were only avoiding a costly legal battle by agreeing to pay the 175 mil."
Wells Fargo got caught with their britches down. Who is going to believe that a powerful entity like Wells Fargo could not access the most competent of attorneys to make their case on their behalf if they were in fact innocent? So, I don’t care if they say that they were innocent, they don’t behave as if they were. As far as I am concerned, they are guilty as charged and simply bought their way out through paying the damages. Any other explanation is just another excuse, Kathryn.
"I'm sure white borrowers were also involved."
Your statement about “white borrowers” is just conjecture on your part and is not supported by any of the articles that have reported on the topic. So, where do you get the idea and why should I lend that any credibility?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-well … V220120712
The real question is how can Sarah J get hired to write for this prominent news paper?? She has created a reputation for herself of basically hating whites. Maybe her anger against whites is racist, maybe it isn't. But there it is on the internet.
She has abused freedom of speech. Yet she is hired thanks to freedom of speech.
I agree it is not right. If she is hired because she is provocative and will attract readership, that says a lot about the way things are in this country.
It's not pretty.
I say: Hold the New York Times accountable. Watch what she says. If she abuses her position and writes with disrespect and/or worse, let the New York Times know you will not be buying the paper until she is gone.
It is less dangerous for Sarah to speak out about racism than an Asian not out to speak about racism. Considering yellow Asians and whites are about the most racist group about other race colours on earth.
A black comedian said. White people are always talking about blacks complaining about white racist. Then the comedian pointed out, - you look at the native American, they say nothing.
The British and whites wipedout North America natives down to 2℅ of their population using illnesses, con jobs, fork tongue, broken treaties and everything below the board.
The Spanish conquerer used against the natives a cut throat systems to the top. Still leaving many more natives population in Centro and South America. Their corruption is above board, where I can understand it better. The top white secret societies corruption aggressions has gone way too far below the board again. Soon most everyone will be on to them, this time.
I'd love someone to prove a reasonable existence of systemic racism to begin with , To date .............Nothing !
I do know how to ask the hard questions required of a progressing society ; Why is systemic racism more evident and accepted WITHIN the black culture than without it ?
Blacks have 13℅ of the US population. With 2.7 ℅ of the US wealth.
I'm white with -1% of the wealth. What's your point?
The Top 10 percent of White Families Own Almost Everything” stating “White families hold 90 percent of the national wealth. Hispanic families hold 2.3 percent of the national wealth. Black families hold 2.7 percent of the national wealth.
That is why a white famiy makes 10 times that of an adverage black family.
Right now US Non- white babies out number white babies being born. Within 20 years the majority will be non whites. Already 86℅ of the world population is non white. Equality is coming, like it or not.
So because the top ten billionaires in America are white means the average white family gets $171,000.00? Give me a break...
Why do you think all these predominately white empires like British, America and Russian ruled for so long. You have the gold, you make the rules and stacked the deck in everyway.
Out of 560 American billionaire less than Ten are black and most of them under 2 billion.
When you have the 1℅ owning more than the bottom 90℅, you have a serious problem of equality. Especially when America is a paper tiger with nothing to back it up. The majority of rest of the worlds will not want Americans printed from thin air dollars or petro dollars anymore.
Your anti-wealth party line keeps getting repeated to eternity and you like your party would rather attain entitlement from uncle sam than to earn your own .
Pretty simply put , If you want to be in the top ten percent bracket you have to earn your way there , there is no freer sense of accomplishment than to earn one's own living ! Democrats ,especially younger ones , want it all delivered to them on a silver platter .
Most of you here protect the State,
White Wealthy Corperation and bankers. The loopsidedness of poor including whites poor vs wealthy makes Americans unhappy. From different surveys makes America ranking from 18th to 42nd happiest countries in the world. Finances unbalance of equality, I contribute most of these problems.
The US has one of the highest rates of obesity and antidepressant use in the world a sign of unhappy.
I worked in the US and 30 years I was the top 10℅ incomers. Then I lowered my income then added balance then became much happier for it.
One way or another the 90℅ bottom Americans will have to face their problems of the 1℅ whites who own most of the wealth. If not, another deep depression will get worst then
civil war and world war will force the outcome.
Just because you were miserable while living here doesn't mean anyone else is. You can,at the least, be thankful we are a free society and you had the liberty to move out. I know I'm thankful you could.
I feel sorry you can't move out kitty. even if you bunt your passport. They won't let go without paying your national debt, bankers made sure of that. In Canada you could move out and your welcome to stay.
When I lived on and off in the US from 1973 to 2004. From world traveling, I thought US was the freest country in the world. Until one day I went dancing with black woman in a black bar. In Canada most every bars are mixed. The looks and comment I got in that black bar were really scary. Bartender told me to leave without the black woman or I will get hurt. I date mostly non-white women, see the freedom problem, they are still segregated like the late 60s and 70s for most things.
The United States prides itself on upholding freedom, but recent research indicates America is not as free as many countries.
The US freedom ranking country was worst than their happiness ranking. US today, reminds me of my travels In old USSR. Now Russia is moving in a better direction than the US. Still all three countries are not ranked well enough for freedom, happiness and for my health than Colombia. Plus north of the equator will be far more dangerous and polluted.
Why don't you change your immigration to Russia from Columbia instead of hanging onto the backstraps of the US in your borderland region of Canada ?
Oh, I get it now , there are too many white women in Russia ?
I perfer Russian women than North American. Still Colombia women are the sexest, more romantic and warm. Not like soiled cold white women with the odd exception.
You just don't hide your biases as well as other liberals here do you my friend ?.........:-]
I really do appreciate you honesty .
It's okay for you to say that about white women, but what if you said it about black women?
The most successful long term marriages is between a white man and Black woman. Including all interracial mixes and white woman and white man marriages.
I like the upfront, inattentiveness, consideration, power of a black woman, too many carry black men on their backs.. Ultimate love has no color and Nationaism and Religion is about the furthest from my ultimate love.
LOL. I think you lived in bizarro alternate universe sometimes.
When you speak of income inequality, all you are saying is that you want the poor to be poorer. Income redistribution doesn't work.
I'm sure the system will not change a positive thing, they have the worst unstoppable disease called greed. They will give out crumbs handouts, yet will not teach you how to fish for your individual dependency. They can keep the cheese, I want out of the traps.
The postive change comes from small grassroot groups that works it's way up to 80℅ of the consciousness of the people.
Give a man a fish and feed him for a day.
Don't teach a man to fish... and feed yourself.
He's a grown man, Fishing's not that hard. Except when government bureaucrats prevent you from fishing.
I was the first fulltime professionals sand and snow sculptor. By sharing how to fish, now there is 1000s of professional doing it. The train got too competitive and over crowded, not as unique.
The new unique thing is Self substainable tiny house villages. It is the next big industry, just can't legally do it in North America anymore. It is much more challenging to do than entertaining people in a performing art..
Wealth is an interesting point for you to happen on. I'd ask where it came from because, looking at a chart on Forbes, the average 'wealth' of a white is pretty low. That would equate to the equity in a home plus meager savings. Definitely not enough to provide any type of financial independence or be classified as wealth, by common standards and definitely not enough to claim it was acquired through inheritance.
My figures may be off, but a quick Google search shows the illegal Latino population at 8 million. Latino immigrant in America at 19.5 million. It being difficult for an illegal to build documentable wealth would skew Hispanic numbers, considerably.
I have no idea why the number for blacks is so low. That would be speculation. But, judging by the amount of 'wealth' shown in the groups who had the most, since it was readily attributed to funds saved within a single lifetime on even a modest income coupled with home ownership, I don't think your broader point holds water.
Everybody today just loves to hate the white guy huh , Look to wealth , the majority of poverty in America are white , look to the incarcerated majority , white . Look to majority of lower working class , white .
Yet , our glamourous news media would have everyone believe that America is a white castle on a hill inhabited by white colonists , reigning as lords over the dominated minority masses , How lame is our news media , how lame is an academia that is teaching the same message to YOUR youth , BUT how much more lame a society that believes this incredible news media bias .
When I think of learned Racism ..........I'm reminded of a story I read on Breitbart News today that " A group of children in Kent Co. Michigan this week fabricated a story that they observed a older white neighborhood handyman urinating on and calling a five year old black girl racial epitaphs , Later these children had to tell the truth and admit that they had "Made up the story to get themselves out of other trouble "................Charges dropped!
Here's what you ALL have to think about ........How did these kids come up with this "idea " and especially with the knowledge that this incident would be looked at as sensational , if false racial rhetoric isn't being taught TO THEM either at home , in school or in their friend circles?
Let's take it from the birth of an innocent white child in America circa 1980 , 1950 ,1945 or 1910, first day of school he begins being questioned why he enjoys white privilege , Why he is is part of an inherent racist society when he may very well have never even met a black person , why he doesn't support systematic handicapping like affirmative action of the first black man he encounters in college .
Now neither one of these children in their environs were anywhere near related to slaves or slave owners , yet one experiences absolute media criticism while one benefits from that critiquing . This should be Interesting to all of us . This should be dissected by our media rather than promoted for divisive ideologies .
This thread ; The question on the other side of the mirror should be Why is it okay to be anything but honest with ourselves as a society ? Why does deceit , deception and political correctness have so much to do with the direction we take into the future of all human relations in America ?
You're wrong ! The first and latest form of prejudiced in America was against white who were poor , I'm white and I can attest to having copies of my ancestors as "indentured servants " papers as late as the 1930's ,In fact my ancestors arrived here AS an indentured people . so don't give us your shallow definition of slavery , racism and prejudice from a modern "school book" mentality .
The variations in the treatments towards those who were black "slaves " varies as widely as do our melting pots of American cultures today .I fact , I do believe the first slave owners and many of them ,in America may very well have been blacks themselves not unlike the slave traffickers too .
So for you to come on here and point fingers is rather crass , "White Privilege" is as shallow and non-existing state of being as you can make out of anything today . Just as if you or anyone can begin understand what anything of real life was like in reality two hundred years ago.
Young people , white or black , today should have been around in the sixties during the US's 60's Social revolution , Cops targeted white kids where I grew up believe me , If I ,as a "long hair ", was walking in my hometown after nine or ten at night , I would very likely-- and many many times was-- "stopped and frisked 'or whether in my parents or my own vehicle late at night , Cops called it a "Routine Stop ", get out of the car , they searched for booze or drugs and let you go on your way .
Today - It's all about entitlement and civil rights . What a bunch of whiners I 'm reading here as some are saying ,........." You don't know what it's like to be black or enslaved ".,,,,,,,,,,,Jeees ! ................No , I don't .....But then NO ALIVE TODAY does .
Gee, all you folks had to do was get a hair cut and clean up. I wish it had been that simple for us....
Right....... but no , You're still suffering !
LOL. So a poor downtrodden white person has only himself to blame and a poor downtrodden minority gets to blame everyone else. Is that the definition of white privilege?
I was just having a heart to heart with my wife opening up about growing up as a child of the fifties and sixties in rural Northern New England , government surplus food , the long cold winters in an hundred year old farm house , no furnace but wood heat , , there were no "food stamps " Wik* blanket social programs , subsidized rents , low rent projects , free cell phones , The free lunches in schools for the underprivileged meant that you "brown bagged it "........................
Yet we are all supposed to listen to these Demobratic RANTS about such things as "white privilege " ? Really ? I am so sick of privileged whiners of ANY color crying about the kinds of " discrimination" that they have actually NO clue whatsoever about and never will .
I know that there is more to this than that, the comment was made in jest.
This Thread should have been Named ;
"Why It's Okay To Be Racist With No Experience "
Don W , For all our sakes , please explain how personal prejudice by whites against blacks can affect the rights of blacks that the same by blacks against whites cannot ?
This should be interesting .
Haven't you figured it out yet? They don't have to explain. The claim is all that counts. No proof necessary.
It must seemwonderful for them to have such media bias working in favor of their party causes. Without the media bias and the P.C. factor , America would return to normal again.
As I've already said:
". . . because one social group has more social, economic, political power than the other".
Don W , "* Because one social group has more social ,economic , political power than the other ......." It all depends on how you define "power ".
*Of course they do Don , by the existence of population percentages , If say 77 % of America is say caucasian , why should that percentage have less, say corporate ownership , wealth, real estate or stock funds . Federal jobs , authoritative positions or whatever property ? Where is the systemic racism if say, bank loan officers or stock brokers , or cops , country attorney's , judges or whoever 's percentages follow the same racial percentage in numbers?
We cannot ,for instance , re -engineer percentages of blacks , hispanics or whites for that matter to assume positions of authority based on job placement , What do we do legislate that stock brokers for instance have to be 13.7 percent black if blacks only CHOSE That profession by 5 % , or cops in small towns be 17.8 % hispanic in Maine if hispanics by national average don't immigrate to maine by only 3 % , If by personal choice only say .003 % of blacks run for president , do we then by Affirmative Action demand that more blacks run for president ? Do we demand or legislate that more white people move to Detroit , do we "buss " more hispanics to the Alaskan oil fields , what about demanding that 77% of caucasians be forced to take performing jobs in Hip Hop music industry ? I don't think ANYONE is PROVING any kind of systemic racism exists , at least in numbers affecting any significant racial disparity . At least not here .
Since we are on the topic, Horse, check out the article and its links as most interesting when on the subject the largest racial segment of the population naturally having the larger share of the country's assets. I would say that that would fair but the statistics show that one group having more than another is about more than just the number of bodies...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … tions.html
Credence , I can't get that link without subscribing now for some reason . So how does a society reengineer wealth ? The same way we might attempt that with poverty ? In the same sense , How do we re-engineer good looks or intelligence ? Do we ?
Affirmative Action was designed to" level the playing field "and understandably so , we have had to and deserved to move away from the disparities of the past . Is this about wealth redistribution ? Do we or can we litigate intelligence or social standing ?
Just maybe , we are attempting the defining wealth by population , entrepreneurial ability by color ? What would you have be done in wealth disparities seriously ?
Prove or disprove that an an actual idea of racism exists within BECAUSE one is born of the color white , Seems to me to be a problem from the beginning . Being born of one color and then having to assume the presence of inherent racism ? We as white men and women are then doomed from the beginning .
But ,That is what today's media driven P.C ,Wants us all to believe.
by VC L Veasey 5 years ago
Why Do So Many White People Believe All Racism Is In The Past?
by Ralph Schwartz 3 years ago
We're all racist in some ways. But racism by white people seems to be more newsworthy and gets more attention than racism by others. There are many people who work hard to not do anything to offend their fellow human, but it's impossible to escape prejudice - it's hardwired into our...
by Lela 4 years ago
Paul Ryan stated that Trump's accusation of his Judge's bias due to his Mexican heritage was the very definition of racism, but he still supports the Republican nominee. Why can't he just call Trump a racist? And admit that racism is rampant in the Republican party.
by crankalicious 2 days ago
Many argue that Trump was elected due to economic anxiety among the white, working class. However, studies show that the reason for his election and continued support was/is shared racist and sexist attitudes:https://theintercept.com/2018/09/18/201 … ass-trump/Sad.
by TMMason 9 years ago
So I came across this the other day. Appearently Racism is genetic, along with alchoholism gays etc... and white people are the only ones to have ever had slaves. Okay... This man is just absurd and a great example of the education of Americans in this day.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-aud...
by VC L Veasey 5 years ago
Some White People, Think White People Are Inherently, Superior To Black People Do You Agree?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|